*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

DRAFT EO12866_Rin2070

‐ AJ20_PesticideCertApp_NPRM_EA_FinalRedline_AllRevisions_2015

‐ 08

‐ 04.docx
Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review.



# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR PART 171:

CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

Prepared by

BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

DRAFT 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

............................................................................................................................... ........ 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 B ACKGROUND

............................................................................................................................... ...................... 1

1.2 P ROBLEM S TATEMENT

............................................................................................................................... ............ 2

1.3 O VERVIEW OF P ROPOSED R EGULATION

.................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 A FFECTED E NTITIES

............................................................................................................................... ................ 4

CHAPTER 2. REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

............................................................................................................................... ........................................... 1

2.1 N ON

‐ REGULATORY A PPROACHES TO I MPROVE P ESTICIDE S AFETY

.................................................................................. 1

2.2 P ROPOSED C HANGES AND O THER O PTIONS FOR R EVISING THE C ERTIFICATION S TANDARDS

................................................ 4

2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards

.................................................... 4

2.2.2 Establish Application Method

‐ Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

................. 6

2.2.3 Establish Predator Control Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements

............................................................................................................................... . 9

2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators

......................... 9

2.2.5 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training

........................................................................................... 10

2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators

................................................................ 15

2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under the Direct Supervision of

Commercial and Private Applicators

.................................................................................................................. 16

2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators

................................................. 17

2.2.9 General Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies

........... 19

CHAPTER 3. COST ASSESSMENT, REGULATORY OPTIONS

.................................................................................... 1

3.1 O VERVIEW

............................................................................................................................... ........................... 1

3.2 M ETHODOLOGY

............................................................................................................................... .................... 1

3.2.1 General Methodology

............................................................................................................................ 2

3.2.2 Example Methodology

........................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 C OST A NALYSIS D ATA

............................................................................................................................... ............. 8

3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators

........................................................................................................... 8

3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial certified applicators

.. 16

3.3.3 Private certified applicators

................................................................................................................. 18

3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified applicators

........................ 25

3.3.5 Wage Rates

............................................................................................................................... ........... 28

3.4 R ESULTS OF THE C OST A NALYSIS

............................................................................................................................ 30

3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards

.................................................. 32

3.4.2 Application Method

‐ Specific Categories

.............................................................................................. 33

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

................................................................................................... 39

3.4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Applicators and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators

............................................................................................................................... ............ 44

3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators

......................................................................... 50

3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration

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

DRAFT CHAPTER 4. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING

CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

.................................................................................................................... 1

4.1 P ROPOSED AND A LTERNATIVE O PTIONS FOR R EVISING I NITIAL C ERTIFICATION S TANDARDS

................................................. 2

4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards

.................................................... 2

4.1.2 Establish Application Method

‐ Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

................. 3

4.1.3 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training

............................................................................................. 6

4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators

.................................................................. 8

4.1.5 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Using RUPs under the Direct Supervision of

Commercial and Private Applicators

.................................................................................................................... 9

4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators

................................................. 10

4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators

....................... 12

4.1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies for Submission, Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans

.................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 5. COST OF PROPOSED RULE

............................................................................................................... 1

5.1 O VERVIEW

............................................................................................................................... ........................... 1

5.2 M ETHODOLOGY

............................................................................................................................... .................... 3

5.3 P RIVATE A PPLICATOR C OSTS OF P ROPOSED R ULE

....................................................................................................... 4

5.4 C OMMERCIAL A PPLICATOR C OSTS OF THE P ROPOSED R ULE

........................................................................................ 20

5.5 S TATE AND G OVERNMENTAL A GENCY C OSTS OF THE P ROPOSED R ULE

.......................................................................... 23

5.6 I MPACT ON E MPLOYMENT

............................................................................................................................... ..... 26

5.7 P OTENTIAL I MPACTS ON S MALL B USINESSES

............................................................................................................ 30

5.7.1 Methodology

............................................................................................................................... ......... 32

5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments

....................................................................................................... 32

5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments

............................................................................................... 36

5.7.3 Conclusion

............................................................................................................................... ............. 39

CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED RULE

........................................................................................................ 1

6.1. W HICH B ENEFITS C AN B E Q UANTIFIED

................................................................................................................ 1

6.2. W HO IS AT R ISK ?

............................................................................................................................... .............. 2

6.2.1. Occupational Exposure

.......................................................................................................................... 2

6.2.2. Children and families

............................................................................................................................. 3

6.3. W HAT ARE THE R ISKS ?

............................................................................................................................... ...... 5

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects

.......................................................................................... 5

6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

...................................................... 6

6.4. N ON

‐ Q UANTIFIED B ENEFITS OF A VOIDING RUP I NCIDENTS

..................................................................................... 9

6.4.1. Non

‐ Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents

............................................................ 10

6.5. Q UANTIFIED H UMAN H EALTH B ENEFITS OF R EDUCED A CUTE I LLNESS FROM R ESTRICTED U SE P ESTICIDES

....................... 19

6.5.1. Methodology and Data

........................................................................................................................ 19

6.5.2. Underreporting of RUP Incidents

......................................................................................................... 20

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

.................................................................................................................. 25

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

................................................................................................................... 28

6.6. R ISKS TO H UMAN H EALTH FROM C HRONIC RUP E XPOSURE

................................................................................... 42

6.6.1. Cancer Risks

............................................................................................................................... .......... 45

6.6.2. Non

‐ Cancer Health Effects

................................................................................................................... 47

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

............................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER 7 INFORMATION REQUESTED

– PAPERWORK BURDEN REQUIREMENTS

............................................... 1

REFERENCES

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

1 

## Executive Summary

This document provides an analys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes in the regulations governing the Certific ation of Pesticide Applicators to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory En forcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. The Certification of Pest icide Applicators rule establishes requirements for applicators of restricted use pesticides. Pest icides that EPA has classified as restricted use may pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health and/ or the environment without strict adherence to precise and often co mplex labeling provisions. To insure ensure these labeling provisions are followed, EPA requi res that restricted use pest icides be applied only by applicators who have demonstrated a sufficient level of competency or by individuals under their direct supervision.

EPA is proposing changes to the rule that would improve the competency of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides by: establishing new standards for cer tification, such as minimum age and examination standards for commercial app licators and more specific requirements for establishing competency of private applicators; establishing a uniform national certification period for private and commercial applicators and minimum requirements for recertification programs; and establishing new certification categor ies to address specific high-risk uses and application methods. EPA is also proposing cha nges to the rule that would result in improved competency of noncertified applicators who appl y restricted use pestic ides under the direct supervision of a certified applicator by: requiring pesticide safety training, establishing standards for supervision, and establishing a mi nimum age requirement for such noncertified applicators. In keeping with the Agency’s commitment to work more closely with tribal governments to strengthen environmental protecti on in Indian Country, EPA is also proposing changes that would provide more practical opt ions for establishing certification programs in Indian Country. Lastly, EPA is proposing seve ral revisions to improve overall clarity and organization of the rule, and to improve progr am operation, efficiency and administration by addressing longstanding policy issues raised by EPA’s state regulator y partners and other stakeholders regarding rule implementation a nd requirements for state certification plans.

EPA estimates that affected industries woul d face incremental costs of about $46.9 million annually from proposed revisions, including costs of $19.5 million to priv ate applicators (about 41% of the total cost of proposed revisions ) and $27.4 million to commercial applicators. Revisions to state plans and cer tification programs, including de velopment of new application method-specific categories, are likely to cost a bout $2.2 million over the first two years after the
rule is finalized. The administration of ex ams or trainings for the new certification and recertification requirements would be ongoing and would co st $107 annually. These two components together, annualized over a 10-ye ar time horizon, would cost $359,000 annually. The total annualized cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $47.2 million. Many of the firms in the affected sectors are small businesses, particularly in the agricultural sector. The average cost per private applicator, typically a fa rm owner or operator is estimated to be $40 per year. The estimated average cost per commercial applicator would be about $66 per year. Thus, the impact to the average small farm is anticipa ted to be less than one percent of annual sales while the impacts to small commercial pest control services are e xpected to be around 0.1*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 percent of annual gross revenue. Th erefore, EPA concludes that th ere would not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Given these modest incr eases in per-applicator costs, EPA also concludes that the proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on employment.

In estimating costs of the proposed rule revision s, EPA took a conservative approach – such as using conservative estimate for the number of noncertified applicators – when faced with uncertainty, and therefore, the cost estimates presented in this economic analysis represent
overestimates of the actual costs of the proposed rule changes.

Table 1 summarizes the results of the cost analysis.

Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Re quirements for Certification of Pesticide Applicators

Private Applicators Commercial Applicators States and Other
Jurisdictions Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63 Annualized Cost $ 19.5 million $27.4 million $359,000 Per-Applicator Average: $40 Range: $0 - $201 Average: $66 Range: $1 - $212 n/a

Small Business Impacts No significant impact on a substa ntial 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 annua l revenues for the average small

entity.

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

 Most private and commercial a pplicators are self-employed.

 Incremental cost per applicator repr esents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of

the cost of a part-time employee.

The rule changes proposed by EP A would improve the pesticide applicator certification and training program substantially. Trained and compet ent applicators would be more likely to apply pesticide products without unreasonable adverse effects and use them properly to achieve the intended results than applicators th at have not received training or been cer tified. In addition to core pesticide safety a nd practical use concepts, certificati on and training ensures that certified applicators possess critical information on a wi de range of environmental issues such as endangered species, water quality, worker protec tion and protecting non-target organisms such as pollinators. Pesticide safety education he lps applicators improve their abilities to avoid pesticide misuse, spills and ha rm to non-target organisms.

It is difficult to quantify a speci fic level of risk and project the human health risk reduction that would result from this rule, because people are po tentially exposed to such a wide variety of pesticides, and few of these incidents are reported. The proposed changes, however, are designed to reduce human health and environmental e xposure to restricted us e pesticides; there is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed litera ture to suggest reduci ng such exposure would result in a benefit to public health thr ough reduced acute and chronic illness.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Certified applicators, and the noncertified applicators they supervise, would be the primary
beneficiaries of the rule. Othe r beneficiaries would include th e public, who can be exposed to RUPs, and the environment, including plants a nd animals that are not the intended target of RUPs. Although EPA cannot provide quantitative estimates for all benefits of the rule, we do
estimate the benefit of reduced acu te illness from RUP exposure. We estimate that this rule will result in quantifiable annual benefits of between $20.1 and $20.5 million dollars through reduced acute illnesses from RUPs. Over a ten year ho rizon, the present value of these estimates is between $171.6 and $174.5 million with a 3% di scount rate, and $141.3 and $143.7 million with a 7% discount rate. However, these estimat es are biased downward by an unknown degree. Pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases ma y not be correctly diagnosed, a nd correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporti ng database. The effect of under-r eporting can be si gnificant. If only 25% of poisonings are repor ted (within the range of esti mates in the literature), the quantified estimated benefits of the rule would be about $80.5 million annually. Moreover, the approach here only measures avoided medical cost s and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide exposur e, which could be substantially higher.

In the past, misapplication and misuse of RUPs have resulted in a rang e of damages to human health, up to and including death. The proposed changes to the rule would result in an estimated reduction of 638 to 762 acute poisonings per year. In addition, we expect there would be benefits for which quantifiable benefits cannot be estimated. These be nefits would include reduced chronic illness to app licators from repeated RUP expos ure and benefits to the public from better protections from RUP exposure when occupying treated buildings or outdoor spaces, consuming treated food products, and when near areas where RUPs have been applied. The environment would also be better protected fr om misapplication, which will reduce the impact on water and non-target plants and animals.

EPA is not able to provide quantitative estimate s of the benefits from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides, but there are well- documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic health effects in the p eer-reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements would result in long term h ealth benefits to cert ified applicators, the noncertified applicators they supervise, and thei r families. These benefits arise from reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposur es but also reduced risk of chr onic illness, resulting in a lower cost of healthcare, a healthier so ciety and better quality of life.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR PART 171:

CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

Chapter 1. Introduction

EPA is proposing modifications to 40 CFR part 171 governing the certifica tion of applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Broadly speak ing, the modifications are meant to ensure that RUPs are used in accordance with the label to pr otect the health and safety of applicators, workers, the general public a nd the environment.

This document provides an analys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the rule. This chapter provides a brief background to the requirements, describes the reasons for EPA’s proposal and the statutory authority, and identifie s entities that may be affected by the rule. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in develo ping this proposal and discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different opti ons. It qualitatively describes the benefits of different require ment options in terms of traini ng content, frequency of training and the supervision of noncertified applicators. Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the regulatory options, which mainly fall on self-emp loyed certified applicators and employers of certified applicators. Chapter 4 discusses th e relative costs and be nefits of alternative requirements and presents the rational for c hoosing which options to propose. Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the proposed rule. It al so estimates the impact of the proposed changes on employment and small business. The benefits of the rule, which would accrue primarily to certified applicators and noncer tified applicators under the di rect supervision of certified applicators, as well as their fam ilies, the public and the environment, are described in Chapter 6.

This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibil ity Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The remaining regulatory requirements are addressed in the Preamble for this rule. This document also serves as input in preparing any analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501-21).



### 1.1 Background

The pesticide worker safety program at EPA incl udes two primary regulations, the Certification of Pesticide Applicators and the Worker Protec tion Standard. The Certification of Pesticide Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Pa rt 171, establishes national standa rds for the certification of applicators of RUPs and the re quirements for submission and a pproval of state plans for the certification of applicators. Programs for th e certification of applicators of RUPs are implemented by all 50 states, four territories (the District of Columbia , the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Tr ust Territory of the Paci fic Islands), and four*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 tribes in accordance with their state or tribal certification plans. Additionally, there are five federal agency certification programs for the De partments of Agriculture (with two programs), Defense, Energy and the Interior. All plans ar e approved by the Administ rator of the EPA and are on file with the Agency. This economic anal ysis focuses on the proposed revisions to the rules regarding the certificati on of pesticide applicators.

The Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170, protects employ ees of agricultural establishments and commercial pesticide applicati on establishments from exposure to pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pesticide worker sa fety program, are intende d to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pesticid es among pesticide applicators, employees, the general public, including vulnerable popul ations such as children, and to the environment. Proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard are the subj ect of a separate rulemaking (EPA, 2014a).

The certification regulation or ru le is a means to ensure the competency of people who apply RUPs. EPA classifies certain products as RUPs b ecause of their toxicity characteristics and/or their potential to cause unreasonable adverse eff ects to human health or the environment without strict adherence to often comple x label restrictions. The designation of products as RUP restricts their use to certified applicators or pers ons working under their direct supervision. Approximately ten percent of all registered act ive ingredients are clas sified as RUPs. The designation, however, is product speci fic; thus, some active ingredients may also be formulated in products that are not RUPs. Most of the de signated products are appl ied in agricultural and industrial settings although some are used in urban, recreatio nal, and residential areas by certified commercial applicators. Applicator certification enables the registration of pesticides that otherwise would not meet EPA safety standards under widespread and commonly recognized practice [FIFRA 3(5)], allowing the use of RUPs for pe st management in agricultural production, building and other stru ctural pest management, turf and landscape management, forestry, public health, aquatic systems, food processing, stor ed grain, and other areas.

Changes to the certification regulation will largely impact certified applicators, both commercial applicators (who apply RUPs for hire) and privat e applicators. Certif ied private applicators apply RUPs for purposes of producing an agricult ural commodity on property owned or rented by themselves or their employers or on the prope rty of another without compensation (trading of personal services is permitted). Certain propos ed revisions may also affect commercial agricultural services, incl uding pesticide dealers, certifying agenci es, such as states or tribes, and noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of ce rtified applicators.



### 1.2 Problem Statement

Pesticides, although useful to control pests, can present health risks to people and harm the
environment. Pesticides that EPA has classifi ed as restricted use may pose unreasonable adverse
effects to human health or the environment withou t strict adherence to precise and often complex mitigation measures specified on the pesticide la beling. To ensure these measures are followed, EPA requires that these pestic ides be applied only by appl icators who are certified, or by applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applic ator. Certification serves to*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 ensure competency and, therefore, to protect the applicator, persons working under the direct supervision of the applicator , the general public, and the en vironment through proper use of

RUPs.

Since the last major revision of the certification re gulation in 1978, poisonings involving RUPs indicate that the requirements are not adequate . In one of the most significant cases from the mid-1990s, there was widespread misuse of the re stricted use pesticide methyl parathion, an insecticide used primarily on cotton and other outdoor agricultural crops (Blondell and Spann, 1998). The improper use of methyl parathion pr oduct by a number of applicators across several states led to the widespread contamination of hundreds of homes, significant pesticide exposures
and human health effects for hundreds of home owners and children, and a clean-up cost of millions of dollars (Karpf, 1997). The incident resulted in one of th e most significant and widespread pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s history, and highlighted the potential problems
that can result from the misuse of RUPs.

Many states have taken significan t steps to improve regulatory c ontrols of RUPs and changed their enforcement authorities to address the pr oblems identified by the incident. EPA’s own certification standards, however, have not been substantially amended to address the evolving risk concerns. Because no major revision has been made to the federal regulation in almost 40 years, many state programs have taken the lead in revising and updating standards for
certification and recertification. As a result, the state requirements for certification of applicators are highly varied, and most stat es go beyond federal requirements for applicator certification. However, some states support only the federal mi nimum for applicator certification. This has created an uneven regulatory landscape, so that people face different risks based on where they live, as well as problems in program consistency.

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

Applicators may not have full information about th e negative consequences of pesticides or the possible measures that can be ta ken to avoid such negative outcom es. This may be particularly true when the adverse effects are not readily obs ervable, but occur due to chronic exposure. Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning may be c onfused with general fatigue, heat stress, or other factors. Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide exposure do not manifest themselves immediately and applicators may not be fu lly aware the risks they face.

Another factor that contributes to pesticide exposure is that the party making the application decision may not incur the negative effects of an incorrect pesticide application. When someone other than an applicator or deci sion maker is potentially affected by the use of an RUP, a classic externality can result in a divergence between the social and private costs in the use of a pesticide. An externality of this type means that applications of RUPs ma y pose greater risk than is socially desirable. In this case, the greater than optimal risk would not typically be faced by an*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 applicator deciding to apply, but could be faced by those they supervise, the general public, and the environment that can be affected by the RU P application. Although EPA addresses negative externalities from pesticide use when it makes registration decisions a nd label restrictions, pesticides designated as RUPs gene rally pose higher risks than ordinary pesticides. The result of improper use can be more severe, as well, in terms of acute and chronic illness and damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are not th e target of the applicat ion. The higher risk requires additional safeguards to ensure safe applications to protect both human health and the environment and these additional measures require a higher level of skill than is otherwise required of a pesticide applicator making applications of non-RUPs.



### 1.3 Overview of Proposed Regulation

Most of the changes EPA is proposing are desi gned to improve the competence of certified applicators. The proposals jointly address the issues of inadequate information and externalities. The proposals address the problem of inadequa te information by defining new certification categories and subcategories that include traini ng or testing on the hazards specific to some application methods. To make sure the inform ation used by applicator s to make application decisions is current and complete, EPA is pr oposing more rigorous certification standards and more frequent recertification. EPA is also pr oposing to raise the minimum age for applicators. Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescent s, who may be more su sceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge th e potential risks of exposure, especially the long-term effects, and take grea ter risks, which may result in excess exposure to themselves and others. More detail on the proposed changes are available in Chapter 2, or in the preamble.



### 1.4 Affected Entities

The entities that would be affected by the pr oposed changes include commercial and private certified applicators, people who wish to become certified, noncertified ap plicators, i.e., persons that work under the direct superv ision of certified applicators, a nd states and other entities that certify pesticide applicators. Manufacturers of pe sticides and pesticide de alers of RUPs may also
be affected.

Based on the Certification and Training Plan and Annual Reporting Database (CPARD, 2014), there are nearly one million pesticide applicat ors certified to apply RUPs. About 489,000 are private applicators, who apply RUPs for purpos es of producing an agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by him/her or hi s/her employer, and about 414,000 commercial pesticide applicators, who apply RUPs for hire.

States would be affected by the proposed chan ges if they become final regulations. FIFRA requires that states submit plan s for the certification of commerc ial and private applicators of RUPs to EPA for approval The changes being proposed, if adopted, would necessitate changes to state plans.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 The affected entities are part of a wide range of industries. Becau se agriculture is a heavy user of pesticides, several subsect ors under NAICS code 110000 (agric ulture) are likely to be affected. These include oilseed, soybean a nd grain farming (NAICS 111100), nut, fruit and vegetable farming (NAICS 111210 and 111300) greenhouses and nurseries (NAICS 1111400), and other crops (NAICS 111900), which includes crops like cotton and tobacco. Animal production firms will also be affected, which includes cattle producti on (NAICS 112100), pig and hog production (NAICS 112200), poultry and egg production (NAICS 112300) and aquaculture (NAICS 112400). Other industries classified under agri culture include forestry pest control (NAICS 115000 and 113300), agricultural pe st control for plants (NAICS 115100) and animals (NAICS 115200), demonstration and research pest control (NAICS 115100 and 611300), soil preparation planting and cultivat ing (NAICS 115112), and support activities for animal production (NAICS 115210).

Utilities may employ certified applicators for pe st management and weed control. These industries include NAICS codes 221121 (electric tr ansmission and control), 221210 (natural gas distribution), and 221300 (water supp ly, irrigation systems and sewa ge treatment facilities).

Firms in the manufacturing and service sectors will also be affected by various provisions of the proposed changes. These include firms providing pest control services, such as exterminating and pest control services (NAICS 561710), industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control (also NAICS 561710), and landscaping serv ices and ornamental and turf pest control (both NAICS 561730). Firms that sell RUPs to applicators will also be affected (NAICS 424910, farm supplies merchant wholesalers). Among the manufacturing sectors, impacts are expected in industries that manufacture pe sticides, like NAICS 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manuf acturing), NAICS 3339900 (seed treatment), and NAICS 321114 (wood preservation).*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the Rules Governing Certified Pesticide Applicators

EPA is proposing modifications to the standards fo r certification of applic ators of RUPs. RUPs are typically higher toxicity pes ticides that pose higher environmental or health risks than other pesticides. Only certified a pplicators or noncertified applic ators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicat or can legally apply RUPs. App licator certification enables the registration of pesticides that would not otherwise meet EPA’ s safety standards, because such pesticides would, without spec ific and often complex use restrictions, cause unreasonable
adverse effects on human health or the environmen t. Certified applicators have demonstrated a specific level of competency to ensure th at a RUP can be used without causing these
unreasonable adverse effects.

This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the certific ation requirements and describes how they will increase pesticide safe ty by certified applicators and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervisio n. This chapter also discusses alternative options considered by EPA.

The proposed rule changes are designed to ensure the improved competence of certified applicators through a minimum age requirement, a dding categories for certification of specific high-risk application types, and imposing more rigorous recertification standards. Under the proposed rule, noncertified applicators working under the direct supe rvision of certified applicators would be provided a dditional training and protecti ons that should increase their competence and safety and the safety of those ar ound them. In addition, there are administrative changes proposed that are necessary to support the goals of the revised regulation, such as requirements to proctor certification exams a nd establish the identity of test-takers, recordkeeping, updates to st ate regulatory programs , and other tasks.

The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non-regulatory programs that have been established to improve safety in the use of RU Ps. In Section 2.2, the in dividual line items that make up the regulatory options are de scribed, as well as other alternat ives that were considered.

Please refer to the preamble for th e Certification of Pesticide A pplicators Rule Revisions for a complete discussion of the regulatory options c onsidered under this ru lemaking proposal and the rationale for the Agency’s select ion of the final proposed options.



### 2.1 Non-regulatory Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

In addition to the regulatory changes EPA is proposing, the Agency has and continues to pursue non-regulatory approaches to improve the compet ency of persons certified to use RUPs and those noncertified applicators wo rking under their direct superv ision, thereby protecting the applicators, the public, and the environment from pesticide expos ure. Since the mid-1990s, EPA has continually engaged stakeholde rs to evaluate the effectiveness of the rule and to determine*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 what improvements, if any, are necessary to mainta in an effective program that ensure RUPs are used safely.

EPA partners with stakeholders to pursue wa ys to improve certification programs across the
United States. The Certification and Trai ning Assessment Group (CTAG), composed of representatives from state lead agencies, EPA, USDA, and coope rative extension services, was formed in 1996. The purpose of CTAG is to evalua te the current state of the certification programs across states, tribes, and federal agenci es, and proposes improvements at both the state and federal level. In 1999, CTAG issued a comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety in the 21 st Century (CTAG, 1999), which recommended improveme nts for state and federal pesticide applicator certification programs, including specific proposals on how to strengthen the certification regulation. EPA has worked with CTAG and other program stakeholders continually since issuance of the 1999 CTAG report to implemen t many of the non-regulatory measures identified in the report to improve th e applicator certificat ion program. EPA has undertaken several non-regulatory efforts su ch as supporting national workshops and professional development programs for state and tribal personnel invo lved in carrying out certification programs, supporting development of national training manuals and exams, and developing key guidance documents for certifying agencies. These non-regulatory activities are
discussed in more detail below.

In addition to CTAG, EPA has met with groups incl uding, state regulators, professional pesticide applicator organizations, pesticide manufacturer s, farmers, and orga nizations representing commodity producers to discuss potential improvements to the rule. Through public meetings and federal advisory committees, and as indivi duals and small groups, a broad spectrum of stakeholders provided recommendations to EPA. Some of the recommendations were not related to the regulation, for example, de veloping national training materi als for pesticide applicators, promoting better cooperation betwee n trainers and state regulatory agencies, and re-evaluating the formula used by EPA to distribute funds to ag encies certifying pesticide applicators. Other recommendations, such as strengthening the ini tial certification require ments, establishing a recertification period and sta ndards, and improving protections for persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator , could only be accomplished by changing the regulation. From these inputs, EPA prepared a report (EPA, 2014c), the National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program, in which EPA identified activities that it could take to improve applicator competency and to better pr otect human health and the environment from exposure to RUPs.

As noted above, EPA has undertak en several non-regulatory effort s to improve the program and applicator competency including a variety of outreach activities designed to strengthen state applicator certification and r ecertification programs. EPA wo rks with stakeholders and under cooperative agreements to devel op best practices and model progr ams for state regulatory and training organizations such as criteria for s ecure exam administration, standards for online
recertification traini ng programs, and how to audit applicator tr aining programs for effectiveness.

EPA developed the Interim National Program Guidan ce for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (EPA, 2006) to clarify provisi ons in the current rule. The guidance covers administrative requirements for written examinations, legal authorities for*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 certification plans, how modifications to certif ication plans are to be made and reviewed, requirements for state-tribal agreements for certifi cation, and issues related to tribal certification plans and federal plans for certification of applic ators in Indian Country. While this document does clarify EPA’s interpretation of the regulati on, it is solely guidan ce and does not carry the weight of regulation.

EPA also developed an online tool, the Certif ication Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) (http://cpard.wsu.edu/), which allo ws states, tribes, and federal ag encies to efficiently maintain their certification plans electronically. The CP ARD system also provides an easy web-based reporting system to submit required annual progra m certification and recert ification reports to EPA electronically, thereby reducing administrative bu rden and paperwork.

EPA has taken a number of other non-regulatory step s to improve coordination with stakeholders in the program, including meeting regularly w ith stakeholders to review progress on key projects, supporting a biennial national meeting of regulatory pr ogram managers and pesticide safety educators, meeting biannually with CTAG, and providing updates to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 1 (PPDC) on pesticide applicator certification and training issues. The National Assessment process de veloped a network of interest ed and engaged stakeholders that has strengthened the program and pr oduced new opportunities for collaboration.

In cooperation with stakeholders, EPA supported the development of a national core manual and exam for pesticide applicator certification (National Associat ion of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 2012a). This core manual and exam cover the general competencies a commercial applicator must posse ss in order to use RUPs safely and to protect himself, the public, and the environment from exposure to RUPs. In addition, EPA has collaborated with states, applicators, and i ndustry to develop and ma ke available national training materials and exams for aerial (Nati onal Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 2011a), righ ts-of-way ((National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research F oundation, 2011b), and soil fumigation (National Association of State Departments of Agri culture Research Founda tion, 2012a) pesticide applications. The regulatory changes that EPA is proposing are designed to complement these activities to improve national cons istency in pesticide applicator certification and to raise the level of RUP applicator competency to better protect the public and the environment. In many cases, the individual changes that EPA is consider ing came out of the pro cess of consulting with stakeholders and industry participants.

Despite this constant activity by EPA and industry stakeholders, the need for revised regulatory
standards remains. Even with the support these non-regulatory act ivities provide, there continue
to be serious incidents of misa pplication of RUPs and other pr oducts by certified applicators, resulting in effects on human health and the environment 2 . Certain protective changes essential to reducing incidents and improving the safe use of RUPs, such as a minimum age for

1 The PPDC is the Office of Pesticid e Programs’ Federal Advisory Committee. It provides a forum for a diverse group of stakeholders to provide feedback to the pesticide program on various pesticide regulatory, policy and program implementation issues. The PPDC meets two or three times per year.

2 See for example the discussion in S ection II.B.3 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or the incident data in Chapter 6 of this document.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 applicators, certification in sp ecific use categories, and esta blishing training requirements for noncertified applicators applying RU Ps under the direct supervision of a certified applicator can only be brought about at a nationa l level by regulation change.



### 2.2 Proposed Changes and Other Opti ons for Revising the Certification
Standards

This section provides a discussion and a genera l overview of current st andards and potential changes to the certification rules. For each of the possible modificati ons, an identifier is provided (such as Admin-04). The proposed regulato ry text or the Code of Federal Regulations provide the actual regulatory language. Provisions in the ru le where there are no changes considered are not discussed. The preamble to th e proposed rule presents additional detail on the rationale for the proposed changes.



### 2.2.1 Enhancement of Pri vate Applicator General Competency Standards

EPA is proposing changes to the standards for in itial certification for private applicators of

RUPs.

Initial Certification fo r Private Applicators

The changes to the standards for initial certific ation are designed to more clearly reflect the knowledge and skills needed by private applicat ors to apply RUPs safely. These proposed changes are summarized in Table 2.2-1.

Table 2.2-1. Current, Pr oposed, and Alternative Competency Stan dards for Initial Private Applicator
Certification

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Private Applicators

Initial certification Exam and/or Training options;

varies by state Initial Certification through exam or

training with approximately 12
hours of content (Private Cert-02) Initial Certification through exam or

training with
reduced content (approximately 8 hours of content) (Private Cert-01) Initial Certification through exam or

training with
additional content (approximately 16 hours of content) (Private Cert-03)

Non-reader
certification Non-readers can receive product specific
certification Eliminate non-reader provision Retain limited non-reader certification: valid for single product and single season

The current regulation contains five topics for private applicators to be covered in training: 1) recognize common pests to be controlled and da mage caused by them, 2) read and understand*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 the label and labeling information, 3) apply pestic ides in accordance with label instructions and warnings, 4) recognize local environmental situati ons that must be considered during application to avoid contamination, and 5) recognize poisoni ng symptoms and procedures to follow in case of a pesticide accident. In contrast, the core standards of competency for commercial certification have nine major areas of focus with more specific sub-points listed under each.

Both the proposed and alternative private applicat or general competency st andards (Private Cert02, Private Cert-01 and Private Ce rt-03) would cover the following topics 1) label and labeling comprehension, 2) safety, 3) environment, 4) pest s, 5) pesticides, 6) equipment, 7) application methods, 8) laws and regulations, 9) responsibilities for supervisor s of noncertified applicators, 10) professionalism, and 11) agricultural pest cont rol. These competency standards substantially parallel the core standards for commercial applic ators. Private and commercial applicators have access to the same set of RUPs, and these proposal s would ensure a similar level of competency between private and commercial applicators. The Agency plans to maintain the distinction between private and commercial applicator genera l or “core” competency standards by requiring private applicator general certific ation to cover topics related to agricultural pe st control and agriculture-specific regulations, such as the Work er Protection Standard. These topics are not covered in the commercial core competency st andards. In addition, EP A is not proposing to require that private applicators obtain an additional category cer tification in addition to a core certification in order to apply RUPs using routine application methods.

The proposal would clarify and expand the requir ements for initial cert ification for private applicators. The current rule a llows private applicators to be cer tified through a “written or oral testing procedure, or such other equivalent system as may be appr oved as part of a State plan.” The proposed option (Private Cert-02) would en hance the competency standards for private applicators by specifying minimum st andards for an alternate system equivalent to a written or oral testing procedure. The pr oposal would require private applic ators either to pass a written exam or to complete training that covers the pr ivate applicator general standards described in Unit VII.A of the preamble. EPA estimates this results in approximate ly 12 hours of training content. These more rigorous standards would ensure sufficient training on all of the required competency standards in order to prevent unreaso nable adverse effects to human health and the environment. The alternatives would require an exam or training on reduced content (Private Cert-01) of an estimated 8 hours, or an exam or training on expa nded content (Private Cert-03) of an estimated 16 hours for private applicator cert ification. The first al ternative would be less burdensome on applicants who do not take a wr itten exam, but limited content means that important topics would not be covered as fully during training. The second alternative would impose a higher burden on applicants who do not ta ke a written exam, but the proposed material could be covered more in depth. This more subs tantial training requirement would provide more education contact time, therefore more assurance that private applicators would be competent to use RUPs appropriately.

A separate proposal (Private Ce rt-13) would eliminat e certification for priv ate applicators who cannot read. Currently, non-reader s can receive certification as pr ivate applicators for specific products using tests designed for non-readers. Th e proposal would eliminate this possibility. This is important because critical information on pesticide safety is transmitted through the pesticide labeling, which non-read ers would be unable to obtain from the label. Labeling*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 changes frequently and non-read ers may not be able to underst and important changes to the labeling for the product(s) they are certified to us e, putting the applicators, the environment, and public health at risk. As an alternative (Priva te Cert-14), the Agency considered retaining nonreader certification, but limiting it to a single product for a single s eason. Under the alternative, non-readers would be required to undergo certification for each pr oduct they intend to use every year. The alternative would retain the flexibi lity to certify people who cannot read the labeling, but establishes tighter re strictions on the certification to ensure competence and safe application.



### 2.2.2 Establish Application Method-Sp ecific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

For commercial applicators to be certified, the ru le currently requires them to pass at least two written exams – a core exam, which ensures genera l knowledge of pesticide safety, as well as an exam in at least one category of RUP use, such as agricultural pest control or ornamental and turf pest control. The existing rule does not es tablish categories of certification for private applicators. Pesticide application and agricu lture both are becoming increasingly specialized. Improper application may lead to increased risks to the health of the a pplicator, workers, the environment, and the public. Certain categorie s of pesticides and methods of application, including fumigants and aerial application, pose an i nherently higher risk of acute injury or death if the applicator does not unders tand and follow the labeling and apply the pesticide properly. These increased risks can be mitigated by requiring applicators to demonstrate a specific set of competencies related to the type of pe sticide and application method being used.

Some states have addressed thes e elevated risks related to app licators by requiring applicators to be certified in specialized categories related to specific application methods. EPA is proposing 3 new federal categories of certification for commer cial and private applicators specific to the method of application used: aerial, soil fumi gation, and non-soil fumigation. EPA considered, but is not proposing, a category th at would have covered applica tions via chemigation. These potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit VIII.A of the preamble. The proposed concurrent categories are shown in Table 2.2-2.

Table 2.2-2. Current, Pr oposed, and Alternative Application Meth od-Specific Certification Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

Application MethodSpecific Certification Categories 10 commercial applicator categories of
certification* New application method-specific categories:

 Soil fumigation

 Non-soil fumigation (Comm Cert-04)

 Aerial (Comm Cert-01) New application method-specific
category:

 General fumigation (Comm Cert-03) New application method-specific
category:

 Chemigation (Comm Cert-02)*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 Table 2.2-2. Current, Pr oposed, and Alternative Application Meth od-Specific Certification Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Private Applicators

Application MethodSpecific Certification Categories No categories of
certification for private applicators New application method-specific categories (certification by exam or 4 hours training):

 Soil and non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-10)

 Aerial (Private Cert-04) New application method-specific categories (certification by
exam or 8 hours training):

 Soil and non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-11)

 Aerial (Private Cert-05) New application method-specific categories (certification by
exam or 4 or 8 hours training):

 Chemigation (Private Cert-06 or Private Cert-07)

 General fumigation (Private Cert-08 or Private Cert-09)

*(1) Agricultural pest control (plant or animal), (2) Forest pest control, (3) Ornamental & turf pest control, (4) Seed treatment, (5) Aquatic pest control, (6) Right-of-Way pe st control, (7) Industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control, (8) Public health pest control, (9) Regulatory pest control, (10) Demonstration and research pest control

Soil fumigation uses a pesticide to control pests or plant pathogens in th e soil using a pesticide that either is or becomes a gas. Non-soil fumi gation uses similar pesticides, but for control of pests in other places, such as structural treatment to buildings or to stored commodities. EPA is proposing to create application method-specifi c categories for soil and non-soil fumigation (Comm Cert-04), under which commercial appli cators would be certifie d by passing a written exam administered by the states. Private app licators would demonstrate competency in these categories by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the states or completing a 4 hou r training program developed and administered by the states (Private Cert-10).

EPA considered an alternative that creates onl y one application method-specific category for general fumigation, which would c over both soil and non-soil pest cont rol. Under this alternative category, commercial applicators would be certif ied by passing a written exam developed and administered by the states (Comm Cert-03). Pr ivate applicators would demonstrate competency in the general fumigation category by either passing a written exam or completing a 4 hour training program developed and ad ministered by the State (Private Cert-08). EPA considered a second alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate competency by passing a written exam or comple ting an 8 hour training program developed and administered by the states (Private Cert-09). Th is alternative, the general fumigation category, would be a more general category and might not adequately provide applicators with the specific knowledge and skills necessary to carry out fumiga tion in different situat ions. Soil and non-soil fumigation activities are quite di fferent, and competence in one does not guarantee competence in the other. For this reason, the proposal would create both categor ies for fumigation. The general fumigation category would also necessarily minimize the detail of the training content, as*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 knowledge of more tasks would be covered. Fi nally, a general fumigation category would not match the labeling requirements for currently registered soil fumigants. The proposed soil fumigation category would ensure th at certification in the category met all existing soil fumigant labeling requirements for applicators to have specific training. A ge neral fumigation category would not be able to cover the soil fumigant requirements in enough detail to meet those label requirements without being too l ong when combined with the othe r required material applicable to structural, grain storage, a nd commodity fumigation. For these reasons, it is more practical and would result in better safety to establish separate categories for soil and non-soil fumigation.

Aerial application refers to a pplying pesticides by aircraft. EPA is proposing to create an application method-specific category for aerial ap plication, under which commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written exam ad ministered by the stat es (Comm Cert-01). Private applicators would be cer tified by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the st ates or completing a training program of approximately 4 hours developed and administer ed by the states (Pri vate Cert-04). EPA considered an alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate competency by passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the states or by completi ng an 8 hour training program developed and administered by the states (Private Cert-05). Ae rial certification would ensure that applicators applying pesticides by aircraft are able to apply products safely and in a manner to manage drift and potential exposure to adjacent areas a nd bystanders. EPA has already developed a
certification manual and exam for aerial application that covers the standards being proposed.
These materials are available to states.

Chemigation means applying pesticides through irri gation equipment along with irrigation water. Chemigation has a relatively high potential for environmental contaminat ion if not conducted properly. Due to the nature of the equipmen t, chemigation poses additional risks to the applicator or those working under his direct s upervision, and to the e nvironment through water contamination. Chemigation can contaminate gr ound and drinking water supplies if there is a backflow in the system, mechanical failure allows pesticide-treated water to flow directly into a water supply, uncalibrated equipment causes ov er-application, or improperly maintained equipment may leak treated water from the chemig ation system. Several states have developed competency requirements for this kind of application for both commercial and private applicators. Under this alternative categor y, commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written exam developed and administer ed by the states (Comm Cert-02). Private applicators would demonstrate competency in the chemigation category by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial ap plicators) administered by the states or completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered by the stat e (Private Cert-06). EPA considered a second alternative to this pr oposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate competency by passing a writ ten exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the states or completing an 8 hour training program developed and administered by the states (Priva te Cert-07). However, most in cidents relating to chemigation pertain to chemicals that would be covered unde r the soil fumigation category, such as metam sodium and dichloropropene. Thus, it is unclear that the creation of an additional certification category for chemigation would provide additional benefits.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

### 2.2.3 Establish Predator Control Cat egories for Commercial and Private Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements

In addition to the application method-specific cate gories, the Agency is proposing to add specific categories for the use of the predacides Co mpound 1080 (sodium fluoro acetate) and sodium cyanide dispensed through an M-44 device. The proposed categories for both commercial (Comm Cert-05) and private app licators (Private Cert-12), woul d cover the use of these two specific pesticides which target predators of liv estock and are highly dangerous to humans and non-target species. States and federal agencies th at allow the use of thes e products already have a certification program in place for applicators using the products. The pesticide labeling for each of these products imposes sp ecific requirements for the cer tification of applicators by any state or federal agency that allows their use. Thus, this proposal simply codifies the existing labeling requirements. These potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit IX of the preamble.



### 2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Comme rcial and Private Applicators

Under the current federal requirements, person s seeking to become certified as commercial applicators must demonstrate their competen ce by passing a written exam. Persons seeking certification as private applicators may pass a written exam or by completing an equivalent program administered by the state. Recertifi cation requirements may include options for exams or training. The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and conducting training. These provision s are summarized in Table 2.2-4, and discussed in detail in Unit X of the preamble.

Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed , and Alternative Requirements for Ad ministering Exams and Training
Courses

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

Require candidates to present identification
for exams and training, and proctor

exams Some states require
identification and

others do not.

Depending on the
state, exams may be written, proctored, and

closed book  Identity verification required for

exams

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

Private Applicators

Require candidates to present identification
for exams and Some states require
identification and

others do not.  Identity verification required for

exams

 Exams would be proctored and
“closed book” No Change*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed , and Alternative Requirements for Ad ministering Exams and Training
Courses

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

training, and proctor

exams Depending on the
state, exams may be written, proctored, and closed book, but

some are not

EPA is proposing that any person seeking certif ication or recertifica tion as a private or commercial applicator, whether by training or exam, would be requi red to provide proof of their identity. EPA is also proposing to codify EP A’s existing guidance that exams must be written, proctored, and closed book.

The value of setting federal standards for examina tion practices is that states, employers, and the public could be confident that all certified applicators will have me t a consistent standard without having to verify the examination practices of eac h state. Confirming the identity of the test takers would ensure that applicants satisfy th e proposed minimum age requirements. It would also help prevent persons from taking a cer tification exam or training or attending a recertification training session in the place of the actual candidate , thereby limiting certification to the candidates who are qualified.

In addition to verifying the identity of test ta kers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing policy related to the security of the exam proce ss. These standards woul d include requiring that the exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed-book exams to ensure that no
outside materials would be used in the exam. These changes would also ensure that only competent applicators become certified. The states would have to ensure that these standards are

met.



### 2.2.5 Standards for Supervis ion of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training

Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, they also have a high potential for exposure and, if restricted use pesticides are mi sapplied, they may pose a risk to the public health and the environment. To address these risks, the Agency has proposed changes in the training of the noncertified person, clarification on who can provide that training,
and clarification on what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. These proposals are summarized in Table 2.2-5, and discussed in more detail in Units XI and XII of the preamble.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 Table 2.2-5. Current, Prop osed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensu re the Competency of Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Superv ision of a Certified Applicator

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Comm ercial Applicator

Competence of
noncertified applicators working
under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator Noncertified applicators must

receive basic
information but
no formal training on safe pesticide use and protecting
themselves and

their families from pesticide

exposure Competency could be demonstrated one of three ways:

 complete required training (repeat annually), which would include:

o Training on pesticide information, application techniques, and how to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a pesticide application

o Training on protecting the family

 take Worker Protection Standard (WPS) training for pesticide handler (repeat annually)

 pass the commercial applicator core exam (every three years) (Comm Sup-01)

Supervising commercial applicator must maintain records of training for 2 years (Comm Sup-06) Competency could be shown only by passing

core exam (Comm Sup-02)

Supervising commercial applicator would maintain
records of noncertified applicator training for 5

years (Comm Sup-07)

Guidance provided by supervising commercial applicator
to noncertified applicator Supervising
certified applicator must provide
noncertified

applicator guidance on

correct application and
how to contact
certified supervisor In addition to the current requirements, the supervising certified applicator
would:

 Provide the pesticide labeling for each application

 Provide instructions related to each application

 Explain all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03)

Communication between supervising commercial applicator
and noncertified applicator Supervising
certified applicator must

explain how
noncertified applicator can
contact him/her
if needed Supervising certified applicator would ensure noncertified applicator has equipment available for immediate 2- way communication with supervisor (Comm Sup-05) Supervising certified applicator would have to have direct line of sight to

noncertified applicator working under his or her direct supervision (Comm Sup-04)*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 Table 2.2-5. Current, Prop osed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensu re the Competency of Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Superv ision of a Certified Applicator

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators

Competence of
noncertified applicators working
under the direct supervision of a private applicator Noncertified applicators must

receive basic
information but
no formal training on safe pesticide use and protecting
themselves and

their families from pesticide

exposure Competency could be demonstrated one of three ways:

 complete required training (repeat annually), which would include:

o Training on pesticide information, application techniques, and how to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a pesticide application

o Training on protecting the family

 complete WPS handler training (repeat annually)

 pass the commercial applicator core exam (every three years) (Private Sup-02) Competency could be
demonstrated one of two

ways:

 complete required training (repeat annually),
which will include:

o Training on pesticide

information, application techniques, and how to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a pesticide application

o Training on protecting

the family

 complete WPS handler training (annually) (Private Sup-01)

Guidance provided by supervising private applicator to noncertified applicator Supervising
certified applicator must provide
noncertified

applicator
instruction on

correct application and provisions on
how to contact
certified supervisor In addition to the current requirements, the supervising certified applicator would
have to:

 Provide the pesticide labeling for each application

 Provide instructions related to each application

 Explain all labeling restrictions (Private Sup-03)

Communication between supervising private applicator and noncertified applicator Supervising
certified applicator must

explain how
noncertified applicator can
contact him/her Supervising certified applicator would have to ensure noncertified applicator has equipment available for immediate 2-way communication with supervisor (Private Sup-05) Supervising certified applicator would have to have direct line of sight to noncertified applicator working under his or her direct supervision (Private Sup-04)

Existing regulations require that a noncertifi ed applicator using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicat or must be competent, but the rule does not specify how to determine the competency of the noncertified app licator. Currently the ru le does not require any*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 training or exam to gauge noncer tified applicator competency or ensure an initial level of training/competency. The current rule also does not specify any interval for retraining or instruction for ensuring the ongoing compet ency of noncertified applicators.

Competence of Noncertified Applicators Workin g Under the Direct Superv ision of a Commercial Applicator

The Agency is proposing to clarify the ways that noncertified applic ators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators wo uld be able to demonstrate competence in the absence of certification. They would be able to demonstrate competence by one of three ways (Comm Sup-01). First, they would be able to complete proposed training for noncertified applicators, which would include a range of information about the hazards of pesticides, what to do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety re quirements, proper application techniques, how to protect oneself and one’s family from pesticide e xposure, and other topics related to the safe use of RUPs. Second, they could complete the W PS handler training (speci fied under 40 CFR 170). Third, they could pass the cer tified applicator core exam 3 . The proposed training requirements would be repeated annually; th e proposed option to pass the commercial core exam would be repeated every 3 years. Commer cial applicators supervising non certified applicators would be required to maintain records of the training or completion of the core exam for 2 years (Comm Sup-06). An alternative approach, not proposed by EPA, would be to requ ire the training records to be kept for five years (Comm Sup-07).

An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators would be to limit noncertified applicators to only those who have passed the commercial applicator core exam (Comm Sup-02). This alte rnative would limit the flexibility of commercial applicators and noncertified applic ators working under their direct supervision to decide how to meet the qualifications. In addition, it may be difficult for noncertified applicators to pass a written exam, even though they may be compet ent, leading to fewer available qualified noncertified applicators and increasing the demand for certified applicators to conduct applications.

Competence of Noncertified Applicators Work ing Under the Direct Supe rvision of a Private Applicator

The Agency is proposing to clarify the ways that noncertified applic ators working under the direct supervision of private applicators can de monstrate competence. They could demonstrate competence in one of three ways (Private Sup-02). First, they could complete proposed training for noncertified applicators, wh ich would include a range of in formation about the hazards of pesticides, what to do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety requirem ents, proper application techniques, how to protect oneself and one’s fami ly from pesticide exposure, and other topics related to the safe use of RUPs. Second, th ey could complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam, which would make them certified applicators. The proposed training requirements would be repeated annually; the proposed option to pass the commer cial core exam would be repeated every 3

3 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial applicator. The applicator must also pass
category exam.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 years. EPA cannot require privat e applicators to keep records due to constraints in FIFRA, so EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified applicators working under their direct s upervision have qualified under the proposed requirements.

An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators working under the direct superv ision of private applicators would be to limit noncertified applicators to only those who have completed th e training proposed under the rule or who have completed the WPS handler training (Private Sup-01). This altern ative would limit the flexibility of private applicators and noncer tified applicators working unde r their direct supervision to decide how to meet the qualifications.

Guidance Given To Noncertified Applicato rs Working under the Di rect Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators

In addition to the general requirement to demonstrate competence through training or examination, the Agency is proposing to add to the instructions that must be given to noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of co mmercial and private applicators. Currently the supe rvising commercial or private a pplicator must provide guidance on the labeling requirements and application restri ctions and information on how to contact the supervisor. The proposal would require that , in addition to the above, the supervising commercial or private applicator provide a copy of all applicable labeling to each noncertified applicator for each supervised application; pr ovide specific instructi ons related to each application, including the site-specific precautio ns and how to use the equipment; and explain and comply with all labeli ng restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03).

Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator

EPA is proposing to replace the current requirem ent for the supervising commercial or private applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor (such as directions to a pay phone and a phone nu mber), with a requirement for the supervising commercial or private applicator to ensure th e noncertified applicat or has the ability to communicate immediately with th e supervising applicator (C omm Sup-05) for commercial applicators, Private Sup-05 fo r private applicators). Imme diate communication between the supervising commercial and private applicator s and the noncertified a pplicators working under their direct supervision may be important if the noncertified app licator has questions about the pesticide application or encounters an emerge ncy situation. This immediate communication standard could be satisfied by, for example, cell phones or two-way radios. EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator maintain the noncertified applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (C omm Sup-04 and Private Sup-04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in hilly, forested, or obstructed view areas, it is essentially a requirement for all persons using RUPs to be certified, which limits flexibility for certified applicators and increase s the number of certified applicators needed to complete certain applications.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 

### 2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators

A summary of the age restricti ons considered by EPA is shown in Table 2.2-6. These potential changes are a result of the need to protect adolescents from RU P exposure and to ensure that RUPS are applied by competent adults. EPA also considered other age restrictions, outlined
below and discussed in more detail in Unit XIII of the preamble.

Table 2.2-6. Current, Propos ed, and Alternative Age Requireme nts for Certified Applicators

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

Minimum Age for
Commercial Applicators None Commercial applicators would
have to be at least 18 years old (Comm Age-02) Commercial applicators would have to be at least 16 years old

(Comm Age-01)

Private Applicators

Minimum Age for Private Applicators None Private applicators
would have to be at

least 18 years old (Private Age-02) Private applicators
would have to be at

least 16 years old (Private Age-01) Private applicators
would have to be at least 18 years old, or at least 16 years

old for family members on family
farms (Private Age-03)

There is currently no minimum age for certified app licators, so it is possi ble for adolescents to handle some of the highest risk pe sticides and to superv ise noncertified applicators using RUPs. Adolescents may not possess the judgment and maturity necessary to ensure they apply pesticides properly. The hei ghtened potential for immature decision making places the applicator and others at significant risk if the pesticides are mishandled. The Agency is proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become certified as a commercial (Comm Age-02) or private (Priva te Age-02) applicator. EPA al so considered establishing a minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either commercial or private applicators (Comm Age-01 and Private Age-01). EPA c onsidered an additional option for private applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 years ol d, with a minimum age of 16 only for private applicators who are family member s on family farms (Private Age-03). These changes would increase the protections to child a nd adolescent applicators. It should be noted that currently certified applicators would be able to maintain their certif ication, but those who do not meet the minimum age would not be allowed to obtain a certification.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

### 2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertifie d Applicators Applying RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators

To protect noncertified applicators working unde r the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators as well as to protect the h ealth of others and th e environment, EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age for non certified applicators. The proposals and alternatives for age requirements for noncertified applicators under the di rect supervision of commercial and private applicat ors are shown in Table 2.2-7.

Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed , and Alternative Age Requirements fo r Noncertified Applicators Working Under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators

Minimum age of
noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a
commercial applicator None Noncertified applicators working

under the direct supervision of

commercial applicators must be at least 18 years old

(Comm Age-04) Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 16 years old (Comm Age-03)

Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators

Minimum age of
noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a private applicator None Noncertified applicators working

under the direct supervision of private applicators
must be at least 18 years old (Private Age-05) Noncertified applicators working

under the direct supervision of private applicators
must be at least 16 years old (Private Age-04) Noncertified applicators working

under the direct supervision of private applicators
must be at least 18 years old, or at least 16 years old if under
the direct supervision of an immediate family
member (Private Age-06)

The proposed minimum age for persons to apply RUPs under the direct s upervision of private and commercial applicators is 18 (Comm Age-04 and Private Age- 05). The alternatives are a minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicator s working under the direct supervision of both commercial (Comm Age-03) and priv ate (Private Age-04) applicator s. An additional alternative (Private Age-06) would require noncertified appl icators to be 18, but with an exception for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of an imme diate family member, who must be at least 16 years old in this alternative.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 

### 2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators

The current recertificatio n standards only require states to have “provisions to ensure that certified applicators continue to meet the requ irements of changing technology and to assure a continuing level of competency a nd ability to apply pesticides sa fely and properly” as part of their state plans (40 CFR 171.8(a)(2)). Currentl y, the rule specifies no requirements for the timing, content, or manner to evaluate ongoing competency, undermining the integrity of the applicator certification program. The lack of a nationa l standard has resulted in the development of varying state programs that hinder state-to-state reciprocity and do not uniformly ensure that applicators have maintained their competency in core functions and the changing technology of pesticide application. The pr oposed recertificatio n requirements would establish a maximum duration for certifications, set minimum standard s for continuing education programs, and would require positive identification of candidates for recertification. Th e specific proposals are summarized in Table 2.2-8, with a more comp lete discussion availa ble in Unit XV of the preamble.

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

Regulatory

Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

Maximum time
before
recertification None Recertification required every 3

years Requirements:
exams for core and each category of
certification OR 6 Continuing
Education Units (CEUs) for core
recertification and 6
CEUs for each category of
certification (Comm Recert-01) Recertification required every 5

years Requirements:
exams for core and each category of
certification OR 6
CEUs for core
recertification and 6
CEUs for each category of
certification (Comm Recert-04) Recertification required every 3 years Requirement: exams for core and each category of
certification (Comm Recert-02)

Recertification required every 5 years Requirement: exams for core and each category of
certification (Comm Recert-05)

Private Applicators

Maximum time
before
recertification None Recertification required every 3

years Requirements: exams for general private applicator
certification and each application method-specific category of
certification OR 6 CEUs for general private applicator
recertification and 3
CEUs for each Recertification required every 5

years Requirements: exams for general private applicator
certification and each application method-specific category of
certification OR 6 CEUs for general private applicator
recertification and 3
CEUs for each Recertification required every 3 years Requirements: exam or 8 CEUs for private applicators core training and 4 CEUs for category training (Private Recert-02)

Recertification required every 5 years Requirements: exam or 8 CEUs for private applicators core training*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 Table 2.2-8. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Recertification Requirements

Regulatory

Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

application methodspecific category of
certification (Private Recert-01) application methodspecific category of
certification (Private Recert-04) and 4 CEUs for category training (Private Recert-05)

The primary change proposed by EPA would be to establish a maximum ce rtification period of three years. In addition to the fixed time fram e, the proposals would esta blish requirements for recertification, either by passing exams relevant to existing certifications or by completing a specific number of continuing education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency. EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50 minutes of educational contact time. For commercial applicators, the proposed recer tification training requirements would be six CEUs for core certification and six CEUs per category of certif ication (Comm Recert-01), with recertification administered by the states. For private applicat ors, the recertificati on training requirements proposed would be six CEUs for general private applicator certificati on and three CEUs per application method-specific certif ication (Private Recert-01) w ith materials developed and administered by the states. Periodic requireme nts for retraining would ensure that certified applicators maintain knowledge of current inform ation about pesticide a pplication practices. EPA has considered several other options to ensu re that certified applic ators are aware of the most recent information about pesticide safety.

For both private (Private Recert-04) and commerci al (Comm Recert-04) applicators, the Agency considered the same recertification requirements at fi ve year intervals rather than three years.

For private applicators, EPA considered alterna tives that require an exam or 8 hour training program for general private applicator recertification and an additional 4 hours of training per application method-specific category, where training materials or exams would be the responsibility of the states. Unde r these alternatives, re certification would ta ke place every three years (Private Recert-02) or every five years (Private Recert-05). Although extended training programs would be a larger time commitment for applicators, states a nd other certifying bodies could substitute an exam for the training requirements.

For commercial applicators only, another alternative would be r ecertification at three year intervals but requiring recertificat ion only by passing an exam (C omm Recert-02) with states developing unique examinations for both core certif ication and category certification, rather than offering the option to complete CE Us or pass core and category exams. EPA also considered an alternative with the same require ments, but with rece rtification at five year intervals (Comm Recert-05)

The advantage of the proposal is that it woul d ensure a continuing level of competency among certified applicators, which will help to reduce th e risk of RUPs. The alternatives would provide a lower level of confidence in the competence of applicators that have no t been recently certified, but impose less burden.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 

### 2.2.9 General Administrativ e Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies

There are several proposed requirements that ar e administrative in nature: new recordkeeping requirements for industry and requirements for states to implement the changes in the rule. The Agency is proposing new recordkeeping requireme nts for dealers of RUPs, shown in Table 2.2-
9. A more detailed discussion is availa ble in Unit XVI of the preamble.

Table 2.2-9. Current, Proposed, and Alternat ives to Recordkeeping for RUP Dealers

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Dealer recordkeeping
of RUP sales Not required Dealers would be required to keep records of RUP sales, including:

 product purchased

 who purchased

 date of purchase

 applicator’s
certification
information (Admin-01) None considered

Under the proposal (Admin-01), all dealers of RUPS to both private and commercial applicators would be required by the states to keep records of RUP sales, including information on what RUP was purchased, the date of purchase, the id entity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the applicator’s certification is appropriate to purchase the RUP.

The rule would also require the applicable Stat es, Tribes, Territories and Federal agencies to engage in several activities to comply with change s elsewhere in the rule. The cost estimates for these administrative burdens are provided Ch apter 3. These would include the certifying agencies revising regulations a nd making any required enabling le gislative changes that would be necessary to bring their certification program s into compliance with proposed requirements as a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-02). They would also include the process of updating their required certification plans that must be revised and submitted to the EPA (Admin-03) as a consequence of the rule changes. The Federal agencies and EPA would need to revise their plans and programs as a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-04). EPA would also need to review and approve all of the revised certificati on plans that would be submitted to the Agency as a result of the proposed rule changes (Adm in-06). More information on all of these administrative requirements that would be n ecessary can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (Units XVI, XVII, and XIX, respectively).

There are other administrative requirements that would be im posed by the proposed rule that would be required to implement th e rule changes that will not be discussed in detail here. These include definitional changes that would clarify terms used in the regulation, and revisions that would clarify requirements for the content, su bmission and approval of certification plans by*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 states, tribes, and federal agencies. Informati on on these proposed requirements can also be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (Units XX, XVI, and XVII, respectively).*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 3. Cost Assessment, Regulatory Options

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the co st of changes to Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule (C&T) requirements in 40 CFR 171. We estimate the comp liance cost of each potential certification and traini ng requirement considered by EPA and compare it to the cost of the current requirements. The difference between the two sets of costs is the incremental cost attributable to the individual requirement.



### 3.1 Overview

Individual requirements and the proposed suite of requirements could impose costs on certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators, pesticide dealers, and pesticid e manufacturers. States would also be impacted by individual requirements and the proposed suite of requireme nts, as they employ certified applicators and would be required to incorporat e any new requirements into state law and carry out the proposed certification and training re quirements of the rule.

The requirements EPA evaluate d would require employers of certified applicators and individuals certified as applicat ors to devote time and resources to the certification and training of using restricted use pestic ides (RUPs), as well as time a nd resources to the training of noncertified applicators applying RU Ps under their direct supervisi on. In analyzing the cost of these potential requirements, EPA values the time sp ent in required activities at the wage rate of the individual(s) involved in the task because the requirements implicitly take time from the productive activities of the operation or indivi dual. Some requirements would also require expenditures on travel and materials.

Section 3.2 describes the general methodology of co st estimation. In section 3.3, the state- or jurisdiction-level data are presen ted. Section 3.4 presents the re sults of cost analysis. The section is further divided into subsections, in which costs of different groups of proposed and alternative requirements are assessed: 3.4.1 private applicator general competency requirements; 3.4.2 addition of application method-specific cate gories for commercial and private applicators; 3.4.3 exam or training requirements; 3.4.4 stan dard for the supervision of noncertified applicators; 3.4.5 minimum age requirements for certified applicat ors and noncertified applicators under the direct supe rvision of certified applicators; 3.4.6 recertification requirements for certified applicators; and 3.4.7 gene ral administration requirements.



### 3.2 Methodology

This section of the cost analys is evaluates the expected impact s of the proposed new certification and training requirements at the actor level (typica lly a certified applicator, a noncertified applicator working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator , or a state government employee) and extrapolates to the jurisdiction (s tate, tribe, or territory) and national levels. Ideally, the cost analysis would be conducted wi th the unit of analysis, or actor, being the*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 establishments (farm, pest control firm, etc.) th at either employ or are owned by the applicators and bear the cost of the potenti al rule changes. However, th e data on individual applicators cannot be readily associated with particular establishments. For th is reason, in this section of the cost assessment, we use applicators as the unit of analysis. Note th at this unit of analysis is not equivalent to who bears the burden of the cost. In particular, a certified applicator may be an employer, an employee, or self-employed.



### 3.2.1 General Methodology EPA’s approach consists of six steps. The first two steps calculate the baseline cost by jurisdiction and the associated cost per actor or ‘unit co st’ of each potential requirement. These costs are estimated by actor, where actors are typi cally certified applicators either commercial or private, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervis ion of a certified applicator, and state governments, depending on who would be implicated by a requirement or aspect of a requirement. These costs are a function of the la bor costs to conduct an activity and any required material costs. As noted above, costs are genera lly a function of the time necessary to meet the requirement and the frequency at which it occurs.

The third step multiplies the uni t costs by the number of actors in each jurisdiction, and sums across the categories of actors to arrive at the jurisdiction-level co st of each potential requirement and the associated baseline regul atory costs. In steps four an d five, we calculate the present
value and then determine the incremental cost of the regulatory changes by taking the difference between the costs for the potential requirements a nd the baselines at the jurisdiction level. In step six we then sum across jurisdictions to obtain an estimate of the national costs and
determine the annualized value.

To better compare the impacts across the various pot ential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, in step 4, EPA calculates the present va lue (PV) of jurisdiction and national costs over a ten-year time horizon. The timing of the requiremen ts depends on the activity that has to occur. For example, the implementation of requirements would require the states to review, revise current regulations and implement the proposed re gulations. For some requirements such as age restrictions, there is a three y ear phase-in period where applicat ors who are currently 16 years of age would be allowed to continue working throu gh the system as applicators and therefore could
seek certifications in new cat egories before they turn 18. The time horizon is of limited importance as most of the costs will occur annuall y. Ten years was chosen because it is a typical time frame over which an agricultural esta blishment might financially amortize such expenditures. We use a discount rate of three pe rcent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent (see Appendix B) to represent the pr ivate discount rate as suggested by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 2003).

The rest of this section presents the methodology in greater detail, including an example of the methodology applied to a potential requirement that would re quire certified commercial applicators who intend to apply RU Ps aerially to be certified in a commercial aerial certification category. Data that are commonly used throughout the estimation are discussed in Section 3.3.2. Data that are specific to individual requirement s are included in the discussion of the specific requirement.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Step 1. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of the Jurisd iction Baselines. For the purposes of cost analysis, the U.S. is divided into 52 “jurisdic tions,” consisting of 50 states, Puerto Rico, and “Other.” The jurisdiction “Other” includes all te rritories and tribes, except Puerto Rico. This “jurisdiction” level approach is needed because different jurisdictions currently have different requirements (baselines) for certifying their applicat ors. We calculate the associated jurisdiction baseline cost of the existing regulatory requi rement for each actor in each jurisdiction:

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௥,௜,a,௝ ஻

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝

where cost r,i, a B t

is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r , in jurisdiction i , for an actor, a, in time t ; H r,i, a ,j

B t

is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; w a is the wage rate for the actor doing the activity; and Prob t ( j | i ) is the probability or frequency of activity j in time t given the jurisdiction. The actor is generally the applicator, who is either obtaining or renewi ng certification and th e activity may be preparing for an exam or taking a training. The probabili ty or frequency is determined by the situation. All first-time applicators must obtain initial certification (Prob = 1), while recertificat ion requirements may be spread over a period of time, e.g. , a three-year cycle implies that one-third of the applicators seek recertification every ye ar and/or applicators take about one-third of required continuing education units (CEUs) every year (Prob = 0.333).

Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Cost s of Potential Requirement. The expected cost of a potential requirements is calculated as:

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௥,a,௝ ௉

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝

where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or regio n. Since our goal is to determine the increased costs caused by any pot ential regulatory requirement, we typically
restrict H B r, j|i,a ≤ H P r ,j|a , that is, jurisdictions are not anticipa ted to relax standards if the proposed federal requirement is less stringent.

Step 3. Calculate Jurisdiction Costs of Potential Requirement and Jurisdiction Baseline. To estimate total compliance costs for the potential requirements and compliance costs for the current jurisdiction baseline, we multiply the per-actor unit costs by the number of affected actors of each type (e.g., first-time certified priv ate applicators and existing certified private applicators) in the jurisdiction and su m across all types of affected actors:

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋
௥,௜,a ஻

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௉

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

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

4 where RC r,i

X

denotes the cost of potential requirement r to jurisdiction i of potential regulations

X

, for X = B and P ; and N i,a is the number of affected actors in a jurisdiction.

Step 4. Calculate Jurisdiction Increm ental Costs. As part of th is step, we calculate the present value (PV) for both RC B and RC P . Generally, per-actor costs are constant, but implementation of the regulations will occur only after states and jurisdictions have revised their programs and developed any new training or examination materi als. EPA considered whether the number of applicators is changing over time, but the data ge nerally indicate little or no changes. See Section 3.3 below. The present va lue of costs is calculated as

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ௑ ෍൯ൌ ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. We use a time horizon of ten years, but this is not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur annuall y. Given constant annual costs, the PV of jurisdiction costs for the baseline simplifies to

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ஻ ൯ ൌ ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

and, assuming a two-year implementation period, th e PV of jurisdiction costs for the potential requirements can be calculated as

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ௉ ൯ ൌ ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ 1൅ߩ ሻ ௧ିଵ ଶ

௧ୀଵ ܥܴ ൅ ௜,௥ ௉

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ 1൅ߩ ሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ

We estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement to each jurisdiction by subtracting the PV of the jurisdiction baseline cost from the PV of the jurisdicti on cost of the potential requirement:

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ ௥,௜ ൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻ ൯

where PV(RIC r,i

) is the present value of the stream of incremental cost of the potential requirement over the regiona l baseline in jurisdiction i

.

Step 5. Calculate National Costs of the Pote ntial Requirement, Juri sdiction Baseline, and Incremental Costs. We sum incremental costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance costs for each potential requirement ( NC P

r ), the jurisdiction baseline requirements ( NC B

r ), and the national incremental cost ( NIC r ) where

ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௑ ൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ
௥,௜ ௑ ൯

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

5 and

ܸܲ ሺ ܰܥܫ ௥ ሻ ൌ 	ܸܲ൫ܰܥ

௥ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܰܥ

௥ ஻ ൯

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

ܥܫܣ ௥ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ
௥ ሻ ൈ ߩ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ଵ଴
ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ଵ଴ െ 1



### 3.2.2 Example Methodology In the following example we apply the general 6-step methodology to the potential requirement of initial certification for a commercial applicat or (Comm Cert-01) which would require certified commercial applicators who intend to apply RUPs aerially to be certified in a commercial aerial certification category. In this example we are evaluating the costs imposed on commercial applicators, but there are also costs to juri sdictions of developing and administering aerial applicator exams. The costs to jurisdicti ons are calculated using the same method.

Step 1. Calculate the Baseline Unit Costs (Per-Actor Costs).

Based on data from the Certification Plan and Reporting Database 4 (CPARD), 18 stat es (listed in Table 3.2-2), Puerto Rico, and Other currently do not require an aerial category certification (CPARD, 2014). Existing and first-time aerial co mmercial applicators in these jurisdictions would bear the full impact of the potential requ irement (Comm Cert-01). The other 32 states have an aerial category requiring an exam and are in full compliance with the potential requirement. Thus, these 32 states are taken out of the cost analysis. Table 3.2-1 presents the unit costs, that is, per-actor costs for the base line and potential requ irement (Comm Cert-01).

Step 2. Calculate the Per-Actor Un it Costs of Potential Requirement.

The actors are the existing and first-time commerci al certified applicator s who intend to apply RUPs aerially. Under the new requirement, existing aerial applicators would be required to take an aerial category exam that requires a total of 6 hours (the preparation time and exam taking time), while first-time aerial applicators would take an aerial category exam that requires a total of 8 hours (the preparation time and exam taking tim e). These commercial applicators must also
be certified in relevant current certification categories to qualify for the aerial category. The wage rate for existing and first-time aerial app licators is $21.49 per hour. To calculate the unit cost for existing and first-time aerial applicators, we multiply the wage rate times the number of hours required of them to comp lete the certification exam. Th e unit cost for existing aerial applicators is $129 and $172 for fi rst-time aerial applicators.

4 CPARD (Certification Plan and Reporting Database) is an electronic database that authorized agencies use to establish and update their certification plans as we ll as report certifications issued each year.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 Table 3.2-1: Unit Cost for Certification of First-Time Aerial Commercial Applicators Activity Wage Rate Time Frequency Cost Existing Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 6 hours 1 $129 First-Time Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 8 hours 1 $172 Source: Based on wage rate information from "Ma y 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. Depa rtment of Labor 2013a).

Step 3. Calculate the Jurisdiction-level Costs of the Potential Requirement and Baseline.

Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 present regional costs in y ear three for the regional baseline and cost of the potential requirement, respectiv ely. Regional costs are calculat ed as unit costs for existing and first-time applicators multiplied by the num ber of actors and summe d across regions (see Appendix A).

Table 3.2-2: Jurisdiction-Level Baseline Costs in Year 1

Jurisdiction Existing Aerial Commercial Applicators First-time Aerial Commercial Applicators

Jurisdictionlevel Cost of

Baseline (RC B r,i ) $1,000 Unit Cost
of
Baseline (UC B r,i,a ) Number of
Actors in Each

Jurisdiction (N i,a ) Unit Cost
of
Baseline (UC B r,i,a ) Number of
Actors in Each

Jurisdiction (N i,a )

Alabama $0.00 20 $0.00 2 $0.00

Arizona $0.00 71 $0.00 8 $0.00

Arkansas $0.00 264 $0.00 32 $0.00

Colorado $0.00 199 $0.00 24 $0.00

Delaware $0.00 41 $0.00 5 $0.00

Idaho $0.00 216 $0.00 26 $0.00

Kansas $0.00 337 $0.00 40 $0.00

Missouri $0.00 237 $0.00 28 $0.00

Nevada $0.00 80 $0.00 10 $0.00

New Mexico $0.00 6 $0.00 1 $0.00

North Carolina $0.00 170 $0.00 20 $0.00

Oklahoma $0.00 408 $0.00 49 $0.00

Oregon $0.00 210 $0.00 25 $0.00

Rhode Island $0.00 15 $0.00 2 $0.00

South Dakota $0.00 389 $0.00 47 $0.00

Tennessee $0.00 86 $0.00 10 $0.00

Washington State $0.00 459 $0.00 55 $0.00

West Virginia $0.00 31 $0.00 4 $0.00*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 Puerto Rico $0.00 46 $0.00 6 $0.00

Other $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. Wage rate calculations based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labo r Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a).

Table 3.2-3: Jurisdiction-Level Costs of Pr oposed Regulation Comm Cert-01 in Year 1

Region Existing Aerial Commercial Applicators First-time Aerial Commercial Applicators Jurisdiction-level
Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (RC P r,i ) $1,000 Unit Cost of

Proposal (UC P r,i,a ) Number of
Actors in Each

Jurisdiction (N i,a ) Unit Cost of Proposal (UC P r,i,a ) Number of
Actors in Each

Jurisdiction (N i,a )

Alabama $129 20 $172 2 2,992

Arizona $129 71 $172 8 10,589

Arkansas $129 264 $172 32 39,552

Colorado $129 199 $172 24 29,736

Delaware $129 41 $172 5 6,136

Idaho $129 216 $172 26 32,313

Kansas $129 337 $172 40 50,429

Missouri $129 237 $172 28 35,447

Nevada $129 80 $172 10 11,931

New Mexico $129 6 $172 1 891

North Carolina $129 170 $172 20 25,361

Oklahoma $129 408 $172 49 61,018

Oregon $129 210 $172 25 31,381

Rhode Island $129 15 $172 2 2,203

South Dakota $129 389 $172 47 58,155

Tennessee $129 86 $172 10 12,865

Washington State $129 459 $172 55 68,705

West Virginia $129 31 $172 4 4,654

Puerto Rico $129 46 $172 6 6,907

Other $129 0 $172 0 0 Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. Wage rate calculations based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a).

Steps 4 and 5. Calculate the Jurisdiction-level Incremental Costs and the Present Value.

Baseline unit costs are assumed to continue unc hanged through the ten year time horizon. The number of applicators is also anticipated to remain constant over the time horizon. Under the potential regulation, baseline unit co sts would be incurred for the fi rst two years of the horizon at*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 which point applicators would face the costs of the potential requirement. Given those conditions, we calculate the presen t value of the cost streams, shown in Table 3.2-4. We then subtract the jurisdiction-level cost of the baseline from the jurisdiction-level cost of the potential regulatory requirement in year th ree to get the jurisdiction-level incremental costs (Table 3.2-4).

Step 6. Annualize the National Costs of the Potential Requirement, National Baseline, and
National Incremental Costs.

Finally, we sum costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance cost for the potential regulatory requirement, the nati onal baseline cost, and the na tional proposal cost. These national-level costs are presented in Table 3.2-4. The costs are pr esented as present value over a ten year time period with costs starting in year three given a 3% discount rate.

Table 3.2-4: Annualized Present Value of Na tional-Level Costs of Commercial Aerial Applicator Certification (Comm Cert-01) 1

Region National-level Cost of Baseline PV(NC B ) National-level Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement PV(NC P ) Naional-level Incremental

Cost PV(NIC) ($1,000) $1,000$1,000
U.S. (present value) 0 861 861
U.S. (annualized value) 0 98 98

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.



### 3.3 Cost Analysis Data

In this section, we present the major data elements required for the analysis. Data elements
include the number of certifi ed applicators by jurisdiction and age cohort, the number of applicators who would be likely to obtain certification in the proposed new federal categories, the number of a noncertified applicators worki ng under the direct superv ision of a certified applicator by jurisdiction and age, a nd wage rates for the various actors.



### 3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators

States and other certifying ju risdictions (e.g., Puerto Rico, th e District of Columbia, other territories and several tribes) report the number of certifications issued and maintained to the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). EPA used data reported from 2008 to 2013 to determine the number of certified applicat ors that would be aff ected by changes to the certification program s (CPARD, 2014).

Table 3.3-1 presents the number of commercial applicators used in the analysis, including firsttime applicators (those obtaining an initial certif ication), existing applic ators (those who would recertify), and the average numbe r of certifications held by exis ting applicators. Commercial applicators must be certified in a core set of requirements and obtain at least one category, based on area of specialization, such as agriculture, forestry, and turf. Over time, many commercial applicators become certified in multiple categories. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the average*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 number of category certificati ons ranges from nearly one in Tennessee to a high of 3.6 certifications per applicator in Wyoming. Any ch anges in recertification requirements will affect all the category certifica tions an applicator hol ds. EPA uses a simple average over the 2008 to 2013 period to estimate the number of commer cial applicators impacted by the rule.

With the limited series of data available, trends are difficult to determine. We regressed the logarithm of the number of commercial applicator s in the U.S. against a time trend. For firsttime applicators, the coefficient on time implie d a two percent annual ra te of growth, but the estimate was not statistically significant. For ex isting applicators, the coefficient on time was also around a two percent annual gr owth rate and the estimate was statistically significant. We decided to use the simple average for both groups, implying no growth, due to the limited number of observations and some problems with the data. Several states did not begin reporting to CPARD until 2010 and others initially reported only certifications issue d, not the number of applicators.

Table 3.3-1: Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators Existing Applicators Average Categories/Applicator
Alabama 330 3,772 1.1
Alaska 105 560 1.4 Arizona 865 6,240 2.3 Arkansas 439 3,893 1.4 California 3,689 32,546 1.5 Colorado 691 3,209 2.7 Connecticut 124 2,686 1.5 Delaware 154 1,812 1.6 Florida 1,702 15,303 2.6 Georgia 1,478 9,700 1.3 Hawaii 116 1,151 1.3 Idaho 423 3,578 3.0 Illinois 3,277 12,053 1.5 Indiana 1,180 8,945 1.5 Iowa 1,497 11,904 2.3 Kansas 875 5,148 1.7 Kentucky 2,907 10,022 1.4 Louisiana 591 3,907 1.7 Maine 176 1,437 2.2 Maryland 472 4,084 1.4 Massachusetts 201 1,986 1.5 Michigan 2,013 12,803 2.3 Minnesota 1,850 8,375 1.4 Mississippi 304 2,742 1.3 Missouri 834 6,814 1.6 Montana 278 2,133 1.3 Nebraska 1,102 8,609 1.4*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 Nevada 300 1,390 2.2 New Hampshire 313 949 1.9 New Jersey 585 8,452 1.6 New Mexico 654 1,723 2.3 New York 1,252 17,653 1.5 North Carolina 1,361 17,012 1.5 North Dakota 428 4,889 1.7 Ohio 1,403 11,565 2.3 Oklahoma 1,538 9,002 2.8 Oregon 477 4,396 2.2 Pennsylvania 2,277 13,850 1.8
Rhode Island 53 606 1.9 South Carolina 753 5,009 1.6 South Dakota 814 4,943 1.7 Tennessee 1,328 13,051 1.0 Texas 1,716 17,478 2.0 Utah 929 3,389 2.1

Vermont 146 848 1.7 Virginia 1,159 6,325 2.0 Washington 1,370 14,343 2.5 West Virginia 240 1,747 1.5 Wisconsin 1,623 11,287 1.2 Wyoming 339 1,572 3.6 Puerto Rico 330 5,559 1.5 Other Jurisdictions 243 2,134 1.0
U.S. 49,300 364,579 1.8

Source: Certification Plan a nd Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014.

Data on the age distribution of certi fied applicators is not availabl e. Because it is important to know the number of certified applicators that may be subject to an age restriction, EPA estimates the number of commercial applicators. Due to re strictions on adolescent s regarding driving, and the availability to work due to education requireme nts, as well as general li ability concerns, it is unlikely that there are commercial applicators under the age of 16. For those that are 16-17 years old, EPA assumes that 0.2 percent of new comm ercial applicators ar e 16 years old and 0.3 percent are 17 years old. This assumption follows the analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (EPA, 2014a). Data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey (DoL, 2005) indicated that just over two percent of on-farm pest icide handlers were under 18 years of age. EPA assumed that commercial pe sticide handling establishments would be less likely to employ adolescents in such a capacity and estimated that about one percent of commercial handlers would be under 18. Here, we a ssume it is even less likely that commercial establishments would hire adolescents to apply RU Ps. Further, 33 states prohibit certification for
those under 18. The estimated number of commercia l certified adolescents in shown in Table 3.3-2. EPA assumes that 90 percen t of certified 16 year olds retu rn to work as 17 year olds.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

.

Jurisdiction 16 Year Old
First-Time Applicators 17 Year Old
First-Time Applicators 17 Year Old Existing Applicators

Alabama 0.7 0.6 1.0
Alaska 0 0 0
Arizona 0 0 0
Arkansas 0 0 0
California 7.4 6.7 11.1
Colorado 1.4 1.3 2.1
Connecticut 0 0 0
Delaware 0 0 0
Florida 0 0 0 Georgia 0 0 0
Hawaii 0 0 0
Idaho 0 0 0
Illinois 6.6 5.9 9.8
Indiana 2.4 2.2 3.5

Iowa 0 0 0

Kansas 0 0 0 Kentucky 5.8 5.2 8.7
Louisiana 0 0 0
Maine 0 0 0 Maryland 0 0 0
Massachusetts 0 0 0 Michigan 0 0 0
Minnesota 3.7 3.3 5.6 Mississippi 0 0 0
Missouri 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0
Nebraska 2.2 2.0 3.3
Nevada 0.6 0.5 0.9 New Hampshire 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0
New Mexico 1.3 1.2 2.0
New York 0 0 0
North Carolina 0 0 0
North Dakota 0 0 0
Ohio 2.8 2.5 4.2
Oklahoma 3.1 2.8 4.6 Oregon 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 0 0
Rhode Island 0.1 0.1 0.2
South Carolina 0 0 0
South Dakota 1.6 1.4 2.4*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 Tennessee 0 0 0

Texas 3.4 3.1 5.1
Utah 1.9 1.7 2.8

Vermont 0 0 0 Virginia 0 0 0 Washington 0 0 0 West Virginia 0 0 0
Wisconsin 3.2 2.9 4.9 Wyoming 0 0 0
Puerto Rico 0.7 0.6 1.0
Other Jurisdictions 0.5 0.5 0.7

U.S. 49 45 74

Source: EPA estimation. Zeros indicate states that have imposed a minimum age requirement.

EPA also estimates the number of commercial applicators that will obtain and retain certification in potential new, applica tion-specific categories. Table 3.3-3 presents th e expected number of applicators in the aerial and ch emigation categories. Many stat es already have developed an aerial category and seven states have a chemigat ion category. For those states, EPA uses the average number of applicators, as reported to CPARD between 2008 and 2013.

In order to estimate the number of existing aerial applicators in states w ithout an aerial category, we regressed the number of aerial applicators in states for which we had data against the number of certifications issued in agri cultural plant prot ection, forestry, and turf categories, the number of acres of agricultural crops treat ed by air, and several dummy vari able for different parts of the country. Data on acres treated by air comes from an annual market survey (proprietary) of pesticide use. Observations were for each state and year. The estimated coefficients were used to predict the number of existing applicators in the re st of the states. For the states with an aerial category, first time aerial applicators averaged 12 percent of existing appli cators and that average value was used to predict the number of firs t time aerial applicators in the other states.

Similarly, we estimated the number of commercial applicators who would obtain certification in chemigation based on a regression of observed cer tifications against the number of agricultural plant protection certifications, crop acres treated by commercial applicators with chemicals often applied via chemigation, and dummy variables to account for different ag ricultural practices, notably intensive production wh ere chemigation might be thr ough drip irrigation and more extensive systems of flood or sprink ler systems. Given that only seven states have a chemigation category, the results are not robust, but for lack of better information were used to predict commercial chemigation certifications that might be obtained. On average, the observed number of new chemigation certifications was about seve n percent of existing certifications and that value was used to predict the number of fi rst-time certifications in other states.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 Table 3.3-3. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation Categories.

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators,
Aerial Existing Applicators,
Aerial First-Time Applicators, Chemigation Existing Applicators, Chemigation

Alabama 2 2 20 2 21
Alaska 2 1 5 0 0
Arizona 1 2 8 71 1 9
Arkansas 1 2 32 264 1 17
California 2 54 448 4 57
Colorado 1 2 24 199 1 15
Connecticut 2 0 2 0 0
Delaware 1 2 5 41 2 22
Florida 2 38 318 2 30 Georgia 2 34 285 2 31
Hawaii 1 8 0 6
Idaho 1 2 26 216 2 29
Illinois 2 33 271 0 6
Indiana 2 32 267 0 6

Iowa 2 90 749 1 19

Kansas 1 2 40 337 1 8 Kentucky 2 8 71 1 10
Louisiana 2 46 381 1 12
Maine 3 27 0 0 Maryland 2 6 46 1 20
Massachusetts 2 2 16 1 8 Michigan 2 10 80 1 9
Minnesota 2 46 383 0 4 Mississippi 2 29 238 1 18
Missouri 1 2 28 237 1 7

Montana 2 2 13 1 10
Nebraska 2 63 525 0 6
Nevada 1 10 80 1 8 New Hampshire 1 2 2 15 0 0 New Jersey 2 10 81 2 22
New Mexico 1 2 1 6 1 12
New York 2 6 50 1 12
North Carolina 1 2 20 170 2 33
North Dakota 2 43 357 1 15
Ohio 2 11 92 1 17
Oklahoma 1 2 49 408 2 31 Oregon 1 2 25 210 2 24 Pennsylvania 2 8 71 1 10
Rhode Island 1 2 2 15 0 0
South Carolina 2 10 85 2 22*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 South Dakota 1 2 47 389 1 13

Tennessee 1 2 10 86 2 24

Texas 64 533 2 28
Utah 2 6 48 1 12

Vermont 2 1 8 0 0 Virginia 10 84 3 37 Washington 1 2 55 459 5 71 West Virginia 1 2 4 31 1 9
Wisconsin 8 68 0 4 Wyoming 5 43 2 30
Puerto Rico 1 2 6 46 0 5
Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 1,074 8,950 57 817
Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation.

1 No commercial aerial category; estimated number of applicators.

2 No commercial chemigation category; estimated number of applicators.

Table 3.3-4 presents the expected number of co mmercial applicators w ho have or would obtain
certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Seventeen states ha ve a soil fumigation category from which we can extrapolate to other states. As with aerial applica tion and chemigation, we estimate a regression model where the number of a pplicators with a soil fumigation certification is hypothesized to be a function of the number of applicators in agricu ltural plant protection, forestry, and turf, as well as the crop acres tr eated commercial with fumi gants. Data on crop treatments come from a proprieta ry market survey conducted annua lly. Initial certifications in soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications.

Most states have a category for non-soil fumigati on; some even have separate categories for fumigation of structures and fumigation of commodities. The regression model for non-soil fumigation included the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection and in the industrial, institutional, and structural category. The latter is quite broad and we included a dummy variable for states issuing more than 3,0 00 certifications in that category as many states subdivide it into more specialized areas. We also included a variable for acres of grain harvested, as an indicator of commodity fumi gation, but the estimated coefficient was not significant. Initial certifications in non-soil fumigation average eight percent of the existing
certifications.

Table 3.3-4. Expected Number of Commerc ial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil Fumigation Categories.

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators,
Soil Fumigation Existing Applicators, Soil Fumigation First-Time Applicators,

Non-Soil Fumigation Existing Applicators,

Non-Soil Fumigation

Alabama 1 2 18 4 50
Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0
Arizona 1 4 38 18 221
Arkansas 4 40 11 138*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 California 2 47 431 300 3,751
Colorado 1 0 0 9 107
Connecticut 0 2 1 19
Delaware 9 80 7 86
Florida 12 112 516 6,452 Georgia 1 10 90 23 285
Hawaii 1 5 50 19 233
Idaho 2 24 223 15 181
Illinois 1 10 18 224
Indiana 1 8 74 30 374

Iowa 1 53 478 48 602

Kansas 1 2 7 60 52 648 Kentucky 1 3 24 45 563
Louisiana 1 2 3 25 14 169
Maine 1 0 0 7 87 Maryland 1 0 0 111 1,387
Massachusetts 1 0 0 3 38 Michigan 1 2 16 148 25 307
Minnesota 2 20 26 328 Mississippi 1 1 14 5 63
Missouri 1 7 59 34 430

Montana 1 2 0 0 0 0
Nebraska 1 8 37 463
Nevada 1 0 0 3 42 New Hampshire 1 0 0 1 8 New Jersey 1 2 17 10 126
New Mexico 1 1 11 5 63
New York 78 709 14 178
North Carolina 4 40 14 171
North Dakota 1 6 41 510
Ohio 6 54 27 331
Oklahoma 1 12 112 60 756 Oregon 22 198 14 181 Pennsylvania 2 17 40 495
Rhode Island 1 0 0 1 10
South Carolina 1 2 16 15 185
South Dakota 1 5 17 219

Tennessee 1 2 1 5 24 298

Texas 1 19 175 84 1,045
Utah 1 0 0 9 111

Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0 Virginia 8 73 15 184 Washington 69 624 12 150 West Virginia 1 0 0 3 39
Wisconsin 8 70 15 194*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 Wyoming 1 3 29 3 43
Puerto Rico 1 2 1 12 0 5
Other
Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0

U.S. 459 4,174 1,803 22,543

S ource: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation.

1 No commercial soil fumigation categor y; estimated number of applicators.

2 No commercial non-soil fu migation category; estimated number of applicators.

EPA considered a general fumigation categor y that would cover both soil and non-soil fumigation. No state currently has such a categor y on which to base estimates of the number of applicators implicated. Considering how differe nt the methods and purposes of soil and non-soil fumigation are, EPA assumes that there would be no overlap in the number of applicators seeking certifications between the categories. Thus, the expected number of applicators that
would seek a certification in a general fumigation category is si mply the sum of the number of applicators in the soil and non-soil categories.



### 3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working unde r the direct supervision of commercial certified applicators

Data on the number of noncerti fied applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators (UTS applicators) are not available. Howeve r, based on the state regulations, it appears th at four states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) do not allow noncertified applicators to apply RUPs. The number of UT S applicators in those states
is set to zero. Data are availa ble, by state, on employment in occ upations related to pest control (BLS, 2014b). EPA took the total number of peopl e employed as pest control workers in the Agricultural Support Sector, the Structures and Buildings and Turf Sector, the Construction Sector, and in Federal, State, and Local Governments, averaged over 2012 and 2013, and subtracted the number of certified applicators in the state to estimate the number of UTS applicators. This approach some times resulted in negative numbers. For example, in the case of Kentucky, BLS reports an average of 8,720 people employed in non-agricultural pest control. However, Kentucky reports an average of 13,973 cer tified commercial applicators over the same period. As an alternative, EPA calculated the number of UTS applicators assuming three UTS applicators for every existing commercial applic ator. In the case of Kentucky, the six-year average number of certified commercial applic ators is 10,022, resulting in an estimate of 30,066 UTS applicators. As a refinement, we made a calculation where different categories of applicators would have different numbers of UTS applicators. For example, there may be three UTS applicators for every applicator in the turf category (e.g., a golf course or landscaping enterprise) but public health app licators would not have UTS applic ators. This approach resulted in an estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators in Ke ntucky. If the estimated number of UTS applicators in a state using the BLS data was less than half that calculated from the simple three UTS applicator per certified applicator, which occu rred in 29 states, we used the lower of the two numbers calculated by assumption. For Kentucky, we used the estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators. In 15 of the 29 states for which th e BLS data appeared to undercount the number of UTS applicators, we used the simple assumpti on of three UTS applicators for each certified commercial applicator. Estimated numbers of non certified applicators are presented in Table*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 3.3-5. The total number of noncertified applicator s in the U.S. is estimated at nearly 950,000 people.

The number of noncertified adolesce nts applying RUPs under the dir ect supervision of a certified applicator is also of interest , given that EPA is proposing a mi nimum age. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2014a), in 201 3, about 77,000 people were employed in pest control occupations within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance, of which 1,000 were aged 16 to 19, or 1.3 percent of the workforce. This category is representative
of the turf and ornamental and the industrial, institu tional, and structural category which houses the majority of certified applicators. We theref ore apply this percentage across all states to
estimate the number of noncertified 16 and 17 year olds applying RU Ps under the direct supervision of a commercial appl icator. Since the BLS data incl udes 18 and 19 year olds, we are likely overestimating the number of adolescents applying RUPs. Several states have set a minimum age of 18 for applying RUPs, as shown by the estimated zero adolescents in the state.

Table 3.3-5: Estimated Number of Noncertifie d Applicators Applying RUPs under Direct Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Noncertified Applicators
UTS of Commercial Applicator 16 – 17 Year Old Noncertified Applicators Alabama 9,035 117 Alaska 1,265 16 Arizona 13,384 174 Arkansas 7,121 93 California 73,702 958 Colorado 14,367 187 Connecticut 10,096 131 Delaware 5,437 71 Florida 65,193 848 Georgia 17,289 225 Hawaii 3,710 48 Idaho 10,735 140 Illinois 18,259 237 Indiana 26,531 345

Iowa 0 0 Kansas 15,443 201 Kentucky 27,907 363 Louisiana 8,861 115 Maine 2,828 37 Maryland 16,465 0 Massachusetts 18,817 0 Michigan 38,410 499
Minnesota 0 0 Mississippi 5,710 74 Missouri 19,996 260*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

S ource: EPA estimation based on BLS (2014a and 2014b).



### 3.3.3 Private certified applicators

The number of private certified a pplicators is also reported to CPARD by the states. The total number of private certified applicators in th e U.S. from 2008 to 2013 was regressed against a
time variable. The estimated coefficient on time for the number of initial certifications was negative, while that for existing applicators was po sitive, but neither was statistically significant. Given the limited time series and conflicting re sults, EPA estimates the number of private applicators affected by changes to the Certification regulations as the simple average over the 2008 to 2013 period, i.e. , no trend over time for either first- time or existing private applicators. Table 3.3-6 presents the number s for certified private applicators in each jurisdiction.

Table 3.3-6: Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators Existing Applicators
Alabama 561 5,402*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

Vermont 42 520 Virginia 863 5,531*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 Washington 669 13,148 West Virginia 79 1,198 Wisconsin 1,071 12,816 Wyoming 388 4,267 Puerto Rico 746 15,982
Other 96 238
U.S. 34,039 455,278

Source: Certification Plan a nd Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014.

As with commercial applicators, CPARD does not provide information on the age of private applicators. Since private appl icators are often the owner or op erator of a farm, EPA bases its estimates of adolescent applicators on the numbe r of principal operators under the age of 25, as reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2014c). We assume a nearly normal distribution, where 0.5 percent of principal operators under the age of 25 are 14 and obtain initial certification as a private applicator, 0.75 per cent are 15 and 16 and will be certified, and one percent are 17 years old with certif ication. This would be an overe stimate of principal operators, as the distribution is probably heavily skewed to ward operators in their early 20s rather than mid- to late-teens. Further, not all principal ope rators will be certified applicators since not all farms use pesticides, much less RUPs. However, there are other situations where an adolescent may be a certified operator. Many states have ag e restrictions, however, t ypically either 16 or 18 years of age and we adjust our estimates accordingly. Where th e minimum age is 16, we assume
that all adolescents who would otherwise have obtained certification by that age will do so. Table 3.3-7 presents the estimated adolescent private ap plicators. Included is an estimate of adolescents hired as a private a pplicator. The above approach applies to family members only. Hired adolescents on farms is likely very rare. According to the Nationa l Agricultural Worker Survey (DoL, 2005), only about 2.3 percent of t hose handling any kind of pesticide were under
18 and fewer would handle RUPs. We assume th at hired 17 year-olds ma y obtain certification, at a rate of 25 percent of the number of fam ily members obtaining certification at that age.

Table 3.3-7. Estimated Number of Pri vate Applicators under 18 Years of Age

.

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators, Family Existing Applicators, Family First-Time Applicators,
Hired

< 16 YO 16-17 YO < 16 YO 16-17 YO 16-17 YO

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0
Alaska 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.1
Arkansas 1.5 0.7 0.7 2.6 0.2
California 1.9 1.1 1.1 3.3 0.2
Colorado 1.2 0.6 0.6 2.0 0.1
Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0
Delaware 0 0.1 0 0 0
Florida 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia 0 1.6 0 1.0 0.1
Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 Idaho 0 0 0 0 0
Illinois 0 5.6 0 3.5 0.4
Indiana 2.4 1.3 1.3 4.3 0.3

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0

Kansas 2.8 1.5 1.5 4.6 0.3 Kentucky 0 4.4 0 2.7 0.4
Louisiana 0 1.6 0 1.0 0.1
Maine 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 Maryland 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1
Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan 0 0 0 0 0
Minnesota 3.3 1.7 1.7 5.6 0.4 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0
Missouri 0 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 1.3 0 0.8 0.1
Nebraska 0 4.9 0 3.1 0.4
Nevada 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 1.7 1.0 1.0 2.8 0.2
New York 0 1.9 0 0 0.2
North Carolina 0 2.4 0 1.5 0.2
North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0
Ohio 3.6 1.8 1.8 6.2 0.4
Oklahoma 3.4 1.8 1.8 5.9 0.4 Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 4.6 0 2.9 0.4
Rhode Island 0 0.1 0 0.1 0
South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0
South Dakota 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2

Tennessee 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2

Texas 6.3 3.2 3.2 10.6 0.7
Utah 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1

Vermont 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 Virginia 0 2.0 0 1.2 0.2 Washington 0 1.9 0 1.3 0.1 West Virginia 0 0.6 0 0.5 0
Wisconsin 0 3.8 0 2.3 0.3 Wyoming 0 0.6 0 0.4 0.1
Puerto Rico 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0
Other 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.2 0.2

U.S. 34.6 58.4 18.8 83.0 7.1

S ource: EPA estimation.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 EPA also estimates the number of private applicat ors that will obtain and retain certification in potential new, application-speci fic categories. Table 3.3-8 pres ents the expected number of applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Wiscons in is the only state that has established a private aerial category and they have not reported any certifications. Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and Wisconsin require certificati on in chemigation for private applicators and Wyoming has recently imposed a similar requirement.

Private aerial application is likely very rare. EP A simply assumes that there will be one private aerial applicator in a state for every 100 co mmercial applicators. As with commercial applicators, we assume that ne w certifications will be 12 percent of existing certifications based
on the observed ratio between new and existing certifications nationally.

We also estimated the number of private ap plicators who would obtain certification in chemigation in relationship to th e number of commercial applicat ors certified in chemigation. We constructed a state-specific ratio by compari ng crop acres treated with chemicals used in chemigation by commercial applicator s to that treated by the farmer . This ratio ranged from a low of 1.5 (50 percent more acres treated by farmers than by comme rcial applicators) in Illinois to a high of 47.6 in Georgia. Data on acres treated are from an annual proprietary market survey of pesticide users. Where data from the su rvey were missing (Alaska, Hawaii, and the New England states), we used the estimated coeffici ent on agricultural plant certifications from the commercial applicator equation to calculate ch emigation certification as a proportion of all private certifications (0.9 pe rcent). As with commercial chemigation certifications, new
certifications are calculated as seve n percent of exis ting certifications.

Table 3.3-8. Expected Number of Private Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation Categories.

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators,
Aerial Existing Applicators,
Aerial First-Time Applicators, Chemigation Existing Applicators, Chemigation

Alabama 1 2 0 0 42 605
Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0
Arizona 1 2 0 0 9 135
Arkansas 1 2 0 2 6 80
California 1 2 0 4 8 115
Colorado 1 2 0 1 5 68
Connecticut 1 2 0 0 1 13
Delaware 1 2 0 0 5 69
Florida 1 2 0 3 12 173 Georgia 1 2 0 2 103 1,478
Hawaii 1 0 0 1 14
Idaho 1 0 2 74 1,053
Illinois 1 2 0 2 1 9
Indiana 1 2 0 2 1 15

Iowa 1 2 1 7 2 31

Kansas 1 2 0 3 2 24 Kentucky 1 2 0 0 2 28*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 Louisiana 1 2 0 3 6 80
Maine 1 2 0 0 1 15 Maryland 1 2 0 0 3 40
Massachusetts 1 2 0 0 1 17 Michigan 1 2 0 0 2 31
Minnesota 1 2 0 3 1 11 Mississippi 1 2 0 2 10 136
Missouri 1 2 0 2 1 16

Montana 1 2 0 0 13 179
Nebraska 1 2 1 5 1 11
Nevada 1 0 0 5 66 New Hampshire 1 2 0 0 1 12 New Jersey 1 2 0 0 3 44
New Mexico 1 2 0 0 3 45
New York 1 2 0 0 3 41
North Carolina 1 2 0 1 34 485
North Dakota 1 2 0 3 9 128
Ohio 1 2 0 0 2 31
Oklahoma 1 2 0 4 7 96 Oregon 1 2 0 2 12 177 Pennsylvania 1 2 0 0 4 51
Rhode Island 1 2 0 0 1 10
South Carolina 1 2 0 0 37 528
South Dakota 1 2 0 3 2 32

Tennessee 1 2 0 0 23 323

Texas 1 2 1 5 12 174
Utah 1 2 0 0 2 25

Vermont 1 2 0 0 1 13 Virginia 1 2 0 0 11 155 Washington 1 2 0 4 24 340 West Virginia 1 2 0 0 2 23
Wisconsin 0 0 6 79 Wyoming 1 2 0 0 4 57
Puerto Rico 1 2 0 0 2 34
Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 8 65 519 7,415 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation.

1 No private aerial category; es timated number of applicators.

2 No private chemigation category; estimated number of applicators.

Table 3.3-9 presents the expected number of private applicators who have or would obtain certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Five states (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have a private soil fumigation category. For the remaining states, we estimate existing applicators using the estimat ed coefficients from the regression model for commercial applicators, where the number of applicators with a so il fumigation certification is a*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 function of the number of private applicators in the state and the crop acres treated with fumigants by the farmer. Data on crop treatmen ts come from a proprietary market survey conducted annually. Initial certif ications in soil fumigation ar e 11 percent of the existing certifications, as with commercial soil fumigation.

Seven states (Arizona, Iowa, Mi nnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Pe nnsylvania, and Utah) have a category for non-soil fumigation. As these stat es also have a commercial non-soil fumigation category, EPA calculated the ratio of private to commercial certifications. The ratio varies from about 0.1 to almost 2.0, with an average of 0.6. The number of private certifications in states without the category was estimated as the numbe r of commercial certif ication multiplied by the average ratio or the ratio of a state with sim ilar agronomic characteristics, following the Farm Resource Regions defined by the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture (ERS, 2000). Initial certifications in soil fumigation average 11 per cent of the existing certifications, as with commercial certifications in this category.

Table 3.3-9. Expected Number of Commerc ial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil Fumigation Categories.

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators, Soil Fumigation Existing Applicators,
Soil Fumigation First-Time Applicators,

Non-Soil Fumigation Existing Applicators,

Non-Soil Fumigation

Alabama 1 2 18 163 2 31
Alaska 1 2 0 0 n/a n/a
Arizona 1 5 47 2 29
Arkansas 1 2 76 686 7 85
California 1 2 102 923 27 332
Colorado 1 2 20 178 5 66
Connecticut 1 2 0 0 0 2
Delaware 1 2 0 1 1 10
Florida 1 2 35 315 46 571 Georgia 1 2 85 774 3 34
Hawaii 2 3 27 2 21
Idaho 1 2 23 205 2 22
Illinois 1 2 59 533 2 20
Indiana 1 2 44 396 3 33

Iowa 1 81 734 4 53

Kansas 1 2 50 457 5 57 Kentucky 1 2 38 346 4 50
Louisiana 1 2 25 226 4 56
Maine 1 2 2 16 1 8 Maryland 1 2 10 92 10 123
Massachusetts 1 2 2 14 0 3 Michigan 1 2 27 246 3 37
Minnesota 1 8 3 39 Mississippi 1 2 34 307 3 39*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 Missouri 1 2 73 666 3 38

Montana 1 2 20 186 n/a n/a
Nebraska 1 2 77 704 3 41
Nevada 2 21 5 60 New Hampshire 1 2 0 0 0 1 New Jersey 1 2 4 33 3 42
New Mexico 1 2 7 65 7 90
New York 1 2 23 212 5 60
North Carolina 1 2 81 733 8 105
North Dakota 1 38 347 80 1,005
Ohio 1 2 52 475 2 29
Oklahoma 1 2 45 405 5 67 Oregon 1 2 18 160 5 60 Pennsylvania 9 79 13 165
Rhode Island 1 2 0 0 0 1
South Carolina 1 2 23 212 9 114
South Dakota 1 2 52 475 2 26

Tennessee 1 2 37 340 2 26

Texas 1 2 149 1,355 7 93
Utah 1 4 32 5 60

Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0 Virginia 1 2 19 175 9 113 Washington 1 2 70 636 7 92 West Virginia 1 2 2 19 2 24
Wisconsin 2 5 42 2 23 Wyoming 1 2 14 125 0 5
Puerto Rico 1 2 58 524 0 0
Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 1,619 14,716 325 4,061
Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation.

1 No private soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators.

2 No private non-soil fumigation categor y; estimated number of applicators.



### 3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified applicators

The number of noncertified applicat ors applying RUPs on farms is lik ely to be a function of farm size, where farm size is measured by value of sa les. Most smaller farms would not need more than one applicator, in general, and even la rger farms would probabl y not have a large enough demand for RUPs that they would need to rely on a certified applicator. We assume that one of every two private applicators on a farm with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year will have an applicator under his or her supervision to apply RUPs, wh ile private applicators on farms with more than $1 million per year in sales will, on average, have one noncertified applicator under his or her supervision. We obtain the numbe r of farms, by sales, in each state from the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). From a special tabulation of data from the 2007*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008), we have a national estimate of th e proportion of farms in each sales class that utilize pesticides. Using th is national figure, we estimate the number of farms in each state that use pesticides. For ex ample, nearly 80 percent of farms with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year used pestic ides in 2007. We therefore estimate that nearly 80 percent of farms in that sales class in every state used pesticides in 2012. In the case of Alabama, this means that we estimate that , out of 3,445 farms with sales between $100,000 and $1 million, 2,753 will use pesticides. Following this procedure with other size classes of farms gives us an estimated 16,630 farms using pesticides. Those in the $100,000 and $1 million sales class account for 16.6 percent of those farms and, we estimate, 16.6 percent of certified applicators. By our previous assumption of half those applicators have someone under their supervision, 8.3 percent of Al abama private applicators will have someone under their supervision. Another 7.0 percent of Alabama private applicat ors are estimated to be on farms with more than $1 million in sales and will have someone applying RUPs under their supervision. Therefore, we estimate that the number of noncertified appl icators in Alabama is 15.3 percent of the 5,402 certified private applicator s, or 827 noncertified applicators. Table 3.3- 10 presents estimates for all the states and jurisdictions.

Finally, we estimate the number of noncertified adolescents that may apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a private applicator.

To estimate the number of noncertified adolesce nt family members who might apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicators, we follow a procedure similar to that of estimating adolescent certif ied private applicators. In this case, we base the estimates on the number of second and third farm operators under the age of 25, as reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We agai n assume a nearly normal distribution, where 0.5 percent of second and third operators under the age of 25 are 14, 0.75 pe rcent are 15 and 16, and one percent are 17 years old.

To estimate the number of noncertified non-family adolescents applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicators, we rely on data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey (DoL, 2005). According to the survey, 0.4 percent of pesticide handlers were under 16 and 1.9 percent 16 and 17 year old. We multiply these percentages by the total number of applicators UTS in each state to obta in the estimates shown in Table 3.3-10.

Finally, some states have age restrictions precl uding adolescents from applying RUPs. This is
shown in Table 3.3-10 where there are zero adoles cent noncertified applicator s. The exception is Alaska, which does not have a restriction but wher e our procedure above resulted in an estimated zero applicators younger than 16 years of age.

Table 3.3-10: Estimated Number of Noncertifie d Applicators Applying RUPs under Direct Supervision of Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Noncertified Applicators UTS
of Private Applicator Noncertified Applicators, Family Noncertified Applicators,
Hired

< 16 YO 16-17 YO < 16 YO 16-17 YO

Alabama 827 0 0 0 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 Alaska 10 0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Arizona 44 7.2 10.2 0.2 0.8 Arkansas 4,512 11.2 15.8 18.0 85.7 California 4,790 12.8 18.2 19.2 91.0 Colorado 1,029 7.3 10.3 4.1 19.6
Connecticut 56 0 0 0 0
Delaware 279 0 0 0 0
Florida 526 10.0 14.1 2.1 10.0 Georgia 4,040 8.2 11.6 16.2 76.8
Hawaii 35 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.7
Idaho 801 6.3 8.9 3.2 15.2 Illinois 5,007 11.6 16.3 20.0 95.1 Indiana 3,105 16.6 23.3 12.4 59.0

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 Kansas 3,367 10.3 14.5 13.5 64.0 Kentucky 1,083 17.1 24.0 4.3 20.6 Louisiana 1,226 5.0 7.0 4.9 23.3
Maine 128 1.6 2.4 0.5 2.4 Maryland 750 3.8 5.4 3.0 14.3
Massachusetts 124 2.3 3.4 0.5 2.4 Michigan 1,446 12.7 18.0 5.8 27.5
Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 1,729 6.5 9.3 6.9 32.9 Missouri 2,680 22.0 30.9 10.7 50.9 Montana 1,484 4.7 6.7 5.9 28.2 Nebraska 7,685 0 12.6 0 146.0
Nevada 56 1.0 1.4 0.2 1.1 New Hampshire 36 1.5 2.3 0.1 0.7 New Jersey 238 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 253 5.5 7.8 1.0 4.8 New York 1,389 11.1 15.6 5.6 26.4 North Carolina 3,685 9.8 13.8 14.7 70.0 North Dakota 4,043 5.1 7.3 16.2 76.8 Ohio 3,028 23.7 33.3 12.1 57.5 Oklahoma 1,437 17.5 24.7 5.7 27.3 Oregon 669 8.0 11.4 2.7 12.7 Pennsylvania 3,451 24.0 33.8 13.8 65.6
Rhode Island 17 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.3
South Carolina 783 5.0 7.0 3.1 14.9
South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 865 15.3 21.7 3.5 16.4 Texas 3,846 42.0 58.9 15.4 73.1
Utah 178 4.8 6.8 0.7 3.4

Vermont 89 0 2.3 0 1.7 Virginia 668 10.5 14.7 2.7 12.7*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 Washington 2,733 7.1 10.1 10.9 51.9 West Virginia 69 5.0 7.1 0.3 1.3 Wisconsin 3,045 18.8 26.6 12.2 57.9 Wyoming 964 2.0 3.0 3.9 18.3 Puerto Rico 3,324 1.0 1.4 13.3 63.2
Other
Jurisdictions 49 6.0 8.6 0.2 0.9

U.S. 81,678 403.1 584.5 289.9 1,525.5

S ource: EPA estimation.



### 3.3.5 Wage Rates

Wage rates are used to estimate unit costs for the baseline and potenti al requirements. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (B LS) Occupational Employment Stat istics (OES) data series for national industry-specific occupational employme nt and wage estimates are used to determine hourly wage rates of affected actors. Wages vary by jurisdiction, but EPA used the national average wage rates. This would result in th e over (under)-estimation of impacts for the low (high) wage jurisdictions. However, the differe nces in wages across juri sdictions should largely
cancel out at the national level. Costs of obtaining data for all categories of wages by jurisdiction and incorporating them into the impact analysis w ould have been extremely high. Finally, it would not have been consistent with how the paperwork burden is calculated for the ICRs, which is done at a national level.

Wage rates of commercial applicators

For commercial applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unloaded mean wage rate ($14.82) for Pesticide Handlers & Applicators (Standard Occupational Code 37-3012) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2013a). Commercial applicators are paid
benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. We assume that commercial applicators aged 16 or 17 years are paid the loaded wage rate that is 75% of the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators 18 year s and over. That is, the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators aged 16 or 17 is $16.12.

Wage rates of private applicators

The unloaded hourly wage rate for private appl icators is from the BLS employment category 11- 9013 (Farmers and Ranchers), which has a wage rate of $35.83. Private applicators are paid
benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $51.96.

In addition to the age groups used for commercial applicators, we incl ude a third age group of private applicators — those who are under the age of 16. We assu me that all operators are over the age of 18, while hired applicat ors can be in any of the three ag e groups. We also assume that underage private applicators under 16 years old are paid a wage that is 50% of the operator wage*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 rate, and that private applicator s aged 16 or 17 years old are pa id a wage 60% of the operator wage rate. Thus, private appl icators under 16 years old are paid the loaded wage rate of $25.98 and private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid the load ed wage rate of $31.18.

Wage rates of noncertified commerc ial applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators

The loaded wage rate for all noncertified commerc ial applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicat ors is based on the national mean unloaded hourly wage rate of $12.65 for the employment category 37-3011 (La ndscaping and Groundskeeping Workers), as reported in the OES data series for May 2013. Commercial noncertified applicators are paid
benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $18.34. We assume that there are no noncertified applicators applyi ng RUPs under the direct superv ision of certified applicators under age 16. Noncertified commercial applicator s applying RUPs under th e direct supervision of certified applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are assumed to earn 75% of the adult wage rate or $13.76.

Wage rates of noncertified private applicators th at apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators

For noncertified private applicat ors applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of certified applicators, we have identified the same three age groups as thos e for private applicators. For noncertified private applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unl oaded mean wage rate ($14.82) for Pesticide Handlers & Applicators (Standard Occupational Code 37-3012) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis tics (BLS, 2014d), to which is added 45% in benefits to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. EPA assumes that wage rates for private applicators under age 16 and 16-17 years-old ar e, respectively, 50% and 60% of the average wage rate for a noncertified private applicator applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicator. Assuming th at private applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of the total remuneration, we calculate average loaded wage rate for noncertified private applicators under age 16 to be $10.75 and for those aged 16 or 17 to be $12.89.

The loaded average overall wage rates for each age group and labor category appear in Table
3.3-11.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 Table 3.3-11: Applicator Loaded Average Hourly Wage Rates, by Age Group

Labor Category Under age 16 Age 16 to 17 18 years or older

Commercial applicators

Certified No commercial applicators in this age group $16.12 $21.49

Noncertified applying RUPs under the direct supervision $13.76 $18.34

Private applicators

Certified $25.98 $31.18 $51.96

Noncertified applying RUPs under the direct supervision $10.75 $12.89 $21.49

Source: Based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by th e Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (BLS 2014d).

Wage rates for state costs

Wage rates for state implementation costs are organized into three gr oups: Senior Technical, Junior Technical, and Clerical. Unloaded wage rates for these three groups are obtained from BLS (BLS, 2014c) for 11-0000, Management Occupa tions; 19-0000, Life, Phys ical, and Social Science Occupations; and 43-0000, Office a nd Administrative Support Occupations, respectively. We then load th e unloaded wage rates with benef it rate of 45% to obtain loaded wages. Table 3.3-12 presents the wage rates for each group of state costs.

Table 3.3-12: Wage Rates for State Costs

Senior Technical Junior Technical Clerical Unloaded Wage Rate ($/hr) 39.78 27.20 18.76

Benefits Factor 1.45 1.45 1.45 Loaded Wage Rates ($/hr) 57.69 39.44 27.21 Source: Unloaded wage rates and benefits factors are obtained from BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - May 2013 (BLS, 2014c)).



### 3.4 Results of the Cost Analysis

This section provides EPA’s cost estimate for each potential requirement that was considered for inclusion in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Pa rt 171. The estimated cost of each potential requirement is provided at the national level. The annualized costs of St ep 6 (see the 6-step methodology above) are presented in this section. Additional details on the calculation method, data, and cost results are provided in Appendix A.

In the information given below, and in Appendix A, EPA gives cost estimates by affected group. These groups include pesticide applicators who ar e certified and private, commercial, and state employees who do not have certification. Thes e applicators are either employed by, or the owners of farms, commercial pest control firms, railroads, state governments, and a plethora of other private, commercial, and publ ic entities that apply restrict ed use pesticides. Pesticide*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 dealers and registrants are also impacted by th e potential requirements . State governments are required by many of the potential requirements to implement the cha nges by changing state regulations and state plans and to carry out many of the activities under the potential requirements including training, administeri ng exams, and development of training and
examination materials.

A summary, including cost, of each potential requirement is given by category below. We provide a brief summary of the cost of each pot ential requirement in tabular form by affected entity. The data presented in these tables are th e present value of the cost over the ten-year time horizon and provide national level costs c onsidering the jurisd iction baselines (NC B ) and national level costs for the potential requirements (NC P ). This is followed by the national level incremental costs (NIC) from the national level cost for the potent ial requirement to the current national level cost of the jurisdiction baseline. Tables are followed by a br ief description of the costs of the potential requiremen ts. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpfu l for the reader to underst and the cost results.

Industry and state cost are presen ted together for each potential re quirement. Cost results follow a similar grouping as they do in the preamble of the rule. The sections are enhancement of private applicator competency standards and addi tion of private applicator categories, additional concurrent certification categories for commercia l applicators, predator control category for commercial and private applicator certificati on, examination and altern ate certification method security standards for commercial and private applicators, standard s for supervision of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervis ion of certified applicators, levels of supervision, and provisions for commer cial applicator recor dkeeping of applicator training for noncertified applic ators applying RUPs under the di rect supervision of certified applicators, age requirements for certified appl icators and noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervisi on of certified applicators, st andards for rece rtification of certified applicators, requirements for s ubmission, approval and maintenance of state certification plans, and federal ag ency certification plans; tribal certification plans; and EPAadministered federal certification plans.

Affected entities will have two years to b ecome compliant with th e potential regulatory requirements. As a result, most costs for the cu rrent and potential regulatory requirements start in Year 3 of the analysis. Costs incurred before Year 3 include state cost s to rewrite regulations and develop training programs a nd examination materials.

Some potential regulatory requi rements provide options for compliance to the implementing jurisdiction. For instance , a potential requirement may call for first-time private applicators to pass a written exam or complete a 12-hour traini ng course for initial certification. To estimate the unit cost of the potential regula tory requirement, we calculate the cost for an actor to comply with the more expensive option (e.g., a 12-hour training course is more costly than a written exam). However, EPA assumes that some re gions will choose the less expensive option under the potential regulatory requirement. For example, we assume that regions currently offering an
exam for initial certification of private applicators will continue to offer an exam. Hence, we calculate these regions’ unit costs of the regional baseline in the context of their compliance with the less expensive option.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 

### 3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicat or General Competency Standards

The potential requirements in this category woul d enhance private applicator core competency standards and certification requirements to more clearly reflect the knowledge and skills needed by private applicators to apply re stricted use pesticides safely and effectively. However, EPA believes the current requirements for commercial applicator general competency are adequate and thus they are not revised.

Table 3.4-1 below presents national-level Baseli ne, Total, and Incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is follo wed by a brief descripti on of the costs of the potential requirements.

Table 3.4-1: Annualized Costs of Enhancing Private Applicator General Competency
Standards 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)
Certification of Private Applicators

Exam or 8-hour training for private
certification Industry costs (Private Cert01) 19,051 17,072 1,979

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

State costs: administer exam or training (Private Cert-01) 75 40 35

Exam or 12-hour training for private
certification Industry costs (Private Cert02) 20,752 17,072 3,681

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

State costs: administer exam or training (Private Cert-02) 101 40 61

Exam or 16-hour training for private
certification Industry costs (Private Cert-03) 26,038 17,072 8,966

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

State costs: administer exam or training (Private Cert-03) 127 40 86

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

Certification of Private Applicato rs (Private Cert-01, -02, and -03)

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons seeking initial certification as private applicators.

The EPA’s proposal, Private Cert-02, would requ ire a written exam or completion of a 12 hour training course. Industry incremental costs are $3.7 million for the 12 hour training.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 The potential requirement Private Cert-01 would require a written exam or completion of an 8 hour training course for initial private certific ation. The national incr emental cost for the industry is $2.0 million annually.

The potential requirement Private Cert-03 would require a written exam or completion of a 16 hour training course, with industry incremental costs of $9.0 million.

These are high cost requirements, but many stat es have similar requirements and are in compliance as high baseline costs indicate.

For the EPA’s proposal (Private Cert-02), state costs are $4 thousand for developing the exam or the trainings and $61 thousand to administer the exam or 12-hour training. For Private Cert-01, state costs are $3 thousand for developing the exam or the tr ainings and $35 thousand to administer the exam or 8-hour training. For Private Cert-03, state co sts are $20 thousand for developing the exam or the tr ainings and $86 thousand to admi nister the exam or 16-hour training. States can choose between requiring cer tification training for th e specified time period
or a written certification exam for each of the potential requirements.



### 3.4.2 Application Method-Specific Categories

3.4.2.1 Establish Additional Concurrent C ertification Categor ies for Commercial Applicators

The potential requirements would establish addi tional, concurrent cert ification categories for commercial applicators using rest ricted use pesticides in fumigation (incl uding soil and non-soil fumigation), chemigation, aerial application, and de monstration and research such as university projects. Potential requirements address the elev ated risks associated with certain application methods and promote consistency in protections across jurisdictions.

The potential requirements propose the following commercial certificati on categories: aerial, chemigation, fumigation, and predator control. Table 3.4-3 presents the number of commercial applicators in each of these gr oups within the proposed certifica tion categories at the national level. See Chapter 3.3.1, Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 for state-level estimates.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 Table 3.4-3: Commercial Applicator Numbers by Potential Category

Region First-time
Certifications Existing
Certifications Total
Certifications Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Aerial Category 1,074 8,950 10,023

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Chemigation Category 57 817 875

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed General Fumigation Category 2,263 26,718 28,981

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Non-Soil Fumigation Category 1,803 26,718 28,521

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Soil Fumigation Category 459 22,543 23,002

Source: CPARD 2014 and EPA estimations.

The establishment of additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators would impose costs on individua ls or employers of individua ls who apply restricted use pesticides using methods included in the new concurrent certifica tion categories. Jurisdictions administering certification programs are also aff ected by these potential requirements. The cost of establishing additional concurre nt certification categories for co mmercial applicators would be significant for both applicator s and jurisdictions.

Table 3.4-4 below presents national- level baseline, total, and incr emental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements.

Table 3.4-4: Annualized Costs for Establishi ng Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Add commercial aerial category Industry costs (Comm Cert-01) 215 117 98

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-01) 9 0 9

Add commercial chemigation category Industry costs (Comm Cert-02) 18 1 16

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-02) 43 0 43*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 Add commercial general fumigation
category Industry costs (Comm Cert-03) 659 0 659

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-03) 53 0 53

Add commercial nonsoil fumigation categories Industry costs (Comm Cert-04) 368 236 131

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-04) 7 0 7

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

Establishing Additional Concu rrent Certification Categorie s for Commercial Applicators (Comm Cert-01, -02, -03, and -04)

Potential requirements would require that comm ercial applicators who intend to apply aerially, by chemigation, or through fumigation must be certified in a specifi c commercial category by passing a written exam. Potential requirements would also include commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories.

Commercial applicators who want to certify in the aerial category w ould also need to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; aquatic pest control; righ t-of-way pest control; industrial, in stitutional, structural and health related pest control; or public he alth pest control. Under this potential requirement, existing aerial applicators would be requi red to take a 30-minute aerial category exam, while first-time aerial applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. The Annual National Incremental Costs (ANIC) for commercial applic ators obtaining aerial certification are estimated to be $97 thousand (Co mm Cert-01), while state costs to develop the exams are estimated at $8 thousand (Table 3.4-4).

Commercial applicators who want to certify in the chemigation cat egory would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; or ornamental and turf pest control categories to qualify for the chemigation category. Under th e potential requirement, existing chemigation applicators would be required to take a 30-minute chemigation category exam. First-time chemigation applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. The ANIC for commercial applicators obta ining chemigation certification are estimated to be $16 thousand (Comm Cert-02), while state co sts to develop the exam s are estimated at $43
thousand.

Commercial applicators in the fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health related pe st control; regulatory pest contro l; or demonstration and research pest control categories. Under this potential requirement, existing fumigation applicators would*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 be required to take a 30-minute fumigation catego ry exam while first-time fumigation applicators
would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. Commercial applicators in the soil fumigation category would al so have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; ornamental a nd turf pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and research pest control categories to qualify. Howe ver, as the soil fumigators must comply with the label requirements now and under the potentia l requirement, the incremental cost for this potential requirement is zero, and not listed in the tabl e. Commercial applicators in the non-soil fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and research pest control to qua lify. Under the potential regulatory requirements,
affected actors would obtain ce rtification in soil fumigati on, non-soil fumigation, or general fumigation.

Commercial applicator incremen tal costs of obtaining non-soil fu migation certifications (Comm Cert-04) are estimated to be $131 thousand for commercial applicators employed by industry. State incremental costs to develop non-soil fumi gation certification exams are estimated at $7
thousand.

Finally, commercial applicator incremental cost s of obtaining general fumigation certifications (Comm Cert-03) are esti mated to be $659 thousand, which is th e largest of all new certification categories. This is because all jurisdictions, except three states, do not currently have the category, and thus would be fully impacted by the proposal if it b ecomes regulation.

In addition to the costs described above, these po tential requirements would also entail relatively small state costs of administering certification exams (Table 3.4-4).

3.4.2.2 New Certification Categor ies for Private Applicator

To address the elevated risks associated with certain application methods and to promote consistency in protections across states, the potential requirements would establish certification categories for private applicators using rest ricted use pesticides by aerial application, chemigation, or fumigation (including soil and non-soil fumigation). Potential requirements would no longer allow for the certificati on of applicators wh o are non-readers.

For the newly proposed certificat ion categories (aerial, chemiga tion, soil, non-soil, and general fumigation), EPA developed estimates of th e number of applicators by new category as presented in Table 3.4-5 below.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 Table 3.4-5: Private Applicator Numbers by Potential Category

Region First-time

Certifications Existing

Certifications Total

Certifications
Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Aerial Category 8 65 73

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Chemigation Category 519 7,415 7,934

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed General Fumigation Category 1,923 18,591 20,721

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Non-Soil Fumigation Category 325 4,061 4,386

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Soil Fumigation Category 1,619 14,716 16,335

Source: CPARD 2014 and EPA estimations.

Table 3.4-6 below presents nationa l-level annualized costs of poten tial requirements, baselines, and incremental costs for the affected parties. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements.

Table 3.4-6: Annualized Costs of New Certif ication Categories for Private Applicators 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Add private aerial category and require
exam or 4-hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert-04) 2 0 2

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

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-04) 24 0 24

Add private aerial category and require
exam or 8-hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert05) 5 0 5

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

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-05) 24 0 24

Add private chemigation category and require
exam or 4-hour training for
certification Industry costs (PRIVAT CERT-06) 191 18 172

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

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-06) 50 0 50

Add private chemigation category and require
exam or 8-hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert07) 377 18 359

State costs: administer training (Private Cert-07) 0.84 0.05 0.79

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-07) 50 0 50*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Add private general fumigation category and require exam or 4-hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert08) 621 0 621

State costs: administer training (Private Cert-08) 3 0 3

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-08) 53 0 53

Add private general fumigation category and require 8-hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert09) 1,242 0 1,242

State costs: administer training (Private Cert-09) 3 0 3

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-09) 53 0 53

Add private nonsoil fumigation categories and require exam or 4- hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert10) 102 24 78

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

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-10) 44 0 44

Add private nonsoil fumigation categories and require exam or 8- hour training for
certification Industry costs (Private Cert11) 198 24 174

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

State costs: develop exam (Private Cert-11) 44 0 44

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

Category Certification of Private Applicators (Private Cert-04 to -11)

Potential requirements would require that priv ate applicators who inte nd to apply aerially, by chemigation, or through fumigation would be cer tified in a specific private category by passing a written exam or completing a training course. Potential requirements also include private soil and non-soil fumigation categories. Training requirements of 4 and 8 hours would be included for each category. Of the categor y certifications, the incrementa l costs associated with the general fumigation category certification would be the highest (between $621 thousand and $1.2 million for 4 and 8 hours of training, respectively) as a result of the large number of applicators who would pursue certification. Th e aerial category is relatively lo w cost as a result of the small number of aerial applicators who would pursue cert ification. (See Table 3.4- 6) States would be*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 able to choose between training for the specified time period or a writte n exam for each of the potential requirements.

3.4.3 Examination and Alternat e Certification Method Securi ty Standards for Commercial and Private Applicators

Examination and alternate certific ation method security standard s for commercial and private applicators aim to improve the quality and administ ration of pesticide applicator certification. The potential requirements would add require ments for those seeking certification or recertification to present identi fication at the time of the session and for examination sessions to be proctored. Identification checks would take a few seconds of applicators’ and proctor’s time and is considered as a part of the proctoring cost because the proctor would check applicators’ identification (e.g., driver’s license) as th ey enter the exam or training room.

Administration requirements would primarily im pose costs on individuals or employers of individuals seeking to become certif ied or recertified private or co mmercial pesticide applicators,
as well as states administeri ng certification programs. Admini stration requirements would have a minimal industry impact on a per applicator ba sis but, nonetheless, individuals and employers affected by these requirements would pay an oppor tunity cost for their time or their workers’ time while fulfilling the requirements.

Costs of these potential requirements are presen ted together with the costs of the potential requirements that entail them. For example, in Table 3.4-6 above, jurisdictions’ costs of proctoring application method-specific category ex ams for private applicat or certification are presented together with th e industry costs.



### 3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of A pplicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators, Leve ls of Supervision, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of A pplicator Training for Applicators that
are not Certified

Noncertified applicators using rest ricted use pesticides under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator currently have minimal requirements fo r training or competency. They also have a high potential for exposure and may pose a risk to public health and the environment, if pesticides are misapplied. EPA evaluated severa l potential requirements that would change the training of the noncertified applicator that appl ies RUPs under the dire ct supervision of a certified applicator, clarify who can provide training to noncertified applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and clarify what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

The potential requirements would impact certif ied applicators employing noncertified applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of cer tified applicators, pest icide registrants, and states that implement the requirements and em ploy noncertified applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

40 Table 3.4-7 below presents national- level baseline, total, and incr emental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to un derstand the cost results. Costs of the potential requirements are significant, le d by requirements related to di rect line of sight and core competency training requirements.

3.4.4.1 Commercial Applicators

Table 3.4-7: Costs of Standards for Supervisio n of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Competency Qualifications for No ncertified Commercial Applicators

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

Commercial applicators would keep records of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision for five years Industry costs (Comm Sup-07) 835 244 591

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to pass core exam Industry costs (Comm Sup-02) 68,920 37,109 31,811

State costs: proctor core exam (Comm Sup-02) 241 112 129

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to complete training, be
handlers under the Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam Industry costs (Comm Sup-01) 23,207 16,629 6,578

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Commer cial Applicators
Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators Industry costs (Comm Sup-03) This proposal involves EPA codifying the current practices by jurisdictions which are in compliance with the proposal,
and thus the incremental cost is zero.

Communication between Supervisor and Noncertified Commercial Applicator Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision
would have to be within direct line of sight of supervisor Industry costs (Comm Sup-04) 32,292,715 17,400,777 14,891,938

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision
would have to have method of
immediate communication with supervisor Industry costs (Comm Sup-05) Little or no incremental cost as most certified and noncertified applicators own and communicate via cell phone.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

41 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

Competency Qualifications for Applicators A pplying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators (Comm Sup-01, -02, -04, -06, and -07)

There are four potential requirements EPA evaluate d to ensure the competency qualifications for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under th e direct supervision of certified commercial applicators.

The EPA’s proposal, Comm Sup-06, would require co mmercial applicators to keep records of the competency qualifications of the people work ing under their direct supervision and to keep the records for two years. The incremental co st of the requirements is estimated to be $324
thousand.

The potential requirement Comm Sup-07 would re quire commercial applicators to keep records of the competency qualifications of the people wo rking under their direct s upervision and to keep the records for five years. The incremental co st of the requirements is estimated to be $591
thousand.

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

The potential requirement Comm Sup-02 would requi re that individuals wo rking under the direct supervision of a certified commercial applicator establish competency by passing the core exam. EPA estimates the cost of this provision to be $31.8 million. The high cost of this potential requirement is due to a large number of noncertif ied applicators that would have to pass the
commercial core exam.

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicat ors Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators (Comm Sup-03)

The potential requirement would clarify the c ontent of the guidance provided by commercial applicators to the noncertified applicators applying RUPs unde r their direct supervision regarding the pesticide application they are c onducting. This would be, however, a no cost requirement as all certified appli cators are already in compliance.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

42 Communication between Certified Commercial App licator and Applicator Applying RUPs under their Supervision (Comm Sup-04 and -05)

There are two potential requirements related to the communication be tween certified and noncertified applicators.

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

The potential requirement Comm Sup-04 would re quire certified commercial applicators and individuals working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. EPA estimates industry costs of this potential re quirement at $15 billion. Under this potential requirement, EPA assumed commercial applic ators would generally prefer to replace noncertified applicators in thei r employment with certified ap plicators to comply with the potential requirement, and the wage difference between certified and nonc ertified applicators would represent the cost of this potential requ irement. EPA assumed that the industry would replace one-third of noncertified applicators in their employment with certified applicators under this potential requirement. This potential requir ement is costly, due to the large number of full time noncertified applicators that need to be repl aced with certified app licators, as only three states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement.

3.4.4.2 Private Applicators

Table 3.4-8: Costs of Standards for Supervisio n of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Private Applicator s and Establishing Levels of Supervision 1

Potential Regulation Type of

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

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Competency Qualifications for Noncertified Private Applicators
Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to complete training or be handlers under
the Worker Protection Standard Industry

costs (Private Sup-01) 1,867 1,228 639

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to complete training, be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard, or pass

core exam Industry

costs (Private Sup -02) 1,867 1,228 639

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Pr ivate Applicators

Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators applying RUPs Industry

costs This proposal involves EPA codifying the current practices by jurisdictions which are in compliance with the proposal, and thus the incremental cost is zero.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

43 Potential Regulation Type of

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

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000) under the direct supervision of certified private applicators. (Private Sup -03)

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

costs (Private Sup -04) 188,147 108,229 79,918

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have
to have method of immediate communication with supervisors Industry

costs (Private Sup -05) Little or no incremental cost as most certified and noncertified applicators own and communicate via cell phone.

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

Competency Qualifications for Applicators A pplying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Private Applicator (Private Sup-01and -02)

There are two potential competency qualifica tion requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicator.

The EPA’s proposal, Private Sup-02, would requi re the individuals working under the direct supervision of a private applicat or to establish competency by completing training specified in the rule, having a current designation as a handl er under the Worker Protection Standard, or by passing the core exam. EPA estimates that th is requirement would cost $639 thousand.

The potential requirement Private Sup-01 would re quire the individuals wo rking under the direct supervision of a certified privat e applicator to establish competency by completing training specified in the rule or by ha ving a current designation as a ha ndler under the Worker Protection Standard. A cost estimate equal to the EPA pr oposal (Private Sup-02) would result from this potential requirement because EPA assumed that under the both potential requirements, noncertified applicators would choose to comply by taking whichever training was less costly,
which in most cases would be to take the Work er Protection Standard ha ndler training, and EPA
estimated that cost.

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicat ors Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a Certified Applicator (Private Sup-03)

The potential requirement clarifies the content of the guidance provided by certified applicators to the noncertified applicators wi thout certification under their dire ct supervision regarding the pesticide application they are conducting. This is, however, a no co st requirement as all certified applicators are already in compliance as applicators are already doing this.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 Communication between Supervisor and Applicato rs Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applicator (Private Sup-04 and -05)

There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified applicators and those working under their direct supervision.

The EPA proposal Private Sup-05 would require certified applic ators and individuals working under their direct supervision to have a met hod for immediate communication during use of an RUP by the applicators. Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that in all jurisdictions most supervisors and noncer tified applicators appl ying RUPs under their supervision own and communicate vi a cell phone. Thus, EPA assume s that cost of the proposal to industry would be negligible or zero.

The potential requirement Private Sup-04 would require certified applicators and individuals working under their direct supervision to be w ithin each other’s direct line of sight. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this potential requirement at $80 million. Under this potential requirement, EPA assumed privat e applicators would generally prefer to replace noncertified applicators in their employment with certifi ed applicators to comply with the potential requirement, and the wage difference between ce rtified and noncertifi ed applicators would represent the cost of this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly, due to the large number of noncertified applicat ors that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as only three states are currently in complianc e with this potential requirement.



### 3.4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Appli cators and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators

Minimum age requirements for certified applicators aim to improve the safety of application of restricted use pesticides. There are currently no fe deral age requirements for certified applicators. This economic analysis evaluates two EPA propos als and two alternatives for commercial and private applicators: The EPA pr oposals would require commercial a nd private applicators to be 18 years old and the alternatives would require co mmercial and private app licators to be 16 years old. EPA also considered a pot ential requirement that would requi re private applicators to be 18 years old, but would allow for private applicator s 16 years and older to work on a farm owned by an immediate family member.

The potential age requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicat or are the same as those for cer tified applicators, a minimum age of 16 or 18 for noncertified applicators appl ying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and for the same reasons. EP A also considered a potential requirement that would require a minimum age of 18 years for non certified applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, but would allow for noncertified applicators 16 years and older to work on a farm owned by an immediate family member.

The cost of the potential requirements may be significant and would be borne primarily by employers, who will have to pay higher wages to older employees and in some cases switch to employing a commercial applicator instead of a priv ate applicator to appl y RUPs. It should be*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

45 noted that under EPA’s proposal currently certif ied applicators who are younger than 18 would be able to maintain their certification, but adolescents would not be allowed to obtain a certification unless they are of ag e. To the extent that adoles cents would be prevented from obtaining a certification, they may be paid for lower wage jobs, rather than applying RUPs. These costs would be hidden, because they are borne by adolescents who would have become certified, rather than those who are already certif ied. The potential requir ements would not allow for current noncertified applic ators applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of certified applicators under the age of 18 to continue to apply RUPs.

Table 3.4-9 below presents nationa l-level baseline, total and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results.

3.4.5.1 Commercial Applicators

Table 3.4-9: Costs of Minimum Age Requiremen ts for Certified Commercial Applicators 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National
Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Commercial Applicators
Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs (Comm Age-01) 1,178 1,178 0

Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs (Comm Age-02) 1,472 1,178 294

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

Minimum Age for Commercial Applicators (Comm Age-01and -02)

There are two potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for commercial applicators: all commercial applic ators would either have to be at least 16 years old or 18 years
old.

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-02) would require all commercial applicators to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that there are no commerci al applicators that ar e less than 16 years of age and that existing applicator s under 18 years of age would be “grandfathered in” and would not be affected by this requirement. Based on these assumptions, those affected by the minimum age requirement of 18 would be potential first time commercial applicat ors aged 16 or 17 years who would no longer be eligible to become certified. As a result, under the proposal, these underage applicators would be replaced with co mmercial applicators aged 18 years or older. EPA estimates that the loaded average wage rate for commercial applicator s aged 18 and older is $21.49 while the loaded wage rate for commerci al applicators aged 16 and 17 is $16.12. EPA further assumes that the average commercial a pplicator under the age of 18 years old works 16 weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per year. This is based on the fact that the typical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 17 year old commercial applicators apply pest icides for the entire 640 hours and that they apply RUPs 70% (448 hours per year) of the time that they are applying pesticides (EPA. 2014d). EPA believes*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

46 that the assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of the proposal. Based on the difference in employment costs of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certifi ed applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the proposal to be $294 thousand.

EPA assumes that there are no commercial applicat ors under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement (Comm Age-01) that imposes a mi nimum age requirement of 16 for commercial applicators would be a no cost requirement.

3.4.5.2 Private Applicators

Table 3.4-10: Costs of Minimu m Age Requirements for Cert ified Private Applicators 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Private Applicators
Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs (Private Age-01) 416 355 61

Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs (Private Age-02) 529 355 174

Minimum age requirement of 18; 16 for family members Industry costs (Private Age-03) 423 355 68

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

Minimum Age for Private Applicators (Private Age-01, -02, and -03)

There are three potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for private applicators: all private applicator s would have to be at least 16 years old (Private Age-01), all private applicators would have to be at least 18 years old (Private Ag e-02), or all private applicators would have to be at least 18 years old except pers ons working solely on a farm owned by a family member may be 16 or 17 years old (Private Age-03). EPA assumes that all private applicators under 18 are summer employ ees working 16 weeks per year at 40 hours per
week for a total of 640 hours. EPA also assume s that private applicator s make 20 applications per year at 4 hours per applica tion (a total of 80 hours) and th at 70%, or 56 hours, are spent making applications of RUPs (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014).

The EPA’s proposal, Private Age-02, related to private applicator minimum age requirement would require that all private applicators to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can currently be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under age 18 would be grandfathered in and ma y continue to work as certified applicators. Hence, under the potential regulatory requirement, first-time private applicator s aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 years would be replaced with private applicat ors aged 18 years or older. The loaded average wage rate for private applicators over the age of 18 years is $51.96 per hour while the loaded average wage rate for private applicators under the age of 18 years is $25.98 to $31.18. Based on the*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

47 difference in employment costs of private ap plicators younger than 18 a nd those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $174 thousand.

The potential requirement Private Age-01 related to private applicator age requirement would require that all private applicators be at least 16 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as young as 14 years old. Existing privat e applicators under the ag e of 16 years would be “grandfathered in” and allowed to continue to work as private applicators. EPA further assumes that 16- and 17-year old private applicators would not available to replace the first-time 14- and 15-year old private applicators. Hence, under the potential regulatory requirement, first-time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years would be replaced with hi red private applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators over the age of 18 years is $51.96, while the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators under 18 years is $25.98 for 14 and 15 year olds and $31.18 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the difference in employment costs of private ap plicators younger than 16 a nd those who are 16 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $61 thousand.

The potential requirement Private Age-03 related to private applicator age requirement would require private applicators who are family member s to be at least 16 year s old and those who are not family members to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as young as 14 years old, and that existing private a pplicators under the age of 18 years would be grandfathered in and may continue to work as pr ivate applicators. Unde r the potential regulatory requirement, all first-time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years and first-time private applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are not fa mily members would be replaced with private applicators aged 18 years or older. First-time private applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are family members would continue to apply restricted -use pesticides. The loaded average wage rate for private applicators over th e age of 18 is $51.96 per hour, the ra te for those who are 16 or 17 years old is $31.18 per hour, and th e rate for those who are 14 a nd 15 is $25.98 per hour. Based on the difference in employment costs of pr ivate applicators younger than 16, 16 and 17 years old, and 18, and applicators older than 18 years ol d, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $68 thousand.

3.4.5.3 Under The Supervision Applicators

a. Commercial under The Supervision Applicators

Table 3.4-11: Costs of Minimu m Age Requirements for Noncert ified Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Commercial Applicators 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Noncertified Applicators
Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs (Comm Age-03) 0 0 0

Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs (Comm Age-04) 62,249 49,461 12,789

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

48 Minimum Age of Applicators Applying RUPs un der the Supervision of Certified Applicators (Comm Age-03 and -04)

There are two potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervisi on of commercial applicators: all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct superv ision of commercial applicators must be at leas t 16 years old (Comm Age-03), an d all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of comm ercial applicators must be at least 18 years old (Comm Age-04).

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-04) would requir e all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under the potential requirement, all noncer tified applicators (f irst-time and existing), who are under the direct supervision of a commer cial applicator and are under the age of 18 years would be replaced by first-time noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator aged 18 years or older. EPA further assumes that the average noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of co mmercial applicators under the age of 18 years old works 16 weeks and 40 hours per week for a to tal of 640 hours per year. This is based on the fact that the typical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 17 year old noncertified applicat ors applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of commercial applicators apply pesticides for the entire 640 hours and, that they apply RUPs 50% (320 hours per year) of the time that they are applying pest icides (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). The loaded average wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators over th e age of 18 years is $18.34 per hour and $13.76 per hour for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervis ion of commercial applicators under the age of 18. Based on the difference in employment costs of non certified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of co mmercial applicators y ounger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry co sts of the potential re quirement would be $12.8 million. This is a large cost, due to several f actors; a sizeable differen ce between adolescent and adult noncertified wages, a considerable numbe r of applicators invol ved, and a substantial number of hours worked by adolescent noncertified applicators. EPA believes, however, that the assumptions made here are conservative a nd overestimate the impact of the proposal.

EPA assumes that there are no noncertified ap plicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial appl icators under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement (Comm Age-03) that would impose a minimu m age requirement of 16 for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct superv ision of commercial applicators would be a no cost requirement.

b. Private Noncertified Appli cators under The Direct Supervis ion of Certified Applicators*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

49 Table 3.4-12: Costs of Minimu m Age Requirements for Noncert ified Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applicators 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Noncertified Applicators
Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs (Private Age-04) 2,023 1,940 83

Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs (Private Age-05) 3,052 1,940 1,112

Minimum age requirement of 18; 16 for family members Industry costs (Private Age-06) 2,575 1,940 634

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

Minimum Age of Noncertified Applicators Appl ying RUPs under the Dir ect Supervision of Certified Applicators (Priva te Age-04, -05, and -06)

There are three potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervis ion of private applicators.

The EPA’s proposal (Private Age- 05) related to applicator age requirements would require all noncertified applicators applying RU Ps under the direct supervision of private applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under th is potential requirement, all non certified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 18 (both first-time and existing) are replaced by noncerti fied applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators aged 18 years or older. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervisi on of private applicators under age apply RUPs for 56 hours per year (EPA, 2014a). The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertifie d applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over th e age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired noncertified applicator s applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the di fference in employment costs of private applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 a nd older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $1.1 million.

The potential requirement Private Age-04 would require all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be at least 16 years old. Under this potential requirement, EPA assumes that all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private ap plicators under the age of 16 (both first-time and existing) would be replaced by noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct s upervision of private applicators aged 16 years or older. Noncerti fied applicators applyi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicat ors under age 16 years are assume d to apply pesticides for 80 hours per year (20 applications per year, 4 hours e ach on average), 70% of which is estimated to be spent applying RUPs for a total of 56 hour s (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertifi ed applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicat ors over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

50 hourly wage rate for hired noncertified applicat ors applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the difference in employme nt costs of noncertifi ed applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervisi on of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of th e potential requirement would be $83 thousand.

The potential requirement Private Age-06 would require all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators who are fa mily members to be at least 16 years old and those who are not family member s to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators appl ying RUPs under the direct supe rvision of private applicators under age 18 apply pesticides for 80 hours per ye ar, 70% of which is estimated to be spent applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). Under this potential requirement, all 14 and 15 year-old fa mily member noncertifi ed applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators would be replaced by hired noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct superv ision of private applicators aged 18 years or older. In addition, 16 or 17 y ear-old family member noncertifi ed applicators that apply on family farms would not be affected by Privat e Age-06; only the hired 16 or 17-year old noncertified applicators would be impacted by this alternative. EPA assumes that the latter would be replaced by noncertified applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertified applic ators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average h ourly wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the difference in employment costs of private ap plicators younger than 18 a nd those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $634 thousand.



### 3.4.6 Standards for Recertificati on of Certified Applicators

Standards for recertification of private and commercial applicators assure that certified applicators maintain core competencies and ke ep pace with the changing technology of pesticide application. They also ensure that the gene ral public, the environm ent and applicators are protected from misapplication a nd misuse. Potential requirements include maximum time requirements for recertification in the basic (cor e) and category certifications. Recertification requirements include trainings, exams or a combin ation of both and are to be determined by the

states.

The potential requirements primarily impact indi viduals who are certifie d applicators and their employers. EPA considers state costs of administ ering recertification programs to be small as many applicators recertify via continuing education trainings , which already have been developed by states. Applicators obtain stat e-required continuing education units (CEUs) by completing training, and states curr ently verify that applicators ge t required number of CEUs.

Recertification costs for commercial and private a pplicators will be presented in two parts: one; costs of potential requirements for recertificati on of general competency and two: costs of potential requirements for recertificat ion of new category certifications.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

51 3.4.6.1 Commercial Applicators

a. Core Competency Recertification

Table 3.4-13 below presents national-level base line, total, and incremental costs for each potential requirement for recertif ication of core competency of commercial applicators. The table is followed by a brief descri ption of the costs of the potentia l requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful
for the reader to understand the cost results.

Table 3.4-13: Cost of Establishing Standard s for Recertification of Commercial Certified Applicators – Core Competency 1

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Commercial Applicators

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

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Comm Recert01) 319 280 39

Exam for commercial core competency and category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Recert-02) 57,948 51,447 6,500

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Comm Recert02) 319 280 39

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

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Comm Recert04) 292 280 11

Exam for commercial core competency and category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Recert-05) 53,110 51,447 1,663

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Comm Recert05) 292 280 11

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

52 Commercial Applicators – Core Competency Re certification (Comm Rece rt-01, -02, -04, and 05)

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons seeking recertification as commercial applicators.

The EPA’s proposal, Comm Recert-01, would re quire recertification every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training for core competen cy and 6 hours of training per category, or by passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its in cremental cost is estimated at $6.5 million, which is much higher than the a lternatives Comm Recert-04 and -05, because
recertification is on a fast er cycle (every 3 years).

The potential requirement Comm Recert-02 w ould require recertification every 3 years by passing a written certificati on exam for core and all applicable cat egories. Its incremental cost is estimated at $6.5 million.

The potential requirement Comm Recert-04 w ould require recertification every 5 years by completing 6 hours of training for core competen cy and 6 hours of training per category, or by passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its in cremental cost is estimated at $1.7 million.

The potential requirement Comm Recert-05 w ould require recertification every 5 years by passing a written certificati on exam for core and all applicable cat egories. Its incremental cost is estimated at $1.7 million.

The potential requirements Comm Recert-04 and -05 would cost the same because the only
difference between them is that the latter does not have a training option and all have to take an exam, but EPA assumed that the exam would take applicators six hours on average (5 hours to prepare and 1 hour for exam taking time). Therefor e, it would take the sa me number of hours of applicators’ time whether recertification is completed by training or exam, thus the same incremental costs. Although cost s of these two potential require ments are high the baseline costs are also high – both due to a large number of applicators recertifying – resulting in relatively small incremental costs of $773 thousand. The sa me logic applies to the pair Comm Recert-01
and -02.

b. New Categories Recertification

Table 3.4-14 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement for recertification of commercial applicators in the proposed application method-specific categories. The table is followed by a brief de scription of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this informa tion is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

53 Table 3.4-14: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial Applicators – New Categories 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Commercial Applicators

Exam or six-hour training
for commercial aerial category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-01) 512 362 151

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-01) 2.39 1.55 0.84

Exam or six-hour training
for commercial aerial category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-01) 450 362 89

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-01) 2.06 1.55 0.51

Exam or six-hour training
for commercial chemigation category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-02) 28 6 21

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-02) 0.185 0.032 0.154

Exam or six-hour training
for commercial chemigation category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-02) 19 6 13

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-02) 0.124 0.032 0.092

Exam or six-hour training for commercial general fumigation category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-03) 1,325 1,054 271

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-03) 5.9 0.0 5.9

Exam or six-hour training for commercial general fumigation category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-03) 1,167 1,054 113

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-03) 3.63.5 0.10.0 3.43.5

Exam or six-hour training
for commercial non-soil fumigation category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert-04) 1,325 1,054 271

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-04) 5.9 0 5.9

Exam or six-hour training
for commercial non-soil Industry costs (Comm Cert-04) 1,167 1,054 113*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

54 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000) fumigation category recertification (every five years) State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert-04) 3.5 0 3.5

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

Commercial Applicators – New Categories Recertification (Comm Cert-01 and -04)

The potential requirements include different tr aining and examination options for commercial applicators seeking recer tification in application method-sp ecific categories. For each of application method-specific categories (aerial, chemigation, general fumigation, and non-soil fumigation), there are two options: the first optio n would require recertific ation every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam; and the second option would require recertification every 5 years by completing 6 hours of tr aining or by passing a written
exam. The recertification costs for different cat egories for commercial applicator are estimated to range from $13 to $151 thousand.

3.4.6.2 Private Applicators

a. General Competency Recertification

Table 3.4-15 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A desc ription of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost
results.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

55 Table 3.4-15: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – General Competency 1

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Private Applicators

Exam or 6-hour training for private general competency
recertification every three

years Industry costs (Private Recert-01) 50,020 36,394 13,627

State costs: administer
recertification exam (Private Recert-01) 516 509 7

Exam or 8-hour training for private general competency
recertification every three

years Industry costs (Private Recert-02) 58,786 36,394 22,392

State costs: administer
recertification exam (Private Recert-02) 516 509 7

Exam or 6-hour training for private general competency recertification every five

years Industry costs: (Private Recert-04) 39,943 36,394 3,549

State costs: administer
recertification exam (Private Recert-04) 512 509 4

Exam or 8-hour training for private general competency recertification every five

years Industry costs (Private Recert-05) 43,789 36,394 7,395

State costs: administer
recertification exam (Private Recert-05) 512 509 4

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

Private Applicators – General Competency Rece rtification (Private Recert-01, -02, -04, and - 05)

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons seeking recertification as private applicators.

The EPA’s proposal, Private Recert-01, would requi re recertification of general competency every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential requirement Private Recert-02 w ould require recertifica tion of general competency every 3 years by completing 8 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential requirement Private Recert-04 would require recertification of general competency every 5 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam, and the potential requirement Private Recert-05 would require recertification of general competency every 5 years by completing 8 hours of training or by passing a writt en exam. Private applicator costs of the potential requirements would range from $3.5 to $22.4 million. Potential requirements for general competency recer tification of private applicators are generally costly due to substantial*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

56 per-applicator costs (6 – 8 hours pe r applicator) and a la rge number of applicators that need to recertify.

b. Application Method-Specific Categories Recertification

Table 3.4-16 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A desc ription of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost
results.

Table 3.4-16: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – Application Method-Specific Categories 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Private Applicators

Exam or 3-hour training for aerial category
recertification every three

years Industry costs (Private Recert-01) 2.6 0.0 2.6

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert01) 0.015 0 0.015

Exam or 4-hour training for aerial category
recertification every three

years Industry costs: (Private Recert-02) 3.2 0.0 3.2

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert02) 0.015 0 0.015

Exam or 3-hour training for aerial category recertification every five

years Industry costs (Private Recert-04) 1.5 0.0 1.5

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert04) 0.009 0 0.009

Exam or 4-hour training for aerial category recertification every five

years Industry costs (Private Recert-05) 1.9 0.0 1.9

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert05) 0.009 0 0.009

Exam or 3-hour training for chemigation category Industry costs: (Private Recert-01) 270 13 257*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

57 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

recertification every three

years State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert01) 1.7 0.3 1.3

Exam or 4-hour training for chemigation category
recertification every three

years Industry costs: (Private Recert-02) 353 13 340

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert02) 1.7 0.3 1.3

Exam or 3-hour training for chemigation category recertification every five

years Industry costs (Private Recert-04) 166 13 153

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert04) 1.2 0.3 0.8

Exam or 4-hour training for chemigation category recertification every five

years Industry costs (Private Recert-05) 215 13 202

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert05) 1.2 0.3 0.8

Exam or 3-hour training for non-soil fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert-01) 761 143 619

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert01) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 4-hour training for non-soil fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert-02) 951 143 808

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert02) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 3-hour training for non-soil fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert-04) 509 143 367

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert04) 2.5 0 2.5

Exam or 4-hour training for non-soil fumigation Industry costs (Private Recert-05) 613 143 470*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

58 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000) category recertification every five years State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert05) 2.5 0 2.5

Exam or 3-hour training for general fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert-01) 761 143 619

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert01) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 4-hour training for general fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert-02) 951 143 808

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert02) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 3-hour training for general fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert-04) 509 143 367

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert04) 2.5 0 2.5

Exam or 4-hour training for general fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert-05) 613 143 470

State costs: administer
recertification exam or verify recertificationtraining (Private Recert05) 2.5 0 2.5

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

Private Applicators – Application Method-Speci fic Categories Recertification (Private Recert 01, 02, 04, & 05)

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for private applicators seeking recertification in a pplication method-specific categories.

For aerial and non-soil categories, Private Recert -01 and -02 would require recertification every 3 years, with Private Recert-01 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Priv ate Recert-02 requiring exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and- 05 would require recertif ication every 5 years, with Private Recert-04 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Pr ivate Recert-05 requiring exam or 4-hour training.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

59 For chemigation and general fumigation categories, Private Recert-02 would require recertification every 3 years by exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and-05 would require recertification every 5 years, with Private Recert-04 requi ring exam or 3-hour training and Private Recert-05 requiring ex am or 4-hour training.

Private applicator costs of the potential requir ements would range from $1.5 thousand (aerial category) to $808 thousand (gener al fumigation category). Most private applicators are not expected to have aerial certifi cation whereas many private applic ators are estimated to certify and recertify in general fumigation category, whic h explains the wide range of recertification

costs.



### 3.4.7 Requirements for Ge neral Administration

There are several proposed new requirements th at are administrative in nature, which would include recordkeeping requirements for indus try, and requirements for state and federal governments to implement the changes in the rule.

3.4.7.1 Dealer Recordkeeping

The Agency is proposing new recordkeeping re quirements for dealers of restricted use pesticides. Under the proposal, dealers selling RUPs to both pr ivate and commercial applicators would be required to keep r ecords of RUP sales, includi ng information on what RUP was purchased and the date, the iden tity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the applicator is certified.

3.4.7.2 Jurisdiction Administration

The costs of the potential requirements in this ca tegory are state costs, and capture the cost of changing jurisdiction requirements to reflect the rulemaking.

3.4.7.3 Federal Administration

This category includes the potenti al requirements for EPA for revi ewing the plans or programs of jurisdictions and federal agen cies, and for revising EPA-ad ministered tribal plans.

Table 3.4-17 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is follo wed by a brief descripti on of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estima tion method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results.

Table 3.4-17: Costs to Revise Requirements fo r Dealer Recordkeepi ng and the Submission, Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans 1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

60 Dealers maintain
records of restricted use pesticide sales Industry costs (Admin-01) 749 749 0

Revise state regulations State costs: implementation (Admin-02) 119 0 119

Submit state plans and report certified applicator data State costs: implementation (Admin-03) 4 0 4

EPA review of jurisdiction and federal agency plans &

programs EPA costs: implementation (Admin-04) 41 0 41

Revise EPAadministered tribal plans EPA costs: implementation (Admin-06) 4 0 4

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

Dealers Maintain Records of Restrict ed Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01)

The EPA proposal Admin-01 would re quire pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, including the pesticide(s) purchas ed, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisd ictions are already doi ng these activities.

Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03)

The EPA proposal Admin-02 would re quire all jurisdictions to rewr ite their laws and regulations, and to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. EPA assumes that all jurisdictions woul d need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total cost of $119 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction re gulations. Since the potential regulatory requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, regu lations, and plans, EPA assumes that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each of the two years.

Another EPA proposal, Admin-03, would require ju risdictions to submit the revised plans to
EPA. EPA estimates a total incr emental cost at $4 thousand.

Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06)

There are two EPA proposals being considered that relate to federal ce rtification and tribal certification plans. The first po tential requirement would be to update tribal certification plans (Admin-06). A total incremental cost is estimated at $4 thousand. One other potential requirement would be to codify existing policy re quiring federal agencies to conform to the same standards as jurisdictions for im plementing certification programs (Admin-04). EPA estimates a total incremental cost at $41 thousand.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Options for Amending the Rules Governing C ertified Pesticide Applicators

EPA is proposing revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators ru le that would balance improvements in the protections to certified pesticide applicators, the environment, and the public against the additional cost s to applicators and employers of applicators. Out of the potential requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the requirements the Agency is proposing.

Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements. Identifier Brief Description

Private Cert-02 Initial Certif ication of Privat e Applicators
Private Cert-13 Eliminate Non-reader Certification Comm Cert-01;
Private Cert-04 New Aerial Category (Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) Comm Cert-04;
Private Cert-10 New Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation (Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) Comm Cert-05;
Private Cert-12 New Predator Control Category for Commercial and Private Certified Applicators Comm Cert-06; Comm Recert-03; Private Cert-15;
Private Recert-03 New Security Standards for Examinations or Training

Comm Sup-01 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator

Comm Sup-06 Retain Records of Competency Standards for Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervis ion of Commercial Applicators

Private Sup-02 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator Comm Sup-03; Private Sup-03 Instruction Given To Noncertifi ed Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commerc ial and Private Applicators Comm Sup-05; Private Sup-05 Communication between the Superv ising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator Comm Age-02; Private Age-02 Minimum Age of 18 for Commerci al and Private Applicators

Comm Age-04; Private Age-05 Minimum Age of 18 for Noncertifie d Applicators under the Direct Supervision of a Ce rtified Applicator

Comm Recert-01 Commercial Applicator Recertifica tion: Exam (Core and Appropriate Categories) or 6 CEUs for Core + 6 CEUs per Category Certification;
Three Year Recertification Interval

Private Recert-01 Private Applicator Recer tification: Exam or 6 CEUs + 3 CEUs per Category Certification; Three Year Recertification Interval Admin-01 Dealer Recordkeeping of RUP sales*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 Identifier Brief Description
Admin-02 and
Admin-03 Requirements to Update State Plans

Admin-04 and
Admin-05 Review of Federal Agency Plans an d Programs, Certification Program in Indian Country, and EPA Administered Plans
Admin-06 Revise EPA- Administered Plans

This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the proposed revisions to the Certific ation of Pesticide Applicators rule, and describes the reasons why EPA is proposing specific options. Chapter 2 qualitatively descri bed the benefits of different requirement options in terms of providi ng better information, greater protection, and/or more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the cost of each requirement, which is predominantly the opportunity cost of time. Th e emphasis of a cost-ben efit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of (1) providing improved protections to certified and noncertified applicators, the environment, and the public from use of RUPs and (2) minimizing the costs to agriculture, other pest control industries, states, and small businesses. Some of the proposed changes are not discussed here for two reasons. First, not all changes were subject to a rigorous cost/benefit analysis, e.g., administrative requirements for states to rewrite their guidance to come into compliance with the new regulations. Second, some proposals merely codify current practice or existing policy.

In weighing the relative advant ages and disadvantages of the options, EPA considered the full range of information brought by various stak eholder groups involved in the regulatory development process ( e.g. , professional pesticide applic ator organizations, CTAG, state regulators, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing commodity producers). Only the information relevant to the costs and benefits of specific proposals is discussed in this chapter. This includes factors such as equi ty considerations ( e.g. , potential distribution of costs) and the f easibility of implementing a requi rement given state regulatory experiences. A discussion of all information provided through the re gulatory process is discussed in the NPRM for this proposed rule.



### 4.1 Proposed and Alternative Options for Revising Initial Certification
Standards

4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicat or General Competency Standards

The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule cu rrently requires applicants seeking certification as private applicators to demonstrate competency to use or supervise the use of RUPs either by completing an approved training program or thr ough an alternate mechanism, for example, by passing an exam. States may require private app licators to demonstrate competency by taking an exam or through another state-identified and EPA- approved mechanism, e.g., a training course.

Private Cert-02: Exam or 12-hour Training for Initial Certification of Private Applicators*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 The proposed and alternative private applicator competency standards (P rivate Cert-02, Private Cert-01 and Private Cert-03) would cover 11 esse ntial topics, including additional information about equipment, responsibilities for supervis ing noncertified applicators, and laws and regulations. The proposal and th e alternatives differ in the sp ecific minimum requirements for the content of and mechanisms to ensure priv ate applicator competen cy. For the purpose of estimating the cost of each alternative, we di fferentiate between the pr oposals by the expected amount of time that certified app licators would need to prepare fo r an exam or spend in training, although the proposal does not require a spec ific minimum number of hours for private applicator certification through training programs. The proposed option (Private Cert-02) has minimum standards that we estimate will require about 12 hours of preparation or training of a private applicator based on EPA’ s experience with training programs in territories where EPA administers the applicator certific ation program. EPA also consid ered a less stringent proposal. The less stringent standards means that important topics would not be explored as fully, although the time required would be less (a bout 8 hours). EPA also consid ered a more stringent proposal that would cover the necessary topics in more de tail (about 16 hours). Because most of the cost of these proposals is a result of the time of the prospective certified applicators, the most stringent proposal (Private Cert-03) would be the most expensive (about $9.0 million per year above current costs), and the least stringent (Pri vate Cert-01) is the le ast expensive (about $2.0 million per year). The cost of the proposed opt ion is between the two, at about $3.7 million per year. EPA chose to propose the option it did b ecause the proposal balances the burden to the private applicator candidates with the need to ensure that private applicators have sufficient information, knowledge, and skills necessary in order to apply RUPs ef fectively and without unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed le vel of required detail better outlines the knowledge and skills EPA expects private applicators to have in order to apply RUPs effectively
and without unreasonable a dverse effects.



### 4.1.2 Establish Application Method-Sp ecific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

EPA is proposing three new federal categories fo r commercial applicator certification: aerial application, soil fumigation, and non-soil fumigati on. Pesticide applicat ion and agricultural practices are increasingly speci alized. Improper use of appli cation equipment may lead to increased risks to the health of the applicat or, workers, the environment, and the public. Additionally, certain categories of pesticides (e.g., fumigants) and application methods (aerial application) pose an inherently hi gher risk of acute injury or d eath if the applicator does not
understand and follow the label. These increased risks can be reduced by requiring applicators to demonstrate a specific set of competencies re lated to the application method being used.

EPA is proposing to create similar categories fo r private applicators. Private applicators performing soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or aerial applicator w ould require category
certification as well. Initial cert ification would require that privat e applicators pass an exam or complete training (about 4 hours). An option fo r each category would be for a more rigorous exam or completion of a more de tailed training (about 8 hours).*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 States may also bear costs asso ciated with the development of new exams or training material
and with the cost of administer ing new certification categories.

Comm Cert-01: New Aerial Category

EPA is proposing to create an application met hod-specific category for ae rial application (Comm Cert-01). Applying pesticides with a plane or helicopter poses a unique set of risks and challenges to the applicator, bystanders, and the e nvironment. There is heightened potential for spray drift and elevated potential for off-target applications and thus an increased need for specialized application equipment to be calibrated accurately; these risks are specific to aerial application. The annualized national incrementa l cost of adding this category is about $258,000 per year, including $98,000 annually for in itial certification and $151,000 annually for
recertification. This cost includes the time for applicators to prepare for an exam or attend a training program and for states to develop materials for the new category training (estimated at $9,000). EPA concluded that this additional cost, which amounts to about $29 per year per certified aerial applicator, was justified to ensure that applicators applying pesticides by aircraft are able to apply products safely and in a ma nner to manage drift and potential exposure to adjacent areas and bystanders.

Private Cert-04: New Aerial Application Category, Exam or Four-Hour Training

The proposal for a new private category certificati on in aerial application that would require an exam or training (four hours) (Private Cert-0 4) is expected to co st about $26,000 annually. There are expected to be only ar ound 70 private aerial applicators, resulting in an annual perapplicator cost of $371. The altern ative, an exam or training (ei ght hours) (Private Cert-05), is expected to cost $29,000 annually. EPA chose the proposed option because of the importance of ensuring that aerial applicators have the knowle dge and skills necessary to apply RUPs by aircraft without causing unreasona ble adverse effects. The proposed option is slightly less expensive, and it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary information.

Comm Cert-04: New Commercia l Applicator Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation

Because of the specialized nature of fumiga tion applications, EPA decided that additional competence was necessary for applicators who use fumigants. EPA considered an alternative that creates only one applicati on method-specific category for general fumigation, which would cover both soil and non-soil pest control (Co mm Cert-03), but decide d to propose two new application method-specific categories; one for soil fumigation and one for non-soil fumigation (Comm Cert-04). EPA chose the proposed option because the two types of fumigant application differ significantly – by equipment, application site, bystander exposure, risks presented, and other specifics, including the chemicals used. In addition, many fumigators specialize in either soil or non-soil fumigation. Treat ing these two categories as sepa rate allows more detailed information about each topic in a given amount of time. In addition, the incremental costs are lower for the two categories than for a combined category. The national incremental costs for the two categories is about $415,000 annually (including $138,000 annually for initial*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 certification, which includes the cost of th e state developing examination materials, and $277,000 annually for recertification. The cost of the joint category is about $992,000 annually, of which about $716,000 is for the initial certif ication and $277,000 is fo r recertification.

The cost is lower for two categories, because pesticide label requirements on soil fumigants currently require training equiva lent to that which would be needed to become certified in the soil fumigant category or allow st ates to require certification in an EPA-approved soil fumigation category in lieu of the training. If applicat ors who currently perform soil fumigation were required to be certified in a general fumigati on category, they would face additional costs to
become familiar with or trained in the non-soil uses.

Private Cert-10: New Private Applicator Categories for Soil and Non-Soil Fumigation

The incremental cost for establis hing separate soil and non-soil fumigation categories for private applicators is estimated to be about $122,000 a nnually. One alternative, a general fumigation category covering both soil and non -soil fumigation (Private Cert-08), would be more costly at $674,000 annually because, as with commercial a pplicators, private applicators making soil fumigations must already be tr ained under the pesticide label re quirements. An alternative requirement to pass an exam or complete a more detailed training for certification in the two categories (Private Cert-11) would cost about $218,000. EPA c hose the proposed option because it ensures that the training progr ams cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary inform ation at additional cost. Despite being lower cost than alternative options, it will ensure that soil a nd non-soil fumigant applic ators have the knowledge and skills necessary to use fumigants w ithout causing unreasonable adverse effects.

New Category for Chemigation – Not Proposed

EPA considered adding both private applicator and commercial applicator categories for chemigation, the application of a pesticide through ir rigation equipment, the application of a pesticide through irrigation equipment. Chemig ation has a relatively high potential for environmental contamination if not conducted prope rly, and, due to the nature of the equipment, chemigation poses additional risks to the a pplicator or those working under his direct supervision. However, based on a review of in cidents, most of the chemigation risks are associated with chemicals that are covered by th e soil fumigation category. The incremental cost of adding this category for commercial applic ators is about $80,000 pe r year; about $59,000 for initial certification (which includes state costs for deve loping materials) and $21,000 for
recertification. There ar e an estimate 875 commercial chemigat ors, so the cost per chemigator would be about $91. The cost of a private chemigation category is estimated to be $222,000 with a four-hour training requirement (Private Cert-06) and $409,000 with an eight-hour training requirement (Private Cert-07). Despite the relatively low cost, EPA decided not to propose this new category: EPA does not have sufficient data, such as evidence of significant health or environmental impacts, to justify the creati on of an additional certi fication category for chemigation. The proposed fumigation categories are likely to address the major risks associated with chemigation. Additional benefits from a chemigation category are likely to be small in comparison to the costs.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

### 4.1.3 Standards for Supervis ion of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training

Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, these noncertified applicators also have a high poten tial for exposure and could pose a risk to public health and the environment if they misapply RUPs. The Agency is proposing changes to the training of the noncertified person and is clarifying the informa tion supervisors must provide and what it means to be under the direct supervis ion of a certified applicator.

Comm Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncert ified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Commercia l Certified Applicator

The Agency is proposing to establish the competen cy of a noncertified applicator working under the direct supervision of a commer cial certified applicator in one of three ways (Comm Sup-01). First, noncertified applicators can complete propos ed training outlined in the regulation. Second, noncertified applicators can complete the WPS handler training (speci fied under 40 CFR 170). Third, noncertified applicators may pass the commercial applicator core exam 5 . These proposals are expected to cost non certified applicators working under th e direct supervision of commercial applicators, their supervisi ng applicators or employers a bout $6.6 million per year.

An alternative for commercial applications is to limit noncertified applicators to only those who have passed the commercial applicator core ex am (Comm Sup-02). This alternative would be substantially more expens ive than the proposed alternative. The estimated cost of Comm Sup-02 is $31.8 million per year. While passing the co mmercial core exam may be a more reliable option for establishing competency, the additional benefits over an annual, focused training do not outweigh the additional cost.

Private Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncer tified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator

EPA is proposing the same three options for non certified applicators wo rking under the direct supervision of private applicator s. These proposals are expected to cost noncertified applicators working under the direct supervisi on of private applicat ors and their supervising applicators or employers $639,000 per year.

EPA considered an alternative to the proposed option that would limit the ways of establishing the competency of noncertified applicators to co mpletion of the training proposed under the rule or completion of the WPS handler training (Priva te Sup-02). EPA did not choose this alternative because it was no less expensive than the propos ed option (both had an annual cost of $639,000),

5 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial applicator. The applicator must also pass
category exam.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 and provides less flexibility of private appli cators and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision to decide how to meet th e qualifications.

Comm Sup-06: Retain Records of Training for N oncertified Applicato rs Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercia l Applicators for Two Years

EPA is also proposing that commer cial certified applic ators supervising non certified applicators retain records of the training for two years (Comm Sup-06). The estimated cost of this requirement is $324,000 per year. Keeping records of the training is important because to ensure the safety of the noncertified applicators wo rking under the supervis ion of the certified applicators. Requiring commercial applicators to maintain record s of noncertified applicators’ training would increase the likeli hood that the noncertified app licators 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 enfor cement program. EPA considered an alternative requirement to maintain records for five years (Comm Sup-07). Retention of records for five years has an annual cost of $591,000, or an additional cost of $267,000 over the proposal. The extra expense of the longer retention period is not justified becau se the current recordk eeping requirements for commercial applicators is two years and has prov en to be an adequate retention period to determine compliance.

EPA is prohibited under FIFRA from requiring private applicators to keep records, so EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed requirements.

Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03: Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Co mmercial and Private Applicators

In addition to general training or knowledge, the Agency is proposing to clarify the instructions for each specific application that must be give n to noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators. Curre ntly the supervising commercial or private applicator must provide guidance on performing the application and information on how to contact the supervisor. The proposal wo uld specify that the supervising commercial or private applicator must provide a copy of all app licable labeling to each noncertified applicator for each supervised application; provide specif ic instructions related to each application, including the site-specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain and describe how to comply with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03). EPA did not consider alternative options becau se this proposal is a clarifica tion of the existing requirements
and because the estimated incremental cost of these proposed options is zero.

Comm Sup-05 and Private Sup-05: Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator

EPA is proposing to replace the current requirem ent for the supervising commercial or private applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor (such as a cell phone number), w ith a requirement for the supe rvising commercial or private*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 applicator to ensure the noncertified app licator can communicate immediately with the supervising applicator (Comm S up-05 for commercial applicator s, Private Sup-05 for private applicators). This immediate communication st andard could be satisfied by the supervising applicators ensuring that they and all noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision have cell phones, two-way radios, or other forms of communication technology and contact information for the supervisors. Im mediate communication between the supervising applicator and the noncertified appli cator is critical if the noncer tified applicator has a question before application or encounters an emergency situation related to the misapplication. This was a low cost option (estimated to be zero) because most certified applicators and the noncertified applicators have cellular phone s which can be used for immediate communication, so EPA
decided that the benefits of immediate communication outweigh the minimal cost.

EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator maintain the noncertified applicat or in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm Sup04 and Private Sup-04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in hilly, forested, or obstructed view areas, it woul d require commercial or private applicators to hire more certified applicators instead of noncertified applicat ors, thus incurring higher labor costs. As a result, it would be extremely expensive (about $80 million annually for private applicators and about $14.9 billi on annually for commercial applic ators). At the same time, it would not be substantially more protective than the option chosen; in some locations, being in sight would not necessarily mean being in immediate communication.



### 4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators

Comm Age-02 and Private Age-02: Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators

The Agency is proposing to establish a minimum ag e of 18 for a person to become certified as a commercial (Comm Age-02) or private (Private Age-02) applicator. These proposals are expected to cost about $294,000 for commercia l applicators and a bout $174,000 for private applicators annually. It is unclear who would ultimately bear these costs, but it is likely that the impacts would fall primarily on the adolescent applicator who might find opportunities limited if
he or she could not obtain certi fication. Employers of certified commercial applicators could bear some costs in that they are expected to pay higher wages, on aver age, to older, more experienced applicators. However, the costs are unlikely to reflect actual increases in labor costs since adolescents can still be employed to work with non-RUP pesticides. In those cases where an adolescent private applicator would have b een used, he or she would likely be a family member of the farm owner/operator. The farm would have to assign an adult family member, presumably at a higher opportunity cost, to ma ke the RUP application and in some situations farms would have to pay a commerci al applicator to apply RUPs.

EPA decided that these costs are justified be cause there is current ly no minimum age for certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to hand le some of the highest risk pesticides. EPA estimates that there are a bout 200 adolescents who are certified private applicators and fewer than 200 adolescents who ar e certified commercial a pplicators. The cost per adolescent of this proposal is therefore about $1,500 per y ear per adolescent commercial*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 applicator and $900 per year per ad olescent private applicator. As ide from avoiding the risks to the adolescents from pesticide exposures, discusse d in Chapter 6, adolescents generally lack the experience and judgment about consequences of inappropriate behavior. The heightened potential for immature decision making places the applicator, the public, and the environment at significant risk if pestic ides are mishandled.

EPA also considered establishing a minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either commercial or private applicator s (Comm Age-01 and Private Age-01) . On the commercial side,
we estimate the incremental costs and benefits to be zero since there are likely no certified commercial applicators under 16 year s of age due to various labor laws and business practices. The cost to private applicators is estimated to be about $61,000 annually. EPA estimates that there are 55 to 60 certified privat e applicators under 16 at any gi ven time, implying a cost per adolescent protected of about $1,100 per year. Thus, at approximately the same cost per adolescent, about 140 more adoles cents are protected under the proposal. EPA also considered an additional option for private app licators: a requirement for a pers on to be at least 18 years old, with a minimum age of 16 only for private appli cators who are family members on family farms (Private Age-03), which has an estimated cost of about $68,000 annually. This option would cover just over 100 adolescents, including hired a pplicators of 16 or 17 y ears of age, implying a cost of around $680 per year pe r adolescent protected. Although these alternatives are less expensive, EPA decided that the additional expens e of a minimum age of 18 is justified because of the risks posed to the adolesce nt, bystanders, and the environment.



### 4.1.5 Age Requirements for Noncertifie d Applicators Using RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators

Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05: Minimum Age for Noncertified Applicators

To protect noncertified applicators working unde r the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators as well as human health and the environment, EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age for noncertified applicators. The proposed minimum age for persons to qualify as noncertified applicators under the di rect supervision of private a nd commercial applicators is 18 (Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05). EPA made th is decision for the sa me reasons as choosing a minimum age of 18 for certified applicators. Younger people are more likely to lack the experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unn ecessary exposure to RUPs. These proposals are estimated to be expensive – about $12.8 m illion annually for commer cial applicators and about $1.1 million for private applicators. Cost s are driven by estimates of the number of adolescents applying RUPs under the supervision of certified applicators. EPA estimates that there are over 11,000 such adolesce nts working under the supervisi on of commercial applicators, meaning that the proposal costs about $1,100 per adol escent applicator. EPA also estimates that there are 2,800 adolescents working under the superv ision of private appli cators, resulting in a cost per applicator of about $400 per year. The lower cost per adolescent working under a private applicator is due to many fewer hours an y one adolescent on farm spends applying RUPs.

EPA considered less expensive alternatives, as we ll. The alternatives include a minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicators working under the di rect supervision of commercial applicators*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 (Comm Age-03). As with certified applicators, this option is es timated to have zero costs and
benefits due to a lack of adolescents under 16 wo rking in these jobs. A similar alternative was considered for noncertified applicators working u nder the supervision of a private applicator (Private Age-04). An additional alternativ e (Private Age-06) would require noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of private app licators to be 18, but with an exception for noncertified applicator s under the direct supervision of a private applicator who is also an immediate family member of the noncer tified applicator. These alternatives were estimated to be less expensive than the proposed alternative. For private applicators, we estimate the cost of the minimum age of 16 to be a bout $83,000 annually, or about $120 for each of the estimated 690 adolescents applying RUPs, and fo r a minimum age of 18 but with a minimum age of 16 for family members to be about $634,000 a nnually, or about $920 per adolescent. Thus, on the basis of the cost per a dolescent protected, the proposal provides the greatest cost effectiveness even though it is more costly in total.



### 4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators

EPA is proposing new standards for recertification of both private and commercial applicators. The proposed recertification requ irements would establish a maxi mum duration of three years for
certifications and set minimum standards for con tinuing education programs. Security standards discussed in Chapter 4.1.7 apply to recertification as well.

Comm Recert-01: Commercial Applicator Rece rtification – Exams or Six CEUs for Core Recertification plus 6 CEUs for Each Cate gory, Three Year Recertification Interval

The proposal establishes requirements for recertif ication of commercial applicators – either passing exams relevant to existing certifications or completing a specifi c number of continuing education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing comp etency. EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50
minutes of educational contact time. For commer cial applicators, the pr oposed recertification training requirements are six CEUs for core certification and six CEUs per category of certification (Comm Recert-01), with recertification admi nistered by the states.

The estimated cost of these proposals is about $6.5 million annually for commercial applicators. This estimate only includes costs to applicators, it does not include the costs to states of altering and administering recertifi cation at shorter interval.

The Agency considered an alternative with the same recertification requi rements at five year intervals (Comm Recert-04) rather than three years. The esti mated annual cost is about $1.7 million per year. This option is substantially lo wer in cost because most jurisdictions already meet or exceed the requirement. Only one state, Maine, has a recertifica tion period of six years; all others are five years or fe wer. While many states do not sp ecify requirements to recertify in core categories, most require a sufficient num ber of CEUs that, with some reallocation, applicators would face few ch anges to meet the requirements of this alternative.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 While substantially more expensive, the proposal o ffers substantially higher benefits as well. Maintaining competency necessities that a pplicators are knowledgeable about changing technology, product reformulations , new labeling and regulator y requirements, and other essential labeling information. Applicators also must be remi nded about personal safety and basic application principles (Anger, et al ., 2009). A three-year recertif ication period ensures that even those commercial applicators who dela y obtaining the required training receive new information and are reminded of safety protocols at a reasonable interval . Moreover, the same training requirement, concentrated into a three year period, permits more content and more rigor than would be obtained if spread over five years. The adva ntage of the proposals over the
alternatives is that it ensu res a continuing level of compet ency among certified applicators by more frequent recertification, which w ill help to reduce th e risk of RUPs.

Two other alternatives for commercial applicat or recertification were considered that would require passing an exam, wit hout the option of training or CEUs, over three years (Comm Recert-02) or five years (Comm Recert-05). EPA assumes that the option of exam is equivalent in effort to obtaining CEUs; therefore the estimat ed annual costs of these options are the same as the respective alternative allowing an exam or CEUs . These alternatives, which rely on an exam without the options of ce rtification by CEUs, have less flexibili ty for the certified applicators, and also impose an additional burden on the certifying authority, which would be required to
hold exams.

Private Recert-01: Exams or Six CEUs for Ge neral Recertification plus Three CEUs for Each Category, Three Year Recertification Interval

The proposal is similar to that for commercial applicators, but with fewer CEUs required for category certification (six CEUs for general private applicator certification and three CEUs per category). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to be $13.6 million per year, which is approximately $30 per year per priv ate applicator. As with commerc ial applicators, the benefits are derived by maintaining the competency of private applic ators given changing technology, product reformulations, new labeli ng and regulatory requirements, and new practices to better control undesirable effects of pe sticide exposure. Applicators also must be reminded about personal safety and basic application principles.

For private applicators, EPA considered requiri ng private applicators to obtain eight CEUs for general private applicator certification and an additional four hours of training per application method-specific category. If recertification woul d take place every three years (Private Recert02), the estimated cost is about $22.4 million, or $50 per applicator per year, not including the cost of recertification in application-specific ca tegories. If the recert ification period would be every five years (Private Recert-05), the estimat ed cost is about $7.4 million, or $16 per year per private applicator. Finally, if six CEUs were requ ired to maintain general certification over five years (Private Recert-04), the cost is estim ated to be $3.5 million. Impacts would be concentrated, however, in fewer than 20 states. EPA selected a three-yearrecertification period over the five year option because of the benefits of more frequent training to maintain safety and competency and the lower CEU requirement because the benefits of more training do appear to justify the substantial increase in cost.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 

### 4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Comme rcial and Private Applicators

The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for hold ing the certifica tion exams and conducting training. These changes may impose co sts on states and othe r jurisdictions in administering exams or trainings or in approving CEUs for recertification.

The Agency is proposing change s to the requirements for ho lding the exam and conducting training: that exam takers provi de identification for themselves, and that the exams be written, proctored, “closed book” exams. Three are multip le line item designations are for costing purposes, because initial and rece rtification exams, and for diffe rent periods of recertification (three vs. five years) were considered separately.

There are substantial benefits to closed-book, pr octored exams. These standards ensure the security of the exams, reduced the burden on cert ifying authorities to update exams after security breaches, and limiting instances where candidates taking an exam can cheat. The value of setting federal standards for examin ation practices is that states, employers, and the public can be confident that all certified applicators have met a consistent standard with out having to verify the examination practices of each state. Certif ying authorities using EPA-developed exams or sharing a state-developed exam w ith another state have confiden ce that the exam administration would meet a consistent security standard. Confirming the identi ty of the test takers would ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requir ements. It would also help prevent persons from taking a cer tification exam or training or at tending a recertification training session in the place of the actual candidate, there by limiting certification to the candidates who are qualified.

In addition to verifying the identity of test ta kers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing policy related to the security of the exam pro cess. These standards include requiring that the exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requi ring closed-book exams to ensure that no outside
materials are used in the exam. These cha nges should also ensure that only competent applicators become certified. The Agency chose to codify the exam standards and identification of test takers because they were low cost, and no other way to ensure the security of examinations and training was identified. These requirements would help preserve the integrity of the exam process and give confidence that the security of EPA-developed exams is not compromised by varying administ ration standards across states.

Checking identification of the test takers (e.g., check ing their driver’s lice nse as they enter the examination room) would take a few seconds of both the state employee proctoring the exam and test takers’ time. These costs are very small a nd are incorporated into the proctoring cost (one hour proctoring time for one hour exam) for the st ate proctor and one hour of exam taking time
for the test takers.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

### 4.1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies for Submission, Approval and Main tenance of State Certification Plans

There are several proposed new requirements th at are administrative in nature, which would include recordkeeping requirements for indus try, and requirements for state and federal governments to implement the changes in the rule.

Dealers Maintain Records of Restrict ed Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01)

The EPA proposal Admin-01 would re quire pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, including the pesticide(s) purchas ed, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisd ictions are already doi ng these activities.

Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03)

Changes to the regulations govern ing certification programs would re quire all jurisdictions, i.e., states, territories, and tribes, to rewrite thei r laws and regulations, a nd to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirement s. While many states have implemented similar changes, no state has implem ented all revisions and EPA assumes that all jurisdictions would need to revi se their laws and plans. EP A estimates a total cost of $119 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations, detailed under Admin-02 in Chapter 3. Since the potential regulatory requirement would allow ju risdictions two years to revise their laws, regulations, and plans, EPA assume s that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each of the two years.

EPA estimates a total incremental cost of subm itting revised certificati on plans at $4 thousand. See Admin-03 in Chapter 3.

Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06)

The proposed revisions would also necessitate changes to federal certif ication plans and the tribal certification plans admini stered by EPA. The total incremental cost of the latter is estimated at $4 thousand (Admin-06). Federal agen cies are expected to in cur a total incremental cost at $41 thousand (Admin-04).*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 5. Cost of Proposed Rule

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the co st of proposed changes to the requirements for the certification of pe sticide applicators in 40 CFR 171. EP A estimates that the present value (PV) of the incremental cost of the proposed ru le over ten years to be $415 million, given a three percent discount rate. The annualized cost is about $47.2 million per year. Using a seven percent discount rate would have little effect in this case as most of the costs recur annually.

Private applicators, as a group, would bear add itional costs of about $19.5 million per year, about 41 percent of the total cost of th e proposed rule. Commercial a pplicators would be expected to bear costs of about $27.4 million per year. Stat es and other jurisdictions that administer certification programs would bear annualized costs of about $ 359,000 per year, but most of the
state costs would be borne immedi ately after the rule is finalized as they modify their programs
to follow the new federal rules. Those immediate costs of the proposed rule if it is implemented are estimated to be about $2.2 million, with subsequent incremental costs in administering the certification programs to be around $936,000 per year.

The changes in the certification requirements woul d be unlikely to have an impact on jobs. Most private applicators are self-employed. The annualized incremental cost of obtaining and maintaining private certification would be about $30 per applicator, on av erage, and this would represent a small fraction of the cost of employing an applicator, even part time. The average annualized cost of obtaining and maintaining comme rcial certification woul d be less than $80 in all jurisdictions and is similarly a very small fraction of the cost of employing a part-time applicator.

The changes are not expected to have a signif icant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In most cases, incremental costs re present less than one percent of gross revenues for commercial enterprises or less than one per cent of total sales of agricultural products for farming enterprises. Incremental costs in a few states could exceed two percent of total sales of agricultural products for farms w ith sales less than $5,000 per year. The number of farms facing such impacts is likely to be quite small, how ever. Perhaps a fifth of the farms affected by proposed changes to the certifi cation requirements might also bear costs associated with proposed changes to the Wo rker Protection Standard.



### 5.1 Overview

The proposed Certification of Pesticide Applicator s rule consists of a number of requirements that would affect commercial and private applic ators; state and other government agencies; and pesticide dealers. Table 5.1-1 pr esents the estimated regional incr emental cost (RIC), that is, by state and jurisdiction, using a thre e percent discount rate. Vari ations in state cost depend on current state requirements and the number of certified applicators in each state.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 Table 5.1-1. Total Incremental Cost of Prop osed Requirements, by State or Jurisdiction

.

State/Jurisdiction NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized RIC ($1,000) Alabama 4,391 499
Alaska 436 50 Arizona 4,482 510 Arkansas 19,300 2,198 California 27,110 3,085 Colorado 6,704 762 Connecticut 1,999 227 Delaware 2,149 246 Florida 10,141 1,154 Georgia 25,126 2,858 Hawaii 1,255 143 Idaho 1,798 203 Illinois 3,547 403 Indiana 7,835 891

Iowa 356 40 Kansas 8,287 943 Kentucky 21,186 2,412 Louisiana 6,503 740 Maine 1,748 199 Maryland 1,901 216
Massachusetts 282 31 Michigan 5,449 620 Minnesota 5,287 602 Mississippi 7,109 808 Missouri 21,428 2,439 Montana 3,129 357 Nebraska 16,193 1,843 Nevada 1,882 215 New Hampshire 223 25 New Jersey 1,987 226 New Mexico 1,559 177 New York 7,218 822 North Carolina 16,839 1,917 North Dakota 9,890 1,125 Ohio 15,362 1,747 Oklahoma 14,502 1,651 Oregon 2,172 247 Pennsylvania 16,283 1,853 Rhode Island 1,328 151 South Carolina 7,490 854 South Dakota 12,949 1,475 Tennessee 14,712 1,675*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Texas 8,390 955 Utah 3,507 399

Vermont 630 71 Virginia 3,035 345 Washington 16,992 1,933 West Virginia 767 87 Wisconsin 19,839 2,258 Wyoming 3,650 416 Puerto Rico 16,106 1,834 Other Jurisdictions 2,454 279 Federal Agencies 19 2
U.S. 414,928 47,227 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

The states with the highest incremental costs would include California, Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Kentucky. The main driv er in these states is the relatively large number of certified applicators. In California, commercial app licators would bear a relatively large proportion of the cost, in part because Ca lifornia would need to establish a new non-soil fumigation category and EPA anticip ates a large number of commer cial applicators would obtain certification. For the other states, the primary ch ange would be in the in itial certification of private applicators.

States with the lowest incremental costs include Alaska and the New England states where there are relatively few certified applicators. Other low- cost states, such as Iowa and Virginia have state requirements that largely meet or exceed the proposed federal requirements.



### 5.2 Methodology

The cost of the proposed rule is largely the sum of the costs of the individual requirements as estimated in Section 3.3. However, there may be some interactions between the proposed requirements. In Chapter 3, EPA estimated the in creased labor cost if employers shift certain tasks from adolescent workers to adult workers, who presumably are paid a higher wage. In estimating the cost of the proposed rule, we also take into account the cha nges in the labor force and the differences in the opportunity cost of time when estimating the impact of new requirements, e.g. , initial certification.

Where interactions occur, EPA’s methodology for estimating the cost of the proposed rule is similar to the methodology employed for estim ating the cost of individual potential requirements. In the first two steps, we estim ate the per-actor costs for the suite of proposed requirements and the associated baseline. Typica lly, the main actors are certified applicators, where private and commercial applicators are sepa rated into those obtaining initial certification and those pursuing recertificat ion. We also consider noncer tified applicat ors under their supervision. To account for the age restrictions, we further define actors within each of these groups by age: adults (18 years old and older), 16 and 17 year old adolescents, and adolescents under age 16. Other actors include state regulator s, who would have to revise regulations and*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 develop examinations and/or tr aining programs, and state admi nistrators, who would have to oversee or proctor the trainings or examinations. Federal agencies, including EPA, will also bear

some costs.

As in Chapter 3, the third step ex trapolates the per-actor costs, ba seline and proposal, to the state level by multiplying by the number of actors with in each state or jurisdiction who would be affected by the proposed set of requirements. Ju risdictions include territo ries and tribal areas that operate certification programs. In Step 4, state level costs are estimated over a 10-year time horizon. It is at this step th at interactions with the minimu m age requirement may come into play, as adolescents who are cert ified before the requirement goes into effect would be allowed to continue to work as applic ators and pursue r ecertification.

Subsequent steps are essentially id entical to those presented in S ection 3.3. The incremental cost of the proposed rule is calculated as the differe nce between the present va lue (PV) of baseline cost and the PV of the compliance cost. Stat e or jurisdictional cost s are summed to obtain national costs. Finally, we calcu late the annualized incremental co st of the proposed rule at the
state and national levels.

The next section presents the results of the analysis of co sts to private applicators and demonstrates the methodology for the case of th e private applicator obtaining an initial certification, if the proposed rule becomes regulation. The data required for the analysis are presented in Chapter 3.



### 5.3 Private Applicator Costs of Proposed Rule

Table 5.3-1 presents the requireme nts EPA is proposing that would impact private applicators. These include new or amended requirements for initial certification and recertification and requirements for training and communication with applicators under their supervision. Age restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and applicat ors under their supervision. In total, EPA estimates the cost of the proposed changes would be about $18.8 million per year or, on average, about $38.50 per year per certifie d private applicator, given around 490,000 private applicators.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 Table 5.3-1. Proposed Privat e Applicator Requirements.

Regulatory Requirement Description

Private Cert-02 Exam or 12-hour training fo r private certification Private Cert-04 Add private aerial category and re quire exam or 4-hour tr aining for certification

Private Cert-10 Add private soil and non-soil fumigation categories and require exam or 4-hour training for
certification Private Cert-12 Add private pred ator control category, codifyi ng existing label requirements

Private Cert-15 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for certification

Private Recert-01 Within three years, exam or 6-hours of traini ng for private core comp etency and exam or 3- hours of training for category recertification

Private Recert-03 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for recertification

Private Sup-02 Private noncertified applicators must complete training or be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard or comple te commercial core exam Private Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertif ied applicators by certified private applicators Private Sup-05 Private noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors Private Age-02 Minimum age re quirement of 18 years old fo r certified private applicators Private Age-05 Minimum age requ irement of 18 years old for pr ivate noncertified applicators

As an example of how costs are computed, EPA pr esents the details of the cost calculation for the proposed initial certification re quirements for private applicator s. For the other components, including recertification, traini ng for and communication with supe rvised applicat ors, and labor costs, we only present the present value of costs over ten years. Details of the estimations are provided in Appendix B.

5.3.1 Initial Certification, Private Applicators

This section presents the method for calculating th e costs of the proposed suite of requirements. As an example, we present the costs to first tim e private applicators, who may be self-employed or employed on an agricultural establishment. The underlying data and assumptions can be found in Chapter 3.3.

Step 1. Calculate the per-appli cator cost to each actor of the requirements under the current regulatory regime. Per-applicator costs will generally consist of the value of time to conduct required activities. This is calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the time spent multiplied by the frequency or probability that an actor will en gage in the activity. In the case of initial certification, the actor is the individual seeki ng certification who must prepare for an exam and/or obtain training as explained in Chapter 3.4.1. Because of the proposed age requirement (Chapter 3.4.5), however, we also di stinguish these individuals by age.

Table 5.3-2 presents the baseline co sts that first-time private applic ators in selected states would incur if they were to become a certified appli cator, given the training requirements. These are
states where the baseline cost differs from the co st under the proposal. Other states have initial certification requirements similar to the proposal, which is described in Step 2 of this example. Costs are calculated as the wage rate multip lied by the amount of time required to obtain certification and by the frequency of the action. See Chapter 3 for details. The wage rate depends on the age of the applicator. The time re quired for the states show n in Table 5.3-2 are in terms of a required training. All first-time certi fied applicators must go through this process.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 Table 5.3-2. Per-Applicator Baseline Cost for Initial Privat e Certification.

Action Wage/price Training time Frequency Cost

Arkansas

Adults 51.96 4 1 207.84
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 4 1 124.70
< 16 Years Old 25.98 4 1 103.70 Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

Adults 51.96 2 1 103.92
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 2 1 62.35
< 16 Years Old 25.98 2 1 51.96 Mississippi

Adults 51.96 19 1 779.39
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 19 1 467.63
< 16 Years Old 25.98 19 1 389.69
Missouri

Adults 51.96 3 1 155.88
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 3 1 93.53
< 16 Years Old 25.98 3 1 77.94
Montana 1

Adults 51.96 7-12 1 376.70
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 7-12 1 226.02
< 16 Years Old 25.98 7-12 1 188.35
New York

Adults 51.96 42 1 2,182.28
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 42 1 1,309.37
< 16 Years Old 25.98 42 1 1,091.14
South Dakota 1

Adults 51.96 3-12 1 268.11
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 3-12 1 160.87
< 16 Years Old 25.98 3-12 1 134.05 Wyoming 2

Adults 51.96 2-6 1 301.36
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 2-6 1 180.82
< 16 Years Old 25.98 2-6 1 150.68 All other jurisdictions 3

Adults 51.96 12 1 623.51
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 12 1 374.10
< 16 Years Old 25.98 12 1 311.75 Source: EPA estimation. Adult wage rates are from BLS (2014a); training time from state regulations. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Montana and South Dakota offer the choice of training or exam (12 hour preparation), where the majority of applicators take the training. Per-applicat or cost is a weighted average of the cost of the two options.

2 Wyoming offers the choice of a 6-hour training or a take-home exam (approximately 2 hours), where the majority of applicators take the training. Per-appl icator cost is a weighted average of the cost of the two options.

3 All other jurisdictions require an exam, which EPA considers equivalent to the proposed training.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 Step 2. Calculate the per-applicator cost to each actor of the ac tivities under the proposed rule. Costs to prepare for an exam or take a training th at covers the proposed content are calculated in the same fashion, as shown in Chapter 3 (Private Cert-02). A training is expected to take about 12 hours, as in the case of EPA’s training for prog rams the Agency administers. Preparing for an exam is assumed to require a similar investment in time. Costs for an a dult are calculated to be $623.51. Under the proposal, only indi viduals at least 18 years of ag e would be certified (Private Age-02).

Step 3. Calculate the state/jurisd iction baseline cost and cost of the proposed requirements. To obtain the yearly costs in each state to comply with current requirements and with the proposed regulation, we multiply the adjusted cost per actor by the number of affected actors in a state and sum across all types of actors:

ܥܴ ௜,ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a

where RC R,i

X t

is the state cost of the proposed set of requirements, R; X = B, P for baseline and proposed, i denotes the state or jurisdiction, and t the year; cost R,a represents the per-actor cost of the proposed set of requirements and N is the number of actors, as explained in Section 3.3.

Table 5.3-3 presents the baseline state cost, RC R,i

B t , for t = 1, for first-time private applicators. In fact, this would be the baseline cost in a ll years. States noted in Step 1 are presented separately; all other jurisdictions, where require ments meet or exceed the proposed requirements, are aggregated. Per applicator costs are multipli ed by the number of applicators in each age group and summed. Adolescent app licators are likely to be few in number and many states have established minimum ages. Between 2008 and 2013, th e number of private certified applicators has averaged 34,039 and has been relatively stable.

Table 5.3-3. Baseline costs, In itial Private Certification

Jurisdiction Adult 16-17 Year Old < 16 Years Old RC R,i B
($1000)
Arkansas

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $207.84 $124.70 103.70

N
a 1,482 0.9 1.5

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N
a $308,019 $112 $156 $308 Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $103.70 $62.35 $51.96

N a, GA 1,667 1.7 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N GA $172,868 $106 $0 $173

N a, KY 2,567 4.8 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N KY $266,198 $299 $0 $267

N a, TN 401 1.3 2.0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N TN $41,584 $81 $104 $42 Mississippi

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $779.39 $467.63 $389.69

N a, MS 1,344 0 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N MS $1,047,364 $0 $0 $1,047
Missouri

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $155.88 $93.53 $77.94

N a, MO 1,628 0 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N MO $253,773 $0 $0 $254

Montana

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $376.70 $226.02 $188.35

N a, MT 257 1.4 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N MT $96,812 $316 $0 $97
New York

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $2,182 $1,309 1,091

N a, NY 244 2.1 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N NY $531,603 $3,142 $0 $535
South Dakota

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $268.11 $160.87 $134.05

N a, SD 2,147 1.3 2.0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N SD $575,632 $209 $268 $576 Wyoming

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $301.36 $180.82 $150.68

N a, WY 387 0.7 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N WY $116,626 $127 $0 $117
Other Jurisdictions

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $623.51 $374.10 $311.75

N a, total 21,807 55.8 36.8

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N OTHER $13,548,566 $20,594 $9,576 $13,579 U.S. Total, N a 33,934 68.6 31.8

cost INIT CERT,a B

x N
a $16,960,528 $20,594 $10,136 $16,995 Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

Baseline costs by state for initial certification are pr esented in the final column of the table. The
baseline national cost for the initi al certification for first-time private applicators is estimated to be $17.0 million per year. This estimate is different from that estimated in Chapter 3 because it considers adolescent applicators, whose time is assumed to be less valuable.

The costs of the proposed requirements for first-time private applicators, RC R,i

P , are presented in Table 5.3-4 for the first year of implementation, which is expected to be in the third year following finalization of the rule. The eight stat es shown in Table 5.3-4 w ould see cost increases due to more hours needed for training or to pr epare for exams. Due to the age restrictions (Private Age-02), no adolescents would be allowed to obtain certification. This restriction would
contribute to the cost of initial certification, including in states that meet or exceed the proposed training requirements for certification, as adults , who are assumed to ha ve a higher opportunity cost of time, replace thos e certified as adolescents.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 Table 5.3-4. Proposed Initial Certification Cost s for First-Time Private Adult Applicators
in Year 3.

Jurisdiction Adult ( N
a ) State/Jurisdiction Cost
RC R,i P
($1000)

cost INIT CERT,a P

= $623.51 1

Arkansas 1,485 $926 Georgia 1,669 $1,041 Kentucky 2,572 $1,603 Tennessee 404 $252 Missouri 1,628 $1,015 Montana 258 $161 South Dakota 2,151 $1,341 Wyoming 388 $242 Other Jurisdictions 23,485 $15,236
U.S. Total 34,039 $21,817 Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Costs in Mississippi and New York are assume d to remain at $779 and $2,182 per applicator, respectively.

Step 4. Calculate the present va lue of state and national costs. Per-applicator costs for the baseline are expected to remain constant through time, that is, EPA assumes that states will not revise their certification requireme nts. As explained in Section 3.3, the equation for the PV of
the cost stream is

ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ ௜

஻ ൯ ൌ ܴܥ ோ ௜,ଵ

஻ ∙෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

where r is the discount rate, and all other variables are as pr eviously defined. Given a three percent discount rate, the value of the summation on the right hand side is 8.79.

Under the proposed rule, states will have two y ears to revise their requi rements and applicators would incur new costs beginning in the third year. The PV of the cost stream is, therefore

ܸܲቀܴܥ

ோ ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܴܥ

ோ ௜,ଵ

஻ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଶ

௧ୀଵ ൅ ܴܥ ோ ௜,ଵ

௉ ∙෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ

where the values of the summations are 1.97 and 6.82, respectively.

State and jurisdictional costs are summed to obt ain national level costs for both the baseline and the proposed rule. Table 5.3-5 presents the PV of costs for first-time private applicators initial
certifications.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 Table 5.3-5. Present Value of Costs for Priv ate Applicators, Init ial Certification.

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 3,071 3,071 0 0
Alaska 47 47 0 0
Arizona 459 456 4 0 Arkansas 6,918 2,711 4,206 479 California 8,886 8,879 6 1 Colorado 2,149 2,145 4 0
Connecticut 112 112 0 0
Delaware 383 383 0 0 Florida 1,865 1,865 0 0 Georgia 7,433 1,523 5,910 673
Hawaii 170 170 0 0
Idaho 759 759 0 0 Illinois 5,882 5,871 10 1 Indiana 4,358 4,351 6 1 Iowa 4,777 4,762 15 2 Kansas 6,059 6,050 9 1 Kentucky 11,454 2,346 9,108 1,037 Louisiana 2,050 2,047 3 0
Maine 414 413 1 0 Maryland 589 588 2 0
Massachusetts 461 461 0 0 Michigan 2,720 2,720 0 0 Minnesota 3,663 3,652 11 1 Mississippi 9,202 9,202 0 0 Missouri 7,420 2,230 5,190 591 Montana 1,287 851 436 50 Nebraska 4,197 4,188 9 1
Nevada 264 264 0 0 New Hampshire 178 178 0 0 New Jersey 1,093 1,093 0 0 New Mexico 1,230 1,224 6 1 New York 4,713 4,698 14 2 North Carolina 2,571 2,566 4 1 North Dakota 5,056 5,056 0 0 Ohio 1,522 1,511 11 1 Oklahoma 8,557 8,546 11 1 Oregon 1,014 1,014 0 0 Pennsylvania 3,642 3,634 8 1
Rhode Island 35 34 0 0 South Carolina 4,009 4,009 0 0 South Dakota 10,274 5,062 5,212 593 Tennessee 1,801 368 1,433 163*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 Texas 16,597 16,577 20 2 Utah 1,530 1,528 2 0

Vermont 230 230 0 0 Virginia 4,728 4,724 4 0 Washington 3,666 3,662 3 0 West Virginia 432 431 1 0 Wisconsin 5,862 5,855 7 1 Wyoming 1,878 1,026 852 97 Puerto Rico 4,086 4,085 0 0
Other Jurisdictions 1 426 86 339 39 U.S. 182,181 149,323 32,858 3,740 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.

Step 5. Calculate the incremental cost of the pr oposed rule. Incremental costs are simply the difference between the cost of compliance with the proposed rule and the baseline compliance

cost. ܸܰܲቀܴܥܫ

ோ ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܸܲቀܴܥ

ோ ௜,௧

௉ ቁ െ 	ܸܲቀܴܥ

ோ ௜,௧

஻ ቁ

The national PV of the incremental cost for in itial certificatio n is $32.9 million over 10 years, using a three percent discount rate (Table 5.3-5). Annualized costs are ca lculated to be about $3.7 million per year. Given that there are a bout 34,000 new private applicators certified each year, the average additional cost per applicator is about $110. For an individual, this would be a one-time cost. Note, however, th at about the same number of new applicators become certified each year. The incremental costs are heavily concen trated in eight states with low requirements, as discussed in Chapter 3.4.1. Costs are highes t in Kentucky, where current certification standards are less stringent th an those proposed (incremental costs are around $400) and over 2,500 private applicators obtai n certification each year.

5.3.2 Category Certification and Recer tification, Private Applicators

The proposal establishes several new categories: aerial applica tion (Private Cert-04), soil and non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-10) , and predator control (Private Cert-12). The cost to private applicators of the new applicati on method-specific categories is si mply the sum of the cost of
initial certification and of recerti fication (Private Recert-01). No adolescents are expected to
obtain certifications in these ve ry technical application methods and so there are no interactions
as was the case for initial co re certification. Table 5.3-6 pres ents the present value of the incremental cost over a ten-year time horizon as well as the annualized co st of certification and
recertification of new categories.

Table 5.3-6. Present Value of Costs for Priv ate Applicators, Category Certification.

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 17 0 17 2
Alaska 0 0 0 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 Arizona 37 37 0 0
Arkansas 50 0 50 6
California 191 0 191 22
Colorado 38 0 38 4
Connecticut 2 0 2 0
Delaware 6 0 6 1
Florida 326 0 326 37 Georgia 21 0 21 2
Hawaii 12 0 12 1
Idaho 15 0 15 2
Illinois 13 0 13 1
Indiana 21 0 21 2

Iowa 63 57 6 1

Kansas 36 0 36 4 Kentucky 28 0 28 3
Louisiana 35 0 35 4
Maine 4 0 4 0 Maryland 70 0 70 8
Massachusetts 2 0 2 0 Michigan 21 0 21 2
Minnesota 33 30 3 0 Mississippi 24 0 24 3
Missouri 24 0 24 3

Montana 0 0 0 0
Nebraska 29 9 20 2
Nevada 77 77 0 0 New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 24 0 24 3
New Mexico 50 0 50 6
New York 34 0 34 4
North Carolina 60 0 60 7
North Dakota 762 759 3 0
Ohio 26 26 0 0
Oklahoma 42 0 42 5 Oregon 36 0 36 4 Pennsylvania 88 49 39 4
Rhode Island 0 0 0 0
South Carolina 65 0 65 7
South Dakota 18 0 18 2

Tennessee 15 0 15 2

Texas 57 0 57 6
Utah 64 64 0 0

Vermont 0 0 0 0 Virginia 63 0 63 7 Washington 56 0 56 6*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 West Virginia 13 0 13 1
Wisconsin 13 0 13 1 Wyoming 3 0 3 0
Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0
Other Jurisdictions 1 0 0 0 0 U.S. 2,681 1,097 1,576 179 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.

Total annualized cost of the new private category certification and recertifi cation is estimated to be about $179,000 per year. California and Florida see the highest costs, due to the number of applicators expected to obtain certificati ons in the new categor ies in those states.

5.3.3 Noncertified Applicators und er the Supervision of a Pr ivate Certified Applicator

A few proposed requirements would impact noncertifi ed applicators under th e direct supervision of certified applicators. They must show co mpetency (Private Sup-02) through completion of the core exam or be trained, which for ma ny would be covered by the proposed Worker Protection Standards; they must be provided gu idance by their supervisor (Private Sup-03); and they must have a means of immediate communicati on with the supervisor (Private Sup-05). As with the certified applicators, th e age restriction (Private Age-05) influences the impact of the other requirements through the wage rates that de termine the value of tim e spent in training.

The present value of proposed a nd baseline costs associated with private noncertified applicators under the direct supervision are shown in Table 5. 3-7. Details of the calcu lations are provided in Appendix B.

Table 5.3-7. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators under the Supervision of a Certified Applicator

.

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 143 0 143 16
Alaska 5 0 5 1
Arizona 7 0 7 1
Arkansas 678 0 678 77
California 837 0 837 95
Colorado 200 199 1 0
Connecticut 12 12 0 0
Delaware 49 0 49 6
Florida 103 102 2 0 Georgia 645 0 645 73
Hawaii 6 0 6 1
Idaho 159 158 1 0
Illinois 984 982 2 0
Indiana 601 598 3 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 Iowa 0 0 0 0

Kansas 691 690 2 0 Kentucky 209 206 3 0
Louisiana 237 236 1 0
Maine 20 0 20 2 Maryland 166 165 1 0
Massachusetts 24 23 0 0 Michigan 286 284 2 0
Minnesota 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 490 489 1 0
Missouri 577 573 3 0

Montana 339 338 1 0 Nebraska 1,638 1,638 1 0
Nevada 15 15 0 0 New Hampshire 7 7 0 0 New Jersey 48 48 0 0
New Mexico 62 61 1 0
New York 299 297 2 0
North Carolina 906 905 2 0
North Dakota 607 0 607 69
Ohio 613 609 4 0
Oklahoma 295 0 295 34 Oregon 134 133 1 0 Pennsylvania 762 759 4 0
Rhode Island 3 0 3 0
South Carolina 129 0 129 15
South Dakota 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 130 0 130 15 Texas 1,054 1,047 7 1
Utah 30 0 30 3

Vermont 15 0 15 2 Virginia 143 141 2 0 Washington 457 0 457 52 West Virginia 18 17 1 0
Wisconsin 500 0 500 57 Wyoming 244 0 244 28
Puerto Rico 808 0 808 92
Other Jurisdictions 1 8 0 8 1 U.S. 16,388 10,731 5,657 644 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.

Nationally, the cost of proposed supervision requ irements, which are esse ntially the competency (training) requirements, are estimated to be about $644,000 per year. Twelve states or jurisdictions would bear the major ity of the costs because they ha ve the largest number of private*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 applicators and, by assumption, the largest number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their supervision.

5.3.4 Private Applicators Labor Costs

The direct effect of the proposed age requirement s, Private Age-02 and 05, affect the cost of labor because older, typically hi gher paid individuals would be n eeded to replace adolescents.
These costs were estimated in Section 3.3 and ar e not affected by other proposed requirements. The combined costs of the age restrictions are sh own in Table 5.3-8. Note that ‘baseline’ costs are not the result of any regulation or requirement as in other cases, such as initial certification. Further, the analysis captures on ly those labor costs estimated to arise from the employment of adolescents, not total costs of em ploying or utilizing private app licators. Hence, a state like Alabama, which does not allow applications of RUPs by anyone under 18 years of age, would
have zero labor costs.

Table 5.3-8. Incremental Labor Cost for Private Applicators

.

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 0 0 0 0
Alaska 6 4 2 0
Arizona 264 168 97 11 Arkansas 1,251 798 453 52 California 1,516 971 545 62
Colorado 492 314 178 20
Connecticut 0 0 0 0
Delaware 0 0 0 0
Florida 346 217 129 15 Georgia 1,140 731 408 46
Hawaii 25 16 9 1
Idaho 321 203 118 13 Illinois 1,579 1,020 559 64 Indiana 1,195 766 429 49

Iowa 396 262 134 15 Kansas 1,211 777 434 49 Kentucky 796 511 285 32
Louisiana 444 286 158 18
Maine 90 58 31 4 Maryland 287 184 103 12
Massachusetts 82 52 31 3 Michigan 612 386 225 26
Minnesota 277 183 94 11 Mississippi 532 339 193 22 Missouri 1,094 692 402 46

Montana 516 330 185 21*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 Nebraska 1,712 1,135 577 66
Nevada 40 25 14 2 New Hampshire 44 27 16 2 New Jersey 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 326 209 117 13
New York 617 392 225 26 North Carolina 1,127 724 403 46 North Dakota 1,009 646 363 41 Ohio 1,513 966 547 62 Oklahoma 1,009 645 364 41 Oregon 332 209 123 14 Pennsylvania 1,486 952 535 61
Rhode Island 20 13 7 1
South Carolina 287 182 105 12
South Dakota 169 112 57 7

Tennessee 712 453 259 30 Texas 2,336 1,489 847 96
Utah 183 117 66 8

Vermont 47 32 16 2 Virginia 461 294 166 19 Washington 838 539 299 34 West Virginia 169 107 62 7 Wisconsin 1,246 798 448 51 Wyoming 285 183 102 12
Puerto Rico 765 491 273 31
Other Jurisdictions 1 258 165 93 11 U.S. 31,463 20,172 11,291 1,285 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.

In total, EPA estimates the cost of the minimum age provisions to be about $1.3 million per year. As noted in Chapter 3, these estimates are heavily influenced by assumptions as to the number of adolescents certified or working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, the hours spent working with RUPs, and the difference in wage rates between adolescents younger than 18
and those 18 and older.

5.3.5 Recertification, Private Applicators

Recertification requirements, like initial certif ication and supervision requirements, would interact with the minimum age requirements. Adolescents who obtain certification before the rule goes into effect could maintain their ce rtification and some ma y even go through the recertification process before turning 18. Thus, the same methodology is applied to account for the potential interaction; we consider each age group as a separate category of actors.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 Table 5.3-9 presents the present value of proposed and baseline compliance costs along with the incremental costs of the proposed private recertification requirements. Details of the estimation can be found in Appendix B. The PV of the na tional incremental cost is $120 million, or about $13.6 million annually. In twenty jurisdictions, applic ators bear little or no cost because current state requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements. In other jurisdictions, cost differences are largely a function of the number of applicators.

Table 5.3-9. Present Value of Cost for Recertification, Pri vate Applicators.

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 4,564 3,288 1,275 145
Alaska 147 147 0 0
Arizona 443 442 1 0 Arkansas 15,018 5,345 9,673 1,101 California 23,252 23,250 2 0 Colorado 4,681 3,012 1,669 190
Connecticut 595 595 0 0
Delaware 537 257 279 32 Florida 3,255 2,818 437 50 Georgia 13,862 4,933 8,929 1,016
Hawaii 754 754 0 0 Idaho 3,965 3,965 0 0 Illinois 19,749 19,747 1 0 Indiana 10,146 6,687 3,459 394 Iowa 20,180 20,178 2 0 Kansas 15,328 10,102 5,226 595 Kentucky 8,333 3,266 5,067 577 Louisiana 5,499 1,653 3,846 438 Maine 1,004 1,004 0 0 Maryland 2,494 978 1,517 173 Massachusetts 1,591 1,591 0 0 Michigan 17,446 17,446 0 0 Minnesota 13,813 8,888 4,926 561 Mississippi 7,386 2,629 4,758 541 Missouri 15,007 5,341 9,667 1,100 Montana 5,014 3,304 1,709 195 Nebraska 16,705 8,008 8,697 990
Nevada 340 340 0 0 New Hampshire 642 642 0 0 New Jersey 1,368 1,146 222 25 New Mexico 2,008 1,130 878 100 New York 6,214 6,214 0 0 North Carolina 13,331 9,605 3,726 424 North Dakota 9,087 6,548 2,540 289*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 Ohio 12,764 11,048 1,716 195 Oklahoma 13,624 8,979 4,645 529 Oregon 5,979 5,979 0 0 Pennsylvania 14,138 7,962 6,176 703
Rhode Island 150 99 51 6 South Carolina 4,657 2,623 2,034 232 South Dakota 11,193 3,983 7,210 821 Tennessee 8,170 3,202 4,968 565 Texas 55,011 55,004 7 1 Utah 1,264 1,263 0 0

Vermont 454 380 74 8 Virginia 5,050 5,050 0 0 Washington 11,555 10,003 1,552 177 West Virginia 1,053 911 142 16 Wisconsin 14,201 9,360 4,841 551 Wyoming 3,721 3,117 604 69 Puerto Rico 12,547 5,472 7,074 805
Other Jurisdictions 1 175 32 143 16 U.S. 439,463 319,719 119,743 13,629 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.

5.3.6 Total Costs, Private Applicators

The total incremental cost of the proposed rule to private applicators is the sum of the five components: (1) initial certification costs, (2) category certif ication costs, (3) costs for noncertified applicators under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator, (4) additional labor due to minimum age requirements, and (5) recer tification costs. Tabl e 5.3-10 presents the compliance costs for the proposed requirements and the baseline for the states and jurisdictions
and at the na tional level.

Table 5.3-10. Total Incremental Cost of Propos ed Requirements for Private Applicators

.

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 7,795 6,359 1,435 163
Alaska 205 198 7 1 Arizona 1,210 1,103 109 12 Arkansas 23,914 8,852 15,062 1,715 California 34,682 33,100 1,581 180 Colorado 7,560 5,670 1,890 214
Connecticut 721 719 2 0
Delaware 975 640 334 39 Florida 5,895 5,002 894 102 Georgia 23,101 7,187 15,913 1,810*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 Hawaii 967 940 27 3 Idaho 5,219 5,085 134 15 Illinois 28,207 27,620 585 66 Indiana 16,320 12,400 3,920 446 Iowa 25,421 25,279 142 16 Kansas 23,325 17,619 5,707 649 Kentucky 20,820 6,329 14,491 1,649 Louisiana 8,265 4,222 4,043 460 Maine 1,532 1,475 56 6 Maryland 3,606 1,915 1,693 193 Massachusetts 2,160 2,127 33 3 Michigan 21,085 20,836 248 28 Minnesota 17,786 12,753 5,034 573 Mississippi 17,634 12,659 4,976 566 Missouri 24,122 8,836 15,286 1,740 Montana 7,156 4,824 2,330 266 Nebraska 24,281 14,978 9,304 1,059
Nevada 736 721 14 2 New Hampshire 871 854 16 2 New Jersey 2,533 2,287 246 28 New Mexico 3,676 2,624 1,052 120 New York 11,877 11,601 275 32 North Carolina 17,995 13,800 4,195 478 North Dakota 16,521 13,009 3,513 399 Ohio 16,438 14,160 2,278 258 Oklahoma 23,527 18,170 5,357 610 Oregon 7,495 7,335 160 18 Pennsylvania 20,116 13,356 6,762 769
Rhode Island 208 146 61 7 South Carolina 9,147 6,814 2,333 266 South Dakota 21,654 9,157 12,497 1,423 Tennessee 10,828 4,023 6,805 775 Texas 75,055 74,117 938 106 Utah 3,071 2,972 98 11

Vermont 746 642 105 12 Virginia 10,445 10,209 235 26 Washington 16,572 14,204 2,367 269 West Virginia 1,685 1,466 219 24 Wisconsin 21,822 16,013 5,809 661 Wyoming 6,131 4,326 1,805 206 Puerto Rico 18,206 10,048 8,155 928
Other Jurisdictions 1 867 283 583 67

U.S. 672,176 501,042 171,125 19,477 Source: Summation of Tables 5.3-5 to 5.3-9. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 Private applicators are estimated to face incremental costs of $19.5 million dollars annually due to changes in certification requirements. Give n that there are nearly 490,000 certified private applicators nationally, the averag e cost per applicator is approximately $39.80 per year. Perapplicator costs are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6.

Table 5.3-11 presents the incremental cost by co mponent. Recertification costs comprise about 70 percent of the total cost because of the large number of applicators obtaining or working
toward recertification. Additional costs for in itial certification requirements make up about 19 percent of the total incremental cost. The impacts of the supervision and minimum age requirements are each estimated to be about three to four perc ent of the total.

Table 5.3-11. Incremental Cost, Private Certified Applicators, by Component.

Component Annualized Incremental Cost ($1,000) Initial Certification 3,740 Application-Specific Categories 179 Supervision 644 Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 1,285 Recertification 13,629
Total 19,477 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.



### 5.4 Commercial Applicator Costs of the Proposed Rule

Table 5.4-1 presents the proposed requirements that affect commercial applicators. As with private applicators, these incl ude new certification categories, supervision requirements, and recertification requirements. Commercial a pplicators would also be subject to some recordkeeping requirements. Age restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and applicators under th eir supervision.

The costs of the proposed requirements to comme rcial applicators are calculated using the methodology described above for priv ate applicators. For further details discussing the costs of the proposed option for each line item and th e proposed regulation see Appendices A and B.

Table 5.4-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting Commercial Applicators.

Regulatory Requirement Description

Comm Cert-01 Add comm ercial aerial category

Comm Cert-04 Add commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories

Comm Cert-05 Add commercial predator control category

Comm Cert-06 Identification check for commercial certification

Comm Sup-01 Commercial noncertified applicators must complete training, be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam Comm Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertifie d applicators by certified commercial applicators*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 Comm Sup-05 Commercial noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors Comm Sup-06 Commercial applicators keep records of noncertified applicators (for two years) Comm Age-02 Minimum ag e requirement of 18 years old fo r certified commercial applicators Comm Age-04 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for co mmercial noncertified applicators

Comm Recert-01 Exam or 6-hour training for commercial core competency an d category recertification, at least every three years

Comm Recert-03 Identifica tion check for commercial r ecertification (every three years, Industry cost)

There are very minor interactions between the minimum age requirements and the training requirement for noncertified applicators applyi ng RUPs under the dir ect supervision of a commercial applicator, we estimate slightly higher incremental cost s here. Given the presence of adolescents currently employed in pest control operations, who are presumably paid less than their adult counterparts, the base line costs are slightly lower than shown in Chapter 3. Table 5.4- 2 presents the national annualized incremental cost for commercial applicators to comply with the proposed regulatory requirements. Nationall y, the proposed requirements are estimated to cost $23.6 million annually.

Table 5.4-2. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Commercial Applicators

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 14,049 11,138 2,911 331 Alaska 1,600 1,198 402 46 Arizona 24,569 20,228 4,341 494 Arkansas 9,115 5,007 4,108 468 California 149,087 123,633 25,454 2,897 Colorado 16,824 12,068 4,757 542 Connecticut 11,268 9,307 1,960 223 Delaware 9,799 8,026 1,773 202 Florida 82,452 73,268 9,185 1,045 Georgia 22,062 12,999 9,063 1,031 Hawaii 4,759 3,568 1,191 136 Idaho 22,373 20,772 1,601 181 Illinois 30,835 27,919 2,916 332 Indiana 48,261 44,401 3,860 439 Iowa 22,138 21,977 161 18 Kansas 20,727 18,236 2,491 284 Kentucky 34,697 28,187 6,510 742 Louisiana 11,754 9,356 2,398 273 Maine 3,916 2,261 1,654 189 Maryland 8,152 7,984 168 19 Massachusetts 6,443 6,231 211 24 Michigan 63,127 57,979 5,149 586 Minnesota 10,808 10,608 200 23*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 Mississippi 7,207 5,128 2,079 236 Missouri 23,605 17,608 5,997 683 Montana 5,203 4,444 759 86 Nebraska 27,944 21,117 6,827 777 Nevada 8,362 6,526 1,837 209 New Hampshire 1,017 847 170 19 New Jersey 12,417 10,714 1,703 194 New Mexico 5,753 5,288 464 52 New York 63,668 56,766 6,901 785 North Carolina 59,159 46,577 12,582 1,432 North Dakota 15,600 9,268 6,332 721 Ohio 43,441 30,396 13,046 1,485 Oklahoma 39,899 30,839 9,060 1,031 Oregon 18,311 16,353 1,958 223 Pennsylvania 50,179 40,698 9,481 1,079 Rhode Island 3,112 1,882 1,230 140 South Carolina 11,414 6,299 5,115 583 South Dakota 6,960 6,675 285 33 Tennessee 40,692 32,865 7,827 891 Texas 75,362 67,987 7,375 840 Utah 14,033 10,652 3,381 385 Vermont 1,343 855 488 55 Virginia 11,667 8,909 2,758 314 Washington 54,255 39,690 14,564 1,657 West Virginia 2,760 2,254 506 58 Wisconsin 34,145 20,162 13,983 1,592 Wyoming 6,538 4,746 1,792 204 Puerto Rico 18,546 10,637 7,908 901
Other Jurisdictions 1 4,481 2,693 1,788 203

U.S. 1,295,884 1,055,222 240,665 27,391 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina , Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin are estimated to see incremental costs to commercial applicators of over $1 million annually, but this is mostly due to the large num ber of commercial applicators in those states. Together, these eight states ac count for almost one-third of the 414,000 commercial applicators in the United States. The overall average co st per applicator of around $66.18 per year, although
there is considerable variation across states and jurisdictions. Per-applicat or costs are discussed
in more detail in Section 5.6.

Table 5.4-3 presents the incremental cost to co mmercial applicators by component. The costs associated with initial certification are a function of the minimum age requirement; adolescent applicators are presumed to cost less to certify because they have a lower opportunity cost of time than adults. The impacts of the minimum ag e requirements in terms of additional labor cost are estimated to be half of the total cost, and are a function of assumptions made about*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 uncertified applicators applyi ng RUPs. Data are extremely limited and EPA assumes that adolescents are typically employed for 40 hours pe r week for 16 weeks, which may be long for summer employment. Further, we assume that 50 percent of the adolescent’s time is spent handling RUPs, which is likely extremely high for youths who are probably working on golf
courses or in residentia l, commercial, and public areas where RUPs would rarely be used. If only 25 percent of adolescents’ tim e is spent handling RUPs, the additional labor costs fall to $6.7 million annually and the total incremental cost to commercial applicators would be estimated at $17.1 million per year. Recertificati on costs and supervision costs each comprise about 20 percent of the total incremental cost.

Table 5.4-3. Incremental Cost, Commercial Certified Applicators, by Component.

Component Annualized Incremental Cost ($1,000)

Initial Certification 0 Application-Specific Categories 540 Supervision 7,269 Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 13,082 Recertification 6,500
Total 27,391 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.



### 5.5 State and Governmental Agency Costs of the Proposed Rule

The costs of the proposed requirements to state and government agencies are calculated simply as the sum of the components as there are no interactions. Ta ble 5.5-1 presents the proposed requirements that would affect st ates or other government entities. Admin-02, 03, and 04 are not strictly proposed requirements. However, any changes EPA makes in the existing requirements will obligate authorizing agencies to revise their plans, which must then be reviewed by EPA. Admin-04, 05, and 06 are costs borne by EPA. Several other requirements merely codify existing policies or label requirements ( e.g. , certification requirements for predator control). Some governmental agencies employ certified applicators; thus they would bear some part of the incremental costs to commercial applicat ors estimated in the previous section.

Table 5.5-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting States, Other Jurisdictions, and Federal Agencies.

Regulatory Requirement Description

Admin-02 Revise State regulations and Update plans Admin-03 Submit state plans
Admin-04 EPA review of Stat e and Federal Agency plans Admin-06 Revise EPA administered tribal plans Comm Cert-01 Develop/Adapt commercial aerial category exam; ID check and proctor exams Comm Cert-04 Develop commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories; ID check and proctor

exams Comm Cert-05 Commercial predator c ontrol category exam (codification) Private Cert-02 Develop/Adapt private certification training and/or exam*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 Private Cert-04 Develop/Adapt priv ate aerial category exam/training Private Cert-10 Develop/Adapt private soil and non-soil fumigation categories exam/training
Private Cert-12 Private predator control category exam (codification)
Private Cert-15 ID Check and Proctor/Administ er private certification exams/trainings
Comm Recert-03 ID Check and Pr octor commercial recertification
Private Recert-03 ID Check and Proctor private recertification

Table 5.5-2 presents the estimated costs to gove rnment entities other than EPA. The two key components of these requirements are (1) states, territories, and other ju risdictions, along with several federal agencies, must re vise regulations and certification plans and (2) administer exams or trainings to certify applicator s, both commercial and private. Costs for the former would be incurred immediately after the ru le is finalized; EPA anticipates the process would take about two years. The administration costs occur as the new requirements are implemented and would be on-going. See Chapter 3 and Appendix A for details.

Table 5.5-2. Total Incremental Cost to Gove rnment Entities of Proposed Requirements

State/Jurisdiction PV(RIC) Revise &
Others 1
($1,000) PV(RIC)
Administer ($1,000) Total Annualized
RIC ($1,000)
Alabama 41 4 5
Alaska 27 0 3
Arizona 31 1 4
Arkansas 50 80 15
California 56 19 8
Colorado 50 7 6
Connecticut 37 0 4
Delaware 41 1 5
Florida 46 16 7 Georgia 46 104 17
Hawaii 37 0 4
Idaho 60 3 7
Illinois 46 0 5
Indiana 46 9 6

Iowa 37 16 6

Kansas 60 29 10 Kentucky 37 148 21
Louisiana 56 6 7
Maine 37 1 4 Maryland 37 3 4
Massachusetts 37 1 4 Michigan 46 6 6
Minnesota 37 16 6 Mississippi 46 8 6
Missouri 50 95 16

Montana 27 13 5
Nebraska 46 16 7*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 Nevada 31 0 4 New Hampshire 37 0 4 New Jersey 37 1 4
New Mexico 41 2 5
New York 37 5 5
North Carolina 50 12 7
North Dakota 37 8 5
Ohio 27 11 4
Oklahoma 50 35 10 Oregon 50 4 6 Pennsylvania 27 13 5
Rhode Island 37 0 4
South Carolina 37 5 5
South Dakota 50 117 19

Tennessee 50 30 9

Texas 46 31 9
Utah 27 1 3

Vermont 37 0 4 Virginia 37 5 5 Washington 50 11 7 West Virginia 41 1 5
Wisconsin 37 10 5 Wyoming 37 16 6
Puerto Rico 31 12 5
Other Jurisdictions 83 0 9 Federal Agencies 19 0 2

U.S. 2,202 936 359 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

1 Includes all requirements in Table 5.5-1 except Priv ate Cert-15, Comm Recert-03, and Private Recert-03

The annualized cost to governme nt entities including EPA, a ssuming a three percent discount rate, is estimated to be about $359,000. As shown in Table 5.5-2, Column 2, revisions to state plans and certification programs, including developm ent of new application-specific categories, is likely to cost about $2.2 million over the first tw o years after the rule is finalized. The cost per governmental entity is around $36,700, with a dozen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington) facing costs of around $50,000-60,000 because they must develop multiple new categories. Costs for administer ing the certification pr ogram under the proposed requirements (Column 3) would most affect the seven states that currently certify private applicators by training. This may overstate costs. The new requi red content is anticipated to take about 12 hours of training, bu t some of these states currently offer an option for exam. Incremental costs are estimated assuming that th e states continue to offer training and the applicators continue to choose tr aining instead of exam. State costs could be lower if more applicators opt for exams as the state would not need to provide trainers for as many sessions.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (P.L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on Stat e, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. In gene ral, Title II mandates especially rigorous economic analysis for rules imposing high costs on either the public or the private sector, a nd it directs energetic consultation with small governments prior to acti ons that may significantly or uniquely affect them. Under UMRA, an agency must generally prepare a written statement, including a benefitcost analysis, for proposed and final rules w ith “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and trib al governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. This proposal does not result in expenditures of this amount, but EPA has prepared this benefit-cost an alysis to better inform the Agency’s decisionmaking process.



### 5.6 Impact on Employment

Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job creation and employment. Labor is an important input into production and ch anges in the cost of labor may induce farms and firms to adjust employment levels. If farms and commercial pesticide services bear the cost of changes in certification requirement, by, for example, paying for training or allowing employees to prepare for exams during working hours, there would be an increase in the cost of empl oying a certified applicator and, potentially, a reduction in the demand for certified applicators. On the other hand, if th e applicator bears the cost of changes in certification requirements, becau se training and exams are take n outside working hours as a means of increasing skills and employment opportunities, increased costs of obtaining and retaining certification may lead to a reducti on in the supply of certified applicators.

Thus, an important consideration is the impact the revisions to the Certification requirements have on employment. The magnitude of the incremen tal per-applicator cost, relative to the cost of employment or return to employment, provides a meas ure by which EPA can judge the impacts on jobs. Tables 5.6-1 and 5.6-2 presen t the estimated annual cost for private and commercial applicators for each state (from Tables 5.3-10 and 5.4-2), the total number of applicators, and the aver age cost per applicator.

Table 5.6-1. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Private Applicators.

Jurisdiction Annualized RIC,
Private ($1,000) Number of Private Applicators Cost per Private Applicator Alabama 163 5,963 $ 27.34 Alaska 1 89 $ 11.24 Arizona 12 473 $ 25.39 Arkansas 1,715 20,997 $ 81.68 California 180 18,601 $ 9.68 Colorado 214 6,049 $ 35.38 Connecticut 0 564 $ -

. Delaware 39 746 $ 52.26*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 Florida 102 4,044 $ 25.22 Georgia 1,810 19,679 $ 91.98 Hawaii 3 444 $ 6.75 Idaho 15 3,613 $ 4.15 Illinois 66 17,297 $ 3.82 Indiana 446 13,004 $ 34.30 Iowa 16 22,977 $ 0.70 Kansas 649 14,939 $ 43.44 Kentucky 1,649 13,304 $123.95 Louisiana 460 7,616 $ 60.40 Maine 6 1,175 $ 5.11 Maryland 193 3,320 $ 58.13 Massachusetts 3 1,130 $ 2.66 Michigan 28 7,662 $ 3.65 Minnesota 573 17,359 $ 33.01 Mississippi 566 10,941 $ 51.73 Missouri 1,740 21,127 $ 82.36 Montana 266 6,291 $ 42.28 Nebraska 1,059 21,818 $ 48.54 Nevada 2 296 $ 6.75 New Hampshire 2 502 $ 3.99 New Jersey 28 1,768 $ 15.84 New Mexico 120 2,702 $ 44.41 New York 32 7,051 $ 4.54 North Carolina 478 16,251 $ 29.41 North Dakota 399 11,680 $ 34.16 Ohio 258 14,803 $ 17.43 Oklahoma 610 13,858 $ 44.02 Oregon 18 4,278 $ 4.21 Pennsylvania 769 18,107 $ 42.47 Rhode Island 7 186 $ 37.57 South Carolina 266 6,477 $ 41.07 South Dakota 1,423 16,694 $ 85.24 Tennessee 775 10,927 $ 70.93 Texas 106 43,201 $ 2.45 Utah 11 1,663 $ 6.61 Vermont 12 562 $ 21.35 Virginia 26 6,395 $ 4.07 Washington 269 13,817 $ 19.47 West Virginia 24 1,277 $ 18.79 Wisconsin 661 13,886 $ 47.60 Wyoming 206 4,655 $ 44.26 Puerto Rico 928 16,728 $ 55.48 Other 67 333 $201.00

U.S. 19,477 489,317 $39.80*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

The average cost per private applicator across the United States is estimated to be about $39.80 per year (Table 5.6-1). There is substantia l variation across states, however. Average incremental cost per applicator is estimated to be less than $10 per year in 17 states while applicators in five states – Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mi ssouri, and South Dakota – are expected to bear incremental cost of over $80 per year. The estimated cost to applicators in other jurisdictions such as tribes and Pacific Islands are estimated to be $195 per year, but this is an artifact due to lack of specific information a bout current certification requirements in these territories. EPA assumed that these jurisdicti ons maintained the minimum standards in all components for the certificati on of private applicators.

The average cost per applicator can be influenced by the turnover in app licators. For example, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee have very similar requirements for certification and recertification, but the average pe r-applicator cost in Kentucky is higher because they have a higher proportion of first-time applicators ob taining certification, who face much higher incremental costs than do applicators obtaini ng recertification. Compar ed to current state requirements, the proposed certification require ments would increase th e cost of initial certification in those states by a bout $400. Two things should be note d. Initial cert ification is a one-time cost, not an annual cost, an d this increase in cost largely br ings the cost of certification
in these states in line with the co st to applicators in other states.

As to the impact on jobs, it is important to note th at most private applicators are self-employed as the owner or operator of a farm or livesto ck operation. Some operations, however, would employ a pesticide applicator and he or she may n eed to be certified. A closer examination of the incremental costs to Kentucky applicators may be revealing. As an example, consider a farm in Kentucky that may need to use a RUP a nd therefore needs to have a certified private applicator. Let us assume that there is a 20 pe rcent chance over a ten-year time horizon that an
initial certification is needed wh ile 80 percent of the time the holder may need recertification. This represents the likelihood of turnover in em ployees, where newly certified applicators in Kentucky make up nearly 20 percent of the total number of applicat ors. For a farm that does not need certification in one of the new applicatio n-specific categories, the incremental costs are estimated to be about $108 per year . The additional cost in the y ear an initial certification is required would be about $400, but maintaining th e certification in Kent ucky would cost about $54 per year more than is curren tly the situation. If an app lication-specific certification is needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumiga ting grain in storage, the cost of a certified applicator is estimated to be about $128 per year. According to wage data from BLS (2014a), a private applicator earns a bout $38.83 per hour and costs the employer about $51.96 per hour, including non-monetary benefits. Employing an applicator 40 hours per week for a six-month growing season would therefore cost about $54,000. An incremental change in certification costs of $130 represents about 0.25 percent of the cost of empl oying the applicator, which is unlikely to affect the employment decision. For the applicator, a 40-hour week for six months implies a take-home pay of just over $18,600. The in creased cost of change s in certification and recertification requirements represents less than one percent of the likely returns to a typical salary for a certified applicator. Given this an alysis, EPA concludes that the revisions to the Certification requirements woul d not negatively impact employme nt for private applicators.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 Table 5.6-2. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Commercial Applicators.

Jurisdiction Annualized RIC,
Commercial ($1,000) Number of
Commercial Applicators Cost per
Commercial Applicator Alabama 331 4,102 $ 80.70 Alaska 46 665 $ 69.17 Arizona 494 7,105 $ 69.53 Arkansas 468 4,332 $ 108.04 California 2,897 36,236 $ 79.95 Colorado 542 3,899 $ 139.00 Connecticut 223 2,810 $ 79.36 Delaware 202 1,967 $ 102.71 Florida 1,045 17,005 $ 61.45 Georgia 1,031 11,178 $ 92.23 Hawaii 136 1,267 $ 107.34 Idaho 181 4,001 $ 45.24 Illinois 332 15,330 $ 21.66 Indiana 439 10,125 $ 43.36 Iowa 18 13,401 $ 1.34 Kansas 284 6,023 $ 47.15 Kentucky 742 12,929 $ 57.39 Louisiana 273 4,498 $ 60.69 Maine 189 1,613 $ 117.17 Maryland 19 4,556 $ 4.17 Massachusetts 24 2,187 $ 10.97 Michigan 586 14,816 $ 39.55 Minnesota 23 10,225 $ 2.25 Mississippi 236 3,045 $ 77.50 Missouri 683 7,647 $ 89.31 Montana 86 2,411 $ 35.67 Nebraska 777 9,711 $ 80.01 Nevada 209 1,691 $ 123.62 New Hampshire 19 1,262 $ 15.05 New Jersey 194 9,037 $ 21.47 New Mexico 52 2,377 $ 21.88 New York 785 18,904 $ 41.53 North Carolina 1,432 18,373 $ 77.94 North Dakota 721 5,316 $ 135.62 Ohio 1,485 12,968 $ 114.51 Oklahoma 1,031 10,539 $ 97.82 Oregon 223 4,873 $ 45.76 Pennsylvania 1,079 16,127 $ 66.91 Rhode Island 140 659 $ 212.34 South Carolina 583 5,762 $ 101.19 South Dakota 33 5,757 $ 5.73*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 Tennessee 891 14,378 $ 61.97 Texas 840 19,194 $ 43.76 Utah 385 4,318 $ 89.16 Vermont 55 994 $ 55.36 Virginia 314 7,484 $ 41.96 Washington 1,657 15,713 $ 105.46 West Virginia 58 1,987 $ 29.18 Wisconsin 1,592 12,909 $ 123.32 Wyoming 204 1,910 $ 106.81 Puerto Rico 901 5,889 $ 153.01 Other 203 2376.5 $ 85.42

U.S. 27,391 413,879 $66.18

As shown in Table 5.6-2, we estimate the average incremental cost per applicator for commercial certification to be about $62 pe r year, ranging from $1.34 in Iowa to about $212 per year in Rhode Island. Eight states are expected to s ee incremental costs of over $100 per year. Note, however, that this cost includes the cost of supervising noncertifie d applicators, which would not be a consideration in an employer’s decision to hire a certified applicator . Absent supervision costs, the incremental cost per applicator is $10 0 in or less in all juri sdictions, even accounting for the possibility of obtaining ce rtification in one of the new, application specific categories. The unloaded wage rate for comm ercial applicators is $14.82 pe r hour while the loaded wage rate is $21.49 per hour, according to BLS data (2014a). Even a ssuming part-time employment of about six to eight months, a commercial applicator would cost an employer around $22,300 to $29,200 per year. An incremental cost of $100 pe r year due to the rule would be 0.3 to 0.5 percent of employment costs. The applicat or’s take-home pay would range from $7,700 to $12,450 for six to eight months and an incrementa l cost of $100 per year would represent 0.8 to 1.3 percent of his or her salar y. It is unlikely that such modest changes would impact employment.



### 5.7 Potential Impacts on Small Businesses

This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the requirements for the certification of pesticide applicat ors may have on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Bu siness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulator s to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments. In some instances, when significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, agencies are also required to examine regul atory alternatives that may re duce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities.

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual incremental compliance costs of th ree percent or more of annual re venue as significant, costs less than one percent of annual revenue as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of revenue as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one pe rcent of annual revenue,*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 EPA considers both the number of significantly affected small fi rms and their proportion of all
affected small firms to determine if a substant ial number of small firms would be impacted.

Consistent with a previous an alysis on the farm sector (W yatt, 2008), we set the following thresholds at which the number of impacted enti ties is not considered “substantial” for impacts greater than one per cent of annual sales:

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affect ed, provided the number represents less than 30 percent of all small entities;

 Between 100 and 1,000 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or

 More than 1000 small entities may be aff ected, but the number represents less than ten percent of all small entities.

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, or if impacts cannot be quantified, the thresholds
at which EPA concludes a substantial number of small entities would not be affected are as
follows:

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affect ed, provided the number represents less than 20 percent of all small entities;

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but acc ount for less than ten percent of all small entities; or

 More than 1000 small entities may be aff ected, but the number represents less than five percent of all small entities.

For firms employing commercial applicators, we utilize lower threshol ds for the number of impacted small entities considered substantial because there are fewer firms than there are farms. For impacts greater than one per cent of gross revenues, the number of impacted entities is not
considered substantial if:

 Fewer than 20 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 30 percent of all small entities;

 Between 20 and 200 small entities may be a ffected, provided the number represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or

 Between 200 and 1000 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than ten percent of all small entities.

To determine the magnitude of any potential ad verse impact, the annualiz ed incremental costs on a per-company basis is compared to the annual revenue for small businesses to develop cost-tosales ratios.

In the next section, we explain the methodology fo r estimating the average cost per entity of the proposed rule. Section 5.7.2 estimates the per-en tity cost for small businesses (farm) employing or operated by private applicators. We also present a profile of the affected industry, including estimates of per-entity revenues a nd calculate the impacts. In S ection 5.7.3, we present the same
information for small business em ploying commercial applicators.

Based on this analysis, EPA certifies that there woul d not be a significant impact to a substantial number of small businesses. Agricultural esta blishments may be owned or operated by private*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 certified applicators or may employ private certif ied applicators. Average impacts to small crop producing enterprises, those making less than $750,000 in annual sales of agricultural products, are estimated to be around 0.1 percent of annual sales. Even in the most heavily impacted regions, the estimated impacts on most small agricu ltural operations are less than one percent of average annual sales. Small entities with commercial applicators, including agricultural pesticide services, extermination services, a nd landscaping services, are estimated to face impacts of 0.2 percent or less of annual revenue.



### 5.7.1 Methodology

The basis for this analysis is the results from Section 5.6, cost per applicator. The methodology requires the determination of th e number of applicators (certifie d and noncertified applicators under the direct supervision) for representative entities, and the im pacts are measured in terms of
the incremental cost to small entitie s relative to their sales revenues.



### 5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments

Private applicators are largely employed by or op erate establishments in agricultural production. EPA has identified a number of specific types of establishments. The SBA specifies a revenue threshold to distinguish small entities, as shown in Table 5.7-1.

Table 5.7-1. Private Applicator Establishment NAICS Codes with Small Business Thresholds (Annual Revenue)

Farming Sector Sector 1 NAICS Code Large Business

Threshold Crop Farming 111 $750,000 Animal Farming 112 $750,000
Feedlots 112112 $7,500,000
Source: SBA, 2014

Impacts 1 See the first line of Table 5.7-3 for the ma gnitudes of impacts for these farm types.

Certification needs could differ across these t ypes given different pest problems and, therefore, different certification needs. Within crop farmi ng, producers of field crops such as soybean and grain farmers, for example, may require an aerial certification and/ or a certification for commodity (non-soil) fumigation. Nut, fruit, and vegetable farms may need a soil fumigation certification. While many farms produce multiple types of crops, generally speaking, a small farm would be unlikely to need more than one application-speci fic certification. The Moreover,
the proposed rule would impose similar traini ng or exam requirements for each category certification. Impacts on individu als and individual entities are more likely to be a function of the state or region, given the variabilit y in current certification requirements , than to vary by farm type

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

33 Profile of Private Applicator Establishments

The National Agricultural Statistic s Service (NASS) of the Depart ment of Agriculture conducts a census of agriculture every five years. A farm is defined as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural product were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold, during the year of the census (NASS, 2014c).” Accord ing to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c), there are over 2.1 million farms in th e United States, including about 430,000 places with less than $1,000 in total sales of agricultura l products. Excluding the latter places, which do not strictly meet the definition of ‘farm’ and, moreover, are extr emely unlikely to utilize RUPs,
there are between 1.5 and 1.6 million farms classi fied as small by the SBA criterion. The publicly available Census data reports that about 76,000 farms have annual revenue between $500,000 and $999,999, whereas the SBA criterion for a small farm is sales less than $750,000. We therefore have a range for farms and average revenue. Revenue includes sales of agricultural products and government payments, but does not in clude farm-related income, such as crop and livestock insurance payments, rental income, and income from agricultural services.

To better understand the impacts and the distribut ion of impacts on small farms, EPA identifies three categories of small farms. We define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales between $1,000 and $10,000, medium-small farms as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.7-2 provides the distribut ion of small crop and animal farms across these various categories. The table also pr ovides similar data from the 2007 Ce nsus of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), for which a special tabulation distinguis hed farms with annual revenue of $750,000 or less. The number of small farms and averag e revenues for each category are consistent over
time.

Table 5.7-2. Number and Average Revenue of Small Farms.

All Small

Farms 1 Small-Small ($1,000 - $10,000/year) MediumSmall ($10,000 - $100,000/year) LargeSmall ($100,000 - $750,000/year)

2012, Number of Farms 1,521,271- 1,598,833 716,505 567,438 237,328- 314,890

Average Revenue $52,775- $85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948- $359,877 2007, Number of Farms 1,622,838 771,855 566,898 284,085 Average Revenue $67,093 $4,072 $34,182 $301,182
Source: USDA NASS, 2008b and 2014c.

1 The criterion for small farm is that sales are le ss than $750,000 per year. The lower bound is for farms with sales less than $500,000 and the upper bound includes farms with sales less than $1,000,000. Does not include operations with less than $1,000 in total sales.

Not all farms utilize pesticides every year, how ever; thus some farms may not need a private applicator. EPA obtained a speci al tabulation of data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify those farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2008b). The likelihood that a farm will use pesticides is inversely related to size; around eighty percent of large and large-small farms use pesticides while only about 25 percent of small- small farms use pesticid es. Overall, about 53*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 percent of small farms used pesticides in 2007. Assuming a similar proporti on used pesticides in 2012, about 820,000 small farms might be affected by this rule. Use of RUPs will be even lower. According to proprietary market data, RUPs account for less than 20 percent of pesticide treatments, by acreage. Data of use by farm is not available, however. Many farms, even small farms, use pesticides occasionally and may, theref ore, obtain and maintain certification in order to have the capacity to use a RUP if needed. Thus, EPA assumes that most small farms would be affected by changes to the certific ation requirements at some point.

Costs per Small Entity, Private Applicators

In Section 5.6, EPA estimated the total incremental cost to private applicat ors of changes in the Certification requirements would average $38.50 per private applicator per year. This includes the costs associated with requirements for cer tification, recertifica tion, and for noncertified applicators under the direct supe rvision of the certifie d applicator. This cost per private applicator is also a reasonable estimate of the cost per small entity, as it would represent the owner/operator of a small farm or animal ope ration who may, at least occasionally, employ or use a family member to apply a pesticide under his or her supervision. See Table 5.6-1.

We also considered, in more detail, a farm in Kentucky, which has the highest average estimated cost per applicator, that may n eed to use a RUP and therefore needs to employ a certified private applicator. A similar scenario could describe a small farm where the owner or operator is the certified applicator, but turnover in ownership is likely to be much lower than the 20 percent assumed for the employment scenario. A ten percent likelihood of obtaining an initial certification is still highly conser vative, given that a generation may be 20 to 30 years. For a
farm that does not need certifi cation in one of the new applic ation-specific categories, the incremental costs are estimated to be about $102 pe r year. If an applica tion-specific certification is needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumiga ting grain in storage, the cost of a certified applicator is estimated to be about $157 per year. If the fa rm also has someone noncertified, whether a family member or employee, who appl ies RUPs under the direct supervision of the owner/operator, the incremental cost for tr aining and other supervisory requirements are expected to cost another $20 per ye ar. Note that the overall average cost per private applicator in Kentucky was estimated to be $125 per year.

Impacts per Small Entity, Private Applicators

Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small farms and the revenues of these farms, EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of an nual sales revenue. Results are shown in Table 5.7-3. Note that it is highly unlikely that a small-small operation would need to obtain
certification in one of the new application-specific categories (aerial application or non-soil fumigation) or rely on a noncerti fied applicator. A medium-s mall operation may have someone noncertified, likely a family member, apply a RUP under the direct supervision of the owner/operator. A large-small operation is more likely to have someone noncertified working under the direct supervision of th e certified applicator and could need certification in non-soil fumigation for on-farm grain storage.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 Table 5.7-3. Impact per Small Entity, Private Applicator.

All Small

Farms Small-Small MediumSmall LargeSmall

Type, Level of Impact $52,775- $85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948- $359,877
Average Impact; $38/ year year 1 0.04-0.07% 0.91% 0.11% 0.01-0.02%

Kentucky, no application category or applicator UTS; $102/year 0.12-0.19% 2.44% 0.29% 0.03-0.04%

Kentucky, no application category, applicator UTS; $121/year 0.14-0.23% n/a 0.35% 0.03-0.05%

Kentucky, new application category, no applicator UTS; $157/year 0.18-0.30% n/a n/a 0.04-0.06%

Kentucky, new application category, applicator UTS; $178/year 0.21-0.34% n/a n/a 0.05-0.07%

Source: EPA calculations.

1 These represent the magnitudes of impacts for the three farm types in Table 5.7-1 (crop farming, animal farming, and feedlots).

As shown in Table 5.7-3, the impact on the average small crop farm would range from 0.04 to 0.34 percent of average revenue, even for very hi gh impacts. The average impact of $38 would exceed three percent of revenue for very small farms making $1,250 or less per year. High impacts, which could occur in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, states that currently require only two hours of training for initial certification, would be greater than one percent of sales revenue for only the smallest types of enterprises, i.e. , those with revenues averaging less than $4,200 per year.

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c), there are 236,500 farms with revenues of $1,000 to $2,500 per year or less, averaging about $1,660 annually. Assuming a uniform distribution of farms within this range , about 39,400 farms would have revenues of less than $1,250 per year. A conservative estimate for the proportion of farms us ing pesticides, based on farms with revenue up to $10,000 per year, would be 25 percent (NASS, 2008b), or fewer than 10,000 farms. Of those, perhaps 20 percent would use RUPs, based on the percent of acres treated, or about 2,000 farms. In the high-impact states of Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, there are another 23,500 farms with annual re venue of $2,500 to $5,000, a range where impacts could be over two percent of annual revenue. Of those, an estimated 1,200 might use RUPs. In total, around 3,200 farms many face im pacts of two percent or more of annual revenue. These farms comprise less than one-fourth of one percent of all small farms and about 0.4 percent of all small farms that use pesticides, wh ich may be affected by the rule.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 In the case of the high-impact states, most of the impact is a result of increased requirements for
initial certification. It should be noted that private applicat ors in other states are currently obtaining certifications u nder requirements very similar to those proposed.

An additional factor to consider is that EP A has proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), which sets requir ements that agricultural estab lishments hiring labor must meet when pesticides are used on the establishment. Hired labor are persons outside the immediate family who receive compensation for their wo rk. The WPS imposes requirements include providing pesticide safety training for employees th at will be entering trea ted fields and notifying employees when applications have been made so th at they can take proper precautions. A subset of the farms using RUPs, who are impacted by re visions to the certification requirements, will also employ workers and will also be impacted by revisions to the WPS.

EPA estimated that, on average, small farms would face costs of about $125 to $140 per year from proposed changes to the requirements of the WPS. These costs would essentially be additive to the estimated costs of changes to th e certification requirements for farms that have a certified applicator and hire la bor to work in the field. When considering the two proposals together, the focus remains on the small-small fa rms. Because smaller farms generally employ fewer workers, the impacts of changes in the WP S are also smaller. EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS would cost small-small farms between $65 and $80 per year, implying that the average small-small farm a ffected by both proposals would face combined incremental costs of about $120 per year and our example establishment in Kentucky would have combined costs of around $180 per year with impacts of around th ree to four percent of gross revenues from farm products.

The number of small-small farms aff ected by both rules is likely to be small. According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were about 316,000 small-small farms that used any kind of pesticide. Of t hose, fewer than 60,000 farms also employed labor, or less than 20 percent, and might bear some impact s from proposed changes to the WPS. If, as above, about 20 percent of farms using pesticides use RUPs and rely on a certified applicator, then perhaps around 12,000 small-small farms in th e U.S. might face impacts from changes to
both the WPS and to the certificat ion requirements. This is ar ound 0.8 percent of all small farms
in the U.S. and less than f our percent of small-small farms that use pesticides.



### 5.7.2 Commercial Applic ator Establishments

Commercial pesticide applicator s are employed by businesses th at service a broad array of activities, including agricultural sites, urban and resi dential sites, and industrial sites. The Small Business Administration (SBA) uses a variety of criteria in sizing commercial applicator establishments depending on a firm’s primary in dustry (as classified by its NAICS code). The relevant criterion for small business designa tion may include revenue or the number of employees.

Table 5.7-4 presents the SBA large-business thre sholds, by NAICS code, used to determine the size of each firm in the commercial applicator establishment portion of the small business impact analysis.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 Table 5.7-4. Commercial Applicator Establishment Small Business Thresholds

NAICS Code NAICS Sector De scription Sizing Criterion Small Business

Threshold

115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating Revenue $7,500,000

115210 Support Activities for Animal
Production Revenue $7,500,000

221121 Electric Bulk Power
Transmission and Control Employees 1,000

221210 Natural Gas Distribution Employees 500

221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems Revenue $27,500,000

221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities Revenue $20,500,000 321114 Wood Preservation Employees 500

325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing Employees 500

424690 Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers Employees 100

424910 Farm Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers Employees 100

561710 Exterminating and Pest Control
Services Revenue $11,000,000

561730 Landscaping Services Revenue $7,500,000

Source: SBA, 2014.

Existing category certifications c over different sites. In additi on to agricultural certifications, there are categories, such as ri ghts-of-way, which is relevant to power transmission industries; aquatic sites, which is relevant to water supply and irrigation systems and other activities; and ornamental/turf sites, which would be required fo r landscaping services. The new certification categories are more application focused and woul d be required by different types of services. For example, power transmission systems may need to hire applicators with aerial certification to reach some of their rights-of-way and exterminator s would likely need certification in structural fumigation.

Profile of Commercial Applicator Establishments

For this analysis, EPA focuses on en tities providing pest control se rvices, rather than the broader array of entities that may require pest control services. In partic ular, we narrow the analysis to Agricultural Pesticide Services, within NAICS codes 115112 and 115210, Exterminating and Pest Control Services (561710), and Landscaping Services (561730) . Table 5.7-5 presents the
number of small establishments and financia l and employee information, based on information obtained from the Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) data base of U.S. commercial establishments. The small firms account for over 99 percent of the firms in these sectors. Compared to the small
business size thresholds of the Small Business Administration, which range from $7.5 million to*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 $11 million annually, the average annual revenues s hown here would seem to represent some of
the smallest of the small firms.

Table 5.7-5. Size Distribution of Establishments that Employ Commercial Applicators

Entity Number of small
establishments Average Revenue Average Number of Employees

Agricultural
Pesticide Services 17,562 $139,000 3

Exterminating and
Pest Control
Services 25,179 $178,000 4

Landscaping
Services 95,466 $159,000 4

Total 138,297 $159,816 4 Source: Dun and Bradstreet (2010)

Costs per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators

In Section 5.4, EPA estimated the total incremen tal cost of the proposed rule to commercial applicators to be $25.6 million annually. Th e rule would impact an estimated 414,000 commercial applicators for a per-applicator co st of $61.73 per year. Th is includes the costs associated with requirements on noncertified a pplicators under the direct supervision of the certified applicator, assuming that most certifie d applicators supervise two or three others.

Per-applicator incremental costs va ry across the different states a nd jurisdictions of the country, depending on the baseline certific ation and recertification requ irements of the jurisdiction, including category certifications . See Table 5.6-2 for estimates of the total incremental cost,
number of commercial certified applicators, and average per-app licator cost, by region. Costs range from essentially zero in Iowa, where th e current state requirements meet or exceed the proposed federal requirements and noncertified a pplicators are not allowed to apply RUPs, to $211 per year in Rhode Island, which does not current ly have an aerial cert ification category and
where EPA estimates that there are about five noncertified applicator s for every certified applicator. As explained in Chapter 3, the num ber of noncertified applicators is subject to considerable uncertainty. In the case of Rhode Island, the number of noncer tified applicators is estimated by taking BLS employment figures for t hose involved in ‘pest co ntrol’ and subtracting the number of certified commercial applicators.

Given the average number of employees shown in Table 5.7-5, small entities providing pesticide application services could have one to two certi fied applicators, including the owner of the service, with two to three noncer tified applicators working under th eir direct supervision. Thus, EPA anticipates the cost to be $62 to $123 per ye ar for the average small entity and from $98 to $188 for a small entity in a state such as Rhode Island. These estimates include the costs of supervision, but for two noncertifi ed applicators under their direct supervision in Rhode Island rather than the average estimate of five.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 Impacts per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators

Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small firms and the revenues of these firms, EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of an nual revenue. Results ar e shown in Table 5.7-6.

Table 5.7-6. Impact per Small Entity, Commercial Applicator.

Entity Average Revenue Average Impact ($62-123/year) High Impact ($188/year) Agricultural Pesticide
Services $139,000 0.04-0.09% 0.14%

Exterminating and Pest
Control Services $178,000 0.03-0.07% 0.11%

Landscaping Services $159,000 0.04-0.08% 0.12%

Source: EPA calculations.

The impacts to commercial pesticide applicati on services are estimated to be less than one percent of average revenues for both the average a nd high cost scenarios. For impacts to exceed even one percent of annual revenue, the enterp rise would have to make less than $12,000 to $18,000 per year. A firm of that size would likely consist of a single app licator, in which case the expected cost of the proposal would be ar ound $30 per year, well under one percent of annual

revenue.



### 5.7.3 Conclusion

On the basis of this analysis, EPA concludes th at there would not be a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities. For priv ate applicators, averag e impacts of the rule represent less than one percent of annual sales revenue for the av erage small farm and even to small-small farms with sales of less than $10,000. Im pacts to the smallest farms, especially in high-impact states, could exceed two percent of annual sales revenue but the number of farms facing such impacts is small relative to the num ber of small farms affected by the rule.

For commercial applicators, aver age impacts of the rule represen t less than 0.1 percent of annual revenue for the average small firm. The impact s are expected to be around 0.1 percent of annual revenue even for the high cost scenarios. This is well below the one percent threshold that EPA set for significant impact.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

Certification standards for applicators ensure that certified applicators are competent in the use of restricted use pesticides. The key goals of the proposed changes are to: improve the competency of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides; implement better protections for noncertified applicators who apply restricted use pesticides unde r the direct s upervision of a certified applicator; and reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment from the use of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Comp etent applicators possess the skills and knowledge necessary to apply pesticides properly to avoid unintended exposures to people and the
environment.

EPA anticipates that the proposed changes would produce benefits to the applicator, the public, and the environment. The proposed rule change s would ensure that certified applicators are competent in the application of restricted us e pesticides, and that noncertified applicators working under the direct supervis ion of certified applicators are well supervised and protected.
When used in accordance with label restrictions , RUPs can be safely applied; however, if the applicators are not competent, then RUPs have the potential to pose unreasonable risks of damage to humans, terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems, non-target animals, plants, and surface water. Ensuring that applicat ors are competent would prevent these unwarranted exposures.

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to certified applicators, their families and employees, and the public at large. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals consid ered by the Agency in developing this rule, while the preamble to the proposed rule describes in detail the proposed requirements.



### 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified?

EPA expects the proposed changes would result in benefits by reduced exposure to RUPs. However, not all benefits from reduced pestic ide exposure can be quantified. This section provides a brief overview of the estimated benef its that can be quantified (from reduced acute occupational exposures) a nd those that cannot.

Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by:

 avoiding RUP incidents resulting in acute pe sticide exposure to ce rtified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of a certified applicator, and others, such as farmworkers or byst anders who could be exposed to RUPs.

 avoiding non-occupational incidents by reducing exposures to the public.

 reducing chronic pes ticide exposure to certified a pplicators and their families.

Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pe sticide exposures that have been reported to databases that count poiso ning incidents; these only represent a portion of
the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such as developmental effects resulting from acute ex posures to pregnant women or to children and*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small expos ures over time are unlikely to appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databa ses, including the ones we use for developing the benefit estimates in this chapter.

Effects of longer term exposure and exposure to fa milies are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncer tain causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Th erefore, it is impossible to quantify improvements in health from reduced pesticide exposure. Thes e potential health benefits, which include those related to chronic pesticide expos ure, and the effects of residues transported home, are described but cannot be quantified.

In addition to the harm to human health, misu se of RUPs has the potential to harm the environment, causing damage to non-target animal s and plants, including agricultural crops, and pollinating insects, such as bees. Although there is some information on incidents of this nature
which are described in th is chapter, the benefits of reducing incidents like these are difficult to quantify.

The next section discusses who is at risk from RUP exposure, followed by a discussion of the possible effects of acute exposur e and chronic exposures to cert ified applicators and to their families. Section 6.4 provides information on the benefits from reduced ecological damage from RUPs, Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of re duced pesticide exposure to the extent these benefits can be quantified. Sec tion 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to surveillance databases, but are potentially importa nt to human health, and may be reduced by the proposed rule.



### 6.2. Who is at Risk?

6.2.1. Occupational Exposure

Certified pesticide applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators, agricultural workers, and pesticide handlers may be occupationally exposed to pesticides and pest icide residues. EPA estimates th at there are about 900,000 certified applicators in the United States (See Chapter 3), and about 1 million noncertified applicators working under the direct supervisi on of a certified applicator. A small number of adolescents are certified applicators, and ther e are about 14,000 adoles cents under 18 estimated to be working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (See Chapter 3). All of these people face harm from occupational exposure to RUPs.

RUPs are commonly used in agriculture, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the approxima tely 2.3 million farm wo rkers that are hired by agricultural establishments , who are potentially exposed to th e risks of advers e health effects from pesticide exposure (EPA, 2014a) if they wo rk on farms that use RUPs. Agricultural workers do not handle RUPs directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 either through contact with resi dues on treated plants, soil, or wa ter or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected application. The ag ricultural workforce occupationally exposed to restricted use pesticides and pesticide residu es can potentially face significant long and short term health risks. However, as a result of an ex tensive review of the data from incident reporting systems and epidemiologic evidence published in th e peer-reviewed literature, there is evidence, which EPA regards as strong, that pesticide e xposure contributes to adverse human health
outcomes. This evidence is discussed and refere nced in detail in the sections that follow.



### 6.2.2. Children and Families

Young and unborn children may be particularly sens itive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects into their mouths (EPA, 2008b), and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems are s till developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of certified applicators may be incident ally exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pe sticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (discussed below) may be particularly importa nt for long-term development.

Children and adolescents at vari ous stages in development offe r “windows of vulnerability” for chemical exposures to have particularly signifi cant effects on growth and development, which means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. Because children’s meta bolic systems are not fully developed at birth, continue to develop thro ugh childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across developmental stages, children metabolize pestic ides and chemicals differently than adults metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008b). The proposed changes to the
certification rule include enhanced worker training to reduce in cidental, take-home exposures by workers to their families. The proposed changes to the certification ru le also cover direct exposures by including restrictions on allowing adolescents to work with RUPs. These changes are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks,
which is also discussed below.

Non-occupational exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, or from pesticide residues taken home on the clothing or in the
cars and trucks of certified and nonc ertified applicators. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. Although not a study strictly of certified applicat ors, the pesticides for which they tested included RUPs. When compared with non-fa rm households, they found significantly higher
levels of atrazine and metolach lor (which only have agricultural uses) in farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher leve ls in the agricultural worker changing area and the laundry area) sugg est that the pesticides are being transported home on farmers’ clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in
home vehicles for farm families. Lozier et al. (2012) concludes the take-home pathway is an important route of exposure for commercial pest icide applicators, base d on higher levels of atrazine contamination in the parts of homes wh ere applicators entered the home and where they removed their clothing. Atrazine levels were three times highe r for applicators that changed*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 shoes inside compared to those who removed sh oes outside, and bedroom levels were six times higher for those who changed clothes in the be droom compared to t hose who did not. Lu et al. (2000) collected samples from steering wheels a nd boots of agricultural families, the floors of their houses, as well as wipe and urine samples from the family members. Farm families had higher exposure to the pesticides tested than the non-farm controls, and the positive samples in vehicles, on clothing and in the home in families not in proximity to farm fields indicated the take-home pathway was responsible for exposure to these families. These studies are consistent with studies based on farmworker family expos ure that identify take-home exposure as a problem (Thompson et al. , 2014; Coronado et al. , 2006; Curl et al. , 2002; McCauley et al. , 2003;

Rao et al. , 2006).

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents

Adolescents face more risks from pesticide e xposure than adults, a problem EPA addresses by proposing a minimum age for certified applicat ors and noncertified app licators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. There is ev idence that adolescents and children do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Inst itute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have show n awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during work time (Rowntree et al. , 1998). As reported in Reed et al . (2006), “young agricultural production workers were 3 times more likely to die on the jo b than their nonagricultura l counterparts.” This
statistic includes deaths from a ll work related causes, and sugg ests that younger workers take more risks or behave in a more dange rous fashion than older workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipmen t, work exposures, and symptoms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al ., 2006). When teens were asked whether they used personal protective equipment when it wa s required, the median self-re ported frequency for use of respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use was required. According to the auth ors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem attributed to that exposure. The authors also s uggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006).

The cognitive development of adol escents affects behavior, particul arly in the areas of judgment, risk-taking and decision making ab ility (Steinberg, 2005). The pa rts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are impor tant for the perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international setting, Abdel-Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an associati on between cognitive deficits, neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure am ong child and adolescent agricultural pesticide applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not refl ect use patterns or regulations in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adoles cents are exposed at high levels of pesticides.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveilla nce data shows that working youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupationally related pesticide illness, attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater se nsitivity to pesticide toxicity. The literature shows th at adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. Therefore, it is more di fficult to be certain that they wi ll make prudent risk management decisions. It is not certain why higher risk ta king behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are awar e of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors and consequences, and pr ocess the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, but take greate r risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). The cognitive changes that occur during a dolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which indicates that emotional development a nd surroundings are important parts of the risk taking process for adolescents. Th is picture of the adolescent de velopment and behavior implies that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, would not protect adolescents to the degree they wi ll protect adults. Thes e potentially at risk adolescents do not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, such as the establishment of minimum age for cer tain activities are warranted to ensure their safety.



### 6.3. What are the Risks?

This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide exposure, including pesticide exposures that ha ve reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of these effects may be lif elong, although they may be a result of either acute (in the case of developmental effects) or chronic exposures . A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic occupational pes ticide exposure is provided in Section 6.6.



### 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Hu man Health Effects

The use of most Because pesticides , substances usually are specifically selected or designed to be toxic, is inherently risky adversely affect biological systems, pesticides generally present risks to non-target organisms as well . Some pesticides are narrowly ta rgeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a broad sp ectrum of organisms, including humans. Exposures to some pestic ides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary widely, and can range from mild skin irritation to death. Severity of symptoms depends largel y on the dose and route of exposure. Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impair ed vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respirator y depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 2013). In rare case s, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different symptoms that a medical professi onal could expect to see follow ing an acute exposure to various pesticides (Reigart and Robe rts, 2013). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, certified applicators al so may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 diseases, including several forms of cancer. These ar e discussed in more detail below, in Section
6.6.

Evidence that acute adverse effects of pesticide exposure oc cur is that pesticid e-related illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure is underreported (see below), there are peer-reviewed studies, base d on pesticide illness repo rting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses. Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture in dustry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticid e poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied ac ross time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magn itude higher than for non-agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveill ance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide
related illness cases in the Californi a surveillance system were agricu ltural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms were de rmatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (a bout 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye contact.

Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study period were low severity (87%), 12% were medi um severity, and 0.6% we re high severity, with one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it is important to note that the severity categorie s can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases can reflect significant morbidity, w ith the exposure resulting in h ealth care treatment and the loss of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pes ticides database used for the Calvert study (and which we use for the analysis in Section 6.5), at least two post-exposur e symptoms must have been reported. Symptoms categorized as “l ow severity” include a bdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe eno ugh to result in missing up to three days of work or hospitalization for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases 6

.



### 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

This section discusses potential risks to families of certified applicators, as well as the families of others who may be exposed to RUPs. This is not a complete review of the epidemiological
literature on the associations betw een RUP exposure and the health of children and families, but it provides an overview of the literature. These are just a subset of diseases that have been reported in the literature to have an association with pesticide exposure to families ; many others, including some cancers

, also have an association been reported by some to be associated with pesticide exposure. The discussion of chroni c occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is

, in Section 6.6, primarily centers on occupational exposure because most of the epidemiological
research on the links between available literature on pesticides and cancer has been based on

6 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www .cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 occupational exposure outcomes is drawn from epidemiologica l studies that recr uit cases who use pesticides occupationally

.

Reproductive Risks

Certified applicators, noncertifi ed applicators working under the di rect supervisi on of a certified applicator, farmworkers and women with pest co ntrol activities near th eir homes face exposure to RUPs when they are pregnant. Reviews ha ve been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnanc y on reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al . (2007) found 59 peer-reviewed studies that examined the rela tionship between pestic ides and reproductive outcomes between 1992 and 2003. A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1.

Table 6.3-1. Summary of Findings on the Asso ciation between Pesticide Exposure and Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al. , 2007

Outcome Examined Number of Papers Found Number of Papers Found that Display an Association Between

the Outcome Examined and Pesticide Exposure* Birth Defect 15 14 (+) Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) Fertility** 14 7 (-) Altered Growth 10 7 (+) Fetal Death 11 9 (+) Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

*The direction of the associa tion is shown in parentheses. ** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality an d infertility.

As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen st udies that were reviewed reported an association between maternal pesticide exposure and an increa sed risk of birth defects. The specific birth
defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven studies showed an association between pest icide exposure and fetal death, which includes “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, preconception exposure was associat ed with early first-trimeste r abortions and post-conception exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most effects, half or more of the studies evaluate d by Sanborn show an associ ation between pesticide exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several three limitations of
each of to this review: epidemiology studies ca nnot prove cause-effect relationships, the difficulty of accurate exposure assessment, a nd possible publication bias in the studies included in the systematic review , and note they were not able to assess whether publication bias was a factor in
the results of this review.

. Therefore, while thes e results are suggestive

, the results cannot be
considered they are not definitive or conclusive

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

8 Potential Health Effects in Children

There is evidence to suggest that exposures children who were exposed to pesticides while in utero (because their pregnant mother was exposed to pesticides in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure at work to pregnant women may affect children. suffer adverse health
effects. Pre-natal exposure may have effects on the neurological development of children (see
below ), and ). Wigle et al . (2009 ) ), in a meta-analysis of 31 studies have found an , concluded
that there was association between pre-natal exposure to the mother pesticides and future
childhood leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated

on Turner et al., (2009), in a meta-analysis of 15 studies, also reports positive associations between residential pesticide exposure and chil dhood leukemia. As part of the registration process, applicants provide data that allow EPA to assess the basis of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional de ficiencies, altered gr owth and fetal loss ). ) and other potential health effects of the pa rticular pesticide active ingredie nt, as well as potential exposure through the use of the pesticide. These developmental effects can result from an acute

overexposure to of the pregnant farmworker to agricultural pesticides during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pr egnancy. Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), micropht halmia (abnormal eyes often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An Through the registration process, EPA establishes conditions of registration intended to prevent developmental and ot her adverse effects, such as restricted-entry intervals and personal protective equipment. If these mitigation measures are not observed, however, an overexposure to one of these pesticides could occur, for example, should (e.g. if a pregnant farmworker enter forgets about a warning received several days previously and subsequently enters the treated area too s oon after an application or through drift of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field

.

Children and adolescents are going through import ant developmental changes, and pesticide exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiol ogical systems than on the systems in adults

. (Golub, 2000). Although adolescents’ system s are more fully developed than those of younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood. In particular, brain ch anges still continue, such as th e final maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelinati on, an important physiological process that
reduces excess neuron connections in the brain and encloses individual ne urons in an insulating sheath, which increases the efficiency of in formation processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). Adolescents may be subject to incidental exposures by being in proximity to areas where pesticides are applied or from take home exposures via parents who work with pestic ides, all of which can re sult in adverse health effects. In addition, adolescent wo rkers can be subject to direct occupational exposure, which is a

concern due because acute exposure at important stages of development may cause significant health effects and also because employment at a younger age increases the chance and likelihood of chronic exposure, which may result in delayed h ealth effects that are de bilitating over a longer
timeframe.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 Several studies have investigated pesticide exposure and children, There are associations in both rural and urban settings, although not the children of certified applicat ors. These studies show
the effect of epidemiological literature between prenatal or early-life pesticide exposure ( from occupational exposure to the family or incidental exposure in the home

. ) and adverse health
outcomes in children. These have reported delayed mental development associated with an increased exposure to organophos phate pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Engel et al ., 2007). Studies with rural and urban cohorts report asso ciations between organophosphate pesticide exposure and a bnormal reflexes in children (Engel et al ., 2007, Young et al ., 2005), and increased developmental disorders were reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Lovasi, et al

., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011).

Several recent studies ha ve shown an association There are reported associations between organophosphate pesticides and the developm ent of behavior re lated to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from a rural cohort Marks et al. (2010) concluded that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal le vels were associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al ., 2010). from a rural cohort. Similar associations are

seen reported in a study of the exposure of child ren to the organophosphate pesticide, chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attentio n-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, Lovasi, et al

., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (2010), found an association between organophosphate metabolites and ADHD behavi ors. In this study, compared to children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors.

The biological mechanisms to cause such ne urodevelopmental findings reported in these epidemiology studies are not well understood and t hus far causality has not been established. However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest that children exposed to OPs ma y be at a higher risk of a dverse neuro-developmental and
neurobehavioral outcomes than ch ildren with lower exposures.



### 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding RUP Incidents

In Section 6.5, a quantified estimate of the benef its from reduced human health incidents due to the rule changes is provided, but these quan tified estimates are base d only on the value of reduced illness from acute occupational RUP expos ure. The quantified estimates are limited to
these effects because sufficient data on illne ss from acute RUP exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. The estimates, however, do not quantify many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for which sufficient data are not available to estimate the monetary value of these benefits. For that reason, non-quantif ied benefits, both to human health and the environment, are discussed here. The human health benefits that can be quantified are presented in Section 6.5. Other non-quantifiable benefits from reduced chronic exposures are presented in
Section 6.6.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects describe d in the prior section that are not easily observed and reported. Becaus e of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that would result from the rule changes, and the dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value of reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is difficult to quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women or chronic exposure to families could result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in children, and it is challe nging to quantify the benefits from the proposed rule changes that may reduce these effects.

There are also non-quantifiable eco logical benefits, from reduced RUP exposure to non-target plants and animals. These are discussed in Section 6.4.1.



### 6.4.1. Non-Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents

In addition to the benefits to human health, th e proposed changes would also be expected to reduce environmental damage associated with RU P use by reducing the incidents of RUP misuse
and other errors. This section will discuss the ha rm that RUP misuse and other errors can cause to non-target animals, wild plants and crops, and the ways which the proposed changes would
reduce the environmental costs of misuse and other errors.

It is difficult to get an accurate picture of how much damage to plants, animals and crops is caused by RUP misuse and misapplication. Al though EPA maintains databases of pesticiderelated incidents, these data are insufficient to reliably estimate the number of incidents that may be prevented by the rule. In a ddition, the available information is generally insufficient to reliably estimate the cost of incidents, even wh en they have been repo rted. Because of these inadequacies, we will use the available data to provide a qualitative discussion of the kind of environmental incidents that are caused by misuse of RUPs, and whether the incidents can be prevented by the rule.

Data Ecological incident data are us ed by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as a line of evidence (in a weight-of-evidence approach) for making risk conclusions in pesticide risk assessments. Incident data can provide important information on what can happen to non-target plants and wildlife when a pesticide is used in the ‘real world’, and they can help support or refute risk predictions based on laboratory data.

The primary sources of ecological incident information available to EPA for this analysis are the Incident Data System (IDS) and the Ecologica l Incident Information System (EIIS), both databases that are maintained by EPA 7 . These databases contain information from pesticide incident reports from a variety of sources. Some are submitted directly to OPP by pesticide registrants, the public, and state, federal, and local government agencies, and others are from

7 These databases are not generally available to the public. More information about these databases is available in OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA 2007): http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10- finalrpt.pdf.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 information available through other sources, such as the United States Geological Survey’s Contaminant Exposure and Effects – Terrestrial Vertebrate Database, the American Bird Conservancy’s Avian Incident Monitoring System, the open liter ature and media accounts.

The IDS database includes all pesticide incide nts involving humans, wild life, pets, and other domestic animals of which OPP is aware. IDS is primarily used by OPP to track the total number of all incidents (human, wildlife, etc.) that may have be en caused by a pesticide. The EIIS database contains information on pestic ide incidents involvi ng primarily plants, nondomesticated birds and mammals, fish, and honey bees. Information from ecological incident reports is only included in the EIIS if the reports contain, at a minimum, information on a specific pesticide, the effects, and the identity of the wildlife or pl ants involved in the incident. For this analysis, EPA uses the EIIS database, because information on the specific pesticide (and whether it was an RUP) and the specific events are essential to understanding the circumstances
of an incident and whether or not it would be preventable.

Incidents in the EIIS are given a certainty index classification [i.e., ‘unrelated’, ‘unlikely’, ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘h ighly probable’– and the relatively new classifica tion of ‘exposure only’ (residues detected but no effect s noted)]. The certainty level indicates the lik elihood that a particular pesticide cause d the observed effects. In general, “highly probable” incidents require residues and/or clear circumstances linking the ex posure to the effects. “Probable” incidents
include those where residues are not available and/ or circumstances are sl ightly less conclusive than for “highly probable.” “Possible” incident s are those where there was exposure to multiple chemicals, and it is not clear which one was the primary causal factor, although circumstances surrounding the incident and toxico logical properties of the pes ticide suggest a possible causal relationship. “Unlikely” incidents are those for which evidence suggests that another pesticide or another stressor was the primary cause of the effect, but contribution by the given chemical cannot be completely ruled out. Finally, “unr elated” incidents are those in which evidence clearly indicates that another st ressor besides the given pestic ide caused the effects. Each incident in the EIIS is also gi ven a legality of use classificatio n [‘registered use’ (the label directions were followed), ‘misuse’ [label di rections were not followed; for example, the application involved (accidental or intentional) higher than labele d rates, non-labeled application sites, or the intentional target ing on non-labeled species], or ‘ unknown’ (it is not known whether or not the label directions were followed)].

As with most reporting of pesticide incidents, ec ological incidents are subj ect to under-reporting. Ecological incident data are not systematically collected, and, thus, they may not be representative of unreported inci dents. The collection of incide nt data is largely opportunistic, and reported incidents represent a very small por tion of the actual incide nts that likely occur (Vyas, 1999). The following steps typically need to occur for OPP to receive information on a pesticide incident involving wildlife:

Step 1: Seeing an Incident:

For one, damage from misuse of an RUP, such as a dead animal or plant damage, must be seen to be reported. Many animals that are sick and/or dying will hide as a predator-avoidance response, making it more difficult to find their remains if they die while hidden. If an affected animal is*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 killed by a predator, it is often consumed imme diately. Carcasses of animals not killed by a predator and not consumed immediately can be removed fairly quickly from the environment (within hours of death) by scavengers and/or more slowly (within days of death) via decomposition. Therefore, it can be surprisingly difficult to find dead animals and most animals that die (for any reason), are likely not ever s een by someone before they are scavenged or they decompose. Carcass recovery efficiency rate s, even for trained i ndividuals searching for carcasses in a known, limited ar ea, are often well below 100% (Madrigal et al., 1996 reported recovering only about two-thirds of bird carcas ses placed in the study zone). Although plants do not move or disappear from the environment th e same way that animals do, any damage to nontarget plants must be noticed, which may be rare . Damage to crop plants is more likely to be noticed, since they are monitored by farmers.

Step 2: Reporting an Incident:

Even when an incident is noticed, it is unlikel y to be reported to anyone. There are several reasons why incident reporting is unlikely. For example, the inci dent observer may not realize the importance of reporting the incident or they may not know to whom to report it. Motivation can be an important consideration for someone re porting an incident. People may be more likely to report an incident if the e ffects impact them economically (e .g., if the incident involves crop damage or a bee kill) or persona lly (e.g., it involves a pet or plan ts in their ya rd) than if it involves a wild animal. Additionally, if only one or two dead animals are found, it may be assumed that the animals simply died from natural causes.

Step 3: Linking an Incident to a Pesticide:

For an incident to be considered a pesticide incident, it must be linked to a pesticide exposure. Incidents are most likely to be associated with a pesticide if the effect is close in time and space to an application. For slower acting chemicals, affected animals may move from the site of exposure and likely will not die near the pestic ide application site (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), making it difficult to link the deaths to a specific pesticide. Typically, only severe acute toxic effects are observed (principally mortality) and chronic effects (e.g., effects to reproduction or growth) usually are not observed. Weakened a nd sick animals may be preyed upon, hit by cars, die of disease, etc., and their deat hs may not necessarily be attributed to a pesticide, even if it is a major factor in their deaths. Additionally, with the exception of honey bees and crayfish, effects
to invertebrates are not typically reported. Because incident investigations can be very complex and resource intensive (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), even if a dead animal is reported, and the death is suspected to be caused by a pesticide, th e incident may not be investigated due to limited

resources.

Step 4: Submitting an Incident Report to OPP:

Incidents reported to local or m unicipal authorities or independent wildlife rescue organizations are unlikely to ever be forwarded to OPP. Some state agencies and some wildlife rescue organizations routinely report in cidents to OPP (for example Calif ornia and New York), but most do not. Therefore, even if a carcass is f ound and reported to local authorities, and an investigation concludes that the death was due to a pesticide, the incident report may not be*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 submitted to OPP. Reporting by non-registrant s is completely voluntary and information on ecological incidents can be gathered by a wide variety of government agencies (e.g., federal, state, and local) and privat e organizations (e.g., toxicol ogy laboratories and wildlife rehabilitation centers). Not all of these agen cies/organizations may know to submit information on ecological incidents to OPP; may not know how to submit the information to the OPP; or may simply choose not to submit the data to OPP (especially if it involves a case going through litigation or some enforcement action).

Although pesticide registrants are required to report adverse ef fect incidents under FIFRA, a registrant cannot report incidents it is unaware of, or that do not appe ar related to its pesticides. Furthermore, the reporting re quirements defined in FIFRA 8 allow registrants to aggregately report all ‘minor’ ecological in cidents. Incidents that can be aggregately reported include
incidents that involve fewer than 200 birds or 5 mammals. The aggregate incident reports lack details including information on effects, specif ic taxa involved, and descriptions of use; therefore, aggregate incident re ports are not included in the E IIS, but they are included in the
IDS.

Overall, because of the many ways th at reporting of an incident to OPP can fail, it is likely that only a small fraction of the pesticide ecological in cidents that occur are ever recorded. Because the incident data in the EIIS are not systemati cally collected and likely represent a very small
fraction of the incidents that ac tually occur, these data are li kely an underestimate of damage from misuse and other errors by ce rtified applicators. For these reasons, no attempt is made to quantify the benefits from reduced ecologica l damage caused by RUPs for the rule; the discussion here will be qualitat ive. Incident data, however, do provide evidence that exposure
from misuse of RUPs can result in field-observable effects.

Method

To characterize the potential va lue of reduced RUP incidents, even qualitatively, requires classifying the EIIS data to retain only thos e incidents that the propos ed rule changes would prevent. First, a team of OPP staff compiled a list of all RUP pestic ides products and active ingredients. Many active ingred ients have some pesticide products that are RUPs and others, with different use patterns or c oncentrations that are not. The EIIS database was searched for incidents in which one of the RUPs active ingred ients was identified as the causal agent for the years 2009 - 2013. In some cases, the pesticide product was identified, so a definite
determination about whether the incident involved a RUP could be made. If the causal agent was only identified as an active ingredient, the incident was in cluded if a majority of the products containing it were RUPs, if information about the intended use made it clear that the product used was an RUP, or if the pesticide was applied by a certifie d applicator. Once the incidents related to RUPs were identified and available information gathered, EPA staff
reviewed the cause of the incide nts and by consensus determined whether they would have been likely or probably prevented by the rule. The main reason EPA expects the rule to prevent incidents like these is that raising the standards fo r initial certification and more frequent training

8 The reporting requirements can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 40, Section 159.184(c)(5)(iii),which can be found in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=100c94cd811a48658e383a956da0ef65&node=40:24.0.1.1.10.2.1.13*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 would ensure that applicators and those under their supervision would mo re carefully follow pesticide label instructions, take proper care to prevent harm, and generally have a higher level of competency. The team of O PP staff classified the RUP- a nd certified app licator-related incidents into the following categories:

 Preventable incidents: Incidents wher e there was a clear link between the application/applicator and th e effect and the information demonstrated an error by the applicator or applicator incompetency.

 Possibly preventable incidents: Incident s where there was a cl ear link between the application/applicator and the effect and there was a signific ant impact so an applicator error seemed likely but the available informati on did not identify any applicator errors.

 Incidents where there is not enough informati on: Incidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the eff ect and an applicator error was possible but

the available information did not id entify any applicator errors.

 Not preventable incidents: Inci dents that did not meet any of the above criteria, such as

incidents where there was no clear link between the application/applicator and the effect, incidents where there was no evidence of applic ator error or if ther e just was not enough

information.

Only incidents that were definitely related to RUP use and considered preventable or possibly preventable are reported below. The incidents often do not have sufficient information to quantify the damage. For example, some of the in cidents reported damage to a crop from misuse or misapplication, but the information is insuffici ent to determine the actual loss to growers. Even when damage to crop plants may result in to tal yield loss, the response by the grower to the problem has not been identified. They could choo se to accept the yield lo ss, or replant the crop, or to plant another crop, which might reduce the lo sses below those of total yield loss. In the narrative about the incident, the crop damage is described (e .g. stunting, reduced yields, bleaching, leaf burn, etc.), but even when the information has been confirmed by agronomists or other experts, the actual yield loss has not been quantified.

For the non-crop damage, such as the deaths of w ild animals, in addition to the difficulty in identifying the numbers of animals affected, it is very difficult to provide a value for the potential losses. For example, if a substantial nu mber of bald eagles are killed in a preventable incident (as we see in the data), to quantify the value of preventing that incident, we would need to know the value of those eagles to societ y, which is difficult to determine.

Loosely speaking, environmental amenities can have multiple sources of value. Economists often categorize some of these as a “use value, ” where people gain value from somehow using or interacting with the resource, su ch as visiting a beach, catching a fish, or observing wild birds. Another category is “non-use value,” because th ese environmental goods have value to society beyond their use to people. These non-use valu es for the preservation of environmental goods have several sources, including that people may wa nt the option to have the goods available in the future, or the value that people place on mainta ining the good for future generations, or value placed by society for the mere existence of envi ronmental goods. Non-use values may comprise a substantial fraction of total values for some wildlife species – especially for charismatic species, threatened or endangered species, or spec ies that are not popular targets for hunting or*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 wildlife viewing – that have been harmed by misu se of RUPs, and these values are difficult to estimate. A standard approach would be to use a stated-preference method, like contingent valuation (EPA 2010a) to estimate the societal wi llingness to pay to preserve the animals or plants that were harmed in preventable RUP incide nts. This is not done for this analysis because a high-quality contingent valuation study is ve ry time consuming and expensive, and more importantly, the environmental damage here is ve ry diffuse, involving different types of plants and animals in all parts of the country, whereas the most reliable cont ingent valuation work involves very concrete choi ces in a specific location.

An alternative is benefits transfer, where the benefits of preserving environmental goods have been estimated in one context, and we can adjust or apply those benefit estimates for the relevant context. In our case, we are unable to find specific values for the many incidents that can be used for benefits transfer. As an example, cons ider the loss of a bald eagle. There are estimates of the societal value of preserving bald eagles. Two studies from the literature (Stevens et al

., 1991, or Boyle and Bishop 1987) report household estimates that range from $21.11 to $42.21 in
2006 dollars. This indicates subs tantial societal value for eagles, and aggregated across households in a region or the United States would result in a very large number ($34 billion for the 115 million households in the US). However, the values that are reported, and which were estimated using the underlying cont ingent valuation studies was a willingness to pay to maintain the existence of eagles in a specific state; no attempt was made to estimate the value of protecting indivi dual eagles, as we have here.

However, we could use these estimates, after adju sting them to transform estimates for eagles as a whole into estimates for individual eagles. The non-use value for eagles could be defined as:

Non-use value = ∆ܰ ∗ ∆௉

∆ே ܹܶܲ ∗ ௑ ܪ ∗ ௡௢௜௚௘௥

Where ∆ N is the number of eagles saved per year, ∆ P/ ∆ N is the change in extinction probability for the population per the numbe r of saved eagles per year, WTP X

is the willingness to pay to prevent the (local) extinc tion of the species, and H Region is the number of households in the region. Incident reports may shed light on ∆ N, but of course the ability to account for underreporting is important, and we have no information on under-reporting. WTP X

for eagles and a handful of other species in the incident data may be gleaned from the literature, but estimates
∆ P/ ∆ N would be at best speculative.

Because of the challenge of providing reliable estimates of the value of preventing ecological damage from RUP incidents, we make no attemp t to quantify them here. Below we provide information on the types of incidents that can be prevented by changes to the Certification standards, based on the incident data that are available.

Incidents

The EIIS data were queried in two passes, the first for the period 2009 – 2010, because it matched the period used for the human incident data, and later for 2011 – 2013, to see whether the data were similar, and to have a larger samp le if the incidents varied significantly from year to year. There were total of 245 incidents return ed when the EIIS was queried for incidents that*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 were probably related to an RUP. The incidents that are describe d here are those that EPA staff determined were related to an RUP (some ac tive ingredients have RU P and non-RUP products), and the incident was deemed “preventable” or “ possibly preventable” by the rule changes using the above criteria. As shown in Table 6.4-1, ther e were a total of 68 RUP incidents recorded in EIIS deemed preventable or likely preventa ble. There were 16 pr eventable or possibly preventable incidents involving fish or other aquatic animals, such as crayfish, 5 involving birds, 12 involving mammals (dogs, coyot e, and fox), 7 incidents invol ving damage to bee colonies, and 28 involving crop damage. The table also sh ows the number of organisms affected by the
incidents. There were more incidents relate d to RUPs available, but these were either determined to be unlikely to be prevented by the rule, or there was not enough information to make a determination. It is worth mentioning th at these are the incidents remaining after the screening process, and that there is likely significan t under-reporting of ecological incidents.

Table 6.4-1. Preventable Incident s from the EIIS Database, 2009

-

–

2013

Affected Organism Number of
Incidents Reported Quantity Affected Fish and Aquatic Animals 16 23,633 Killed

Birds 5 504 Killed

Mammals 12 23 Killed

Bees 7 394 Colonies Killed

Crops 28 6,637 Acres Damaged

Source: EPA EIIS Database; EPA staff determined preventability.

As shown in Table 6.4-1, there were 28 reported preventable or possibly preventable incidents involving crop damage. As mentioned above , because we do not know how the damage ultimately affected yield, we are unable to determine the value of preventing incidents like these. These crop incidents typically involve applicat or error that more fr equent training on the importance of following label requirements would be able to prevent. The type of errors found include applying pesticides when weather condi tions are not appropriate for the pesticide, contamination or improper cleaning of applicati on equipment, the wrong active ingredient is applied to the crop, incorrect rate or timing of the application. The crops involved were mostly corn, including sweet corn. Five of the incident s involve a popcorn crop, all in 2011, and four of them occurred in two adjacent counties in Indiana.

Although we are unable to estimate the damage caused by these preventable incidents, it is possible to put an upper bound on some of them, as an example. If we were to assume the crops were a total loss, then in some cases we coul d multiply the expected yield by the price growers received that year to find an estimate of the tota l revenue lost to the grower. For example, a total for 367 acres of popcorn were reported damaged in Indiana. If the 367 acres of popcorn were to achieve the 2011 average yield for Indiana of 4,000 pounds per acre (NASS, 2012) at the 2011 average price (NASS, 2012) of $0.258 per pound ( 2011 was a relatively high value year) would have netted a grower $1,032 per acre (over $378,000 for the total ar ea), which would be the lost revenue in Indiana. Of course, if the crop were lost, there would be so me savings in unneeded*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 harvest activities, etc., but this is a substantial loss to growers. If yield were reduced somewhat, rather than fully, the losses would be somewhat lower.

Similarly, for field corn, the average incident involved 238 acres. At 2013 yields and prices (158.8 bushels per acre (NASS, 2014a) and $4.50 per bushel (NASS, 2014b)), preventing the average incident could save revenue to the grower of up to $170,000. These example numbers show that misuse incidents involving RUPs can be very costly, and avoiding the incidents potentially has substantial value.

As shown in Table 6.4-1, the EIIS data show 7 reported preventable in cidents involving RUPs
that killed colonies of bees. In two of the incidents, there was insufficient information to determine how many colonies were harmed, a lthough the beekeeper reported mortality (reported as 50% mortality in one case). These two incide nts are included in the count of 7, but not the count of colonies harmed. In all cases, the bees were killed by misappli cation of RUPs, when the applicator applied the pesticide to the area wh ere bees were actively foraging or allowed the pesticide to drift into areas where significant numbe rs of bees were present. It is difficult to know the value of the colonies destroyed in the preventable incidents that show up in the EIIS data. The value of a bee colony can be thought of in several ways, all of which are incomplete. One is the replacement cost for the colony, which includes purchasing of new bees, and possibly new hives and frames, if the beekeeper is con cerned about past contamination. According to Rucker and Thurman (2012), the cost of a new p acket of bees which includes a queen is about $50. This could be considered th e rough cost of replacing a colony, but it ignores the lost value of ecosystem services. The first of these is the loss of honey production for the beekeeper. Depending on how late in the year the new colo ny is established, there may be a substantial reduction in the honey produced by the bees. Av erage yield per colony in the US for 2012 was 56 pounds, with a value of about $1.99 per pound, or about $112 per colony, which could be lost if the colony could not produce enough honey to maintain itself and allow harvesting (Rucker and Thurman, 2012). Another important service that bees provide is pollinat ion services, critical to U.S. agriculture. Beekeepers are contracted to provide bees for pollination for some crops, and the price they are paid for this service va ries by the crop. Among the more valuable crops that depend on pollination services are almonds, which in recent years paid beekeepers about $140 per colony (Rucker et al. , 2012). This represents a reve nue source for beekeepers, but it may not reflect the losses to growers if pollination is not available during the essential time when plants are flowering. At a very conservative estimate of $100 pe r hive, the reported loss of hives would have a value of over $39,000.

The remainder of the preventable incidents from the EIIS data are anim als, generally counted after they have died. The mammal incidents incl ude the killing of 14 dogs, at least six coyotes and two fox. Five of the coyotes were killed in one incident, due to im proper disposal of RUP containers, but it is possible that they were kill ed intentionally, which w ould be a misuse of an RUP. The other coyote incident involved a farm er baiting for raccoons to protect a corn crop in Connecticut. The farmer used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the d eaths of the coyote and a dog, and severe injury to another dog. This was a case where the RUP was mishandled several ways, including off-label use and distributed to no ncertified applicators. There were substantial fines in this case, of $55,000 to the distributor and $15,000 to the farmer, although the fines to
the distributor also included distri bution to other noncertified applicat ors. In a similar incident in*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 Missouri, a man baiting for coyote used an RUP inse cticide, which resulted in the death of three crows, a red-tailed hawk, three dogs, a gr ay fox, a skunk and “several” coyotes.

The remainder of the mammal incidents were the k illing of dogs and one fox. In all cases, they were killed by predacides. In most cases, th ese incidents were cause d by applicators not following the label instructions, which have clear use restrictions to protect dogs. One of the cases involves a landowner lacing d eer meat with predacides to protect deer from coyote, but where a dog actually consumed the poison. In this case, the RUP compound was distributed illegally, and applied by someone wit hout following label instructions.

Most of the deaths of aquatic animals came from the application of RUPs to control lamprey. These events typically resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-target fish, because the conditions of the application were insufficiently monitored or the application rate was too high.
One case from California was a result of confusion in the appropriate rate of application, which
allowed the chemical to move downstream at high concentration beyond the irrigation canal targeted for treatment, resulting in the deaths of several hundred fish, along with crayfish and tadpoles. Because of the vague description of the numbers killed, these were not counted in Table 6.4-1, although the incident wa s. The final case with aquatic impacts involves non-aquatic applications of RUPs that ended up killing aquatic animals. The disposal ran into an adjacent creek, resulting in the deaths of approximately 6,000 fish, 600 crayfish, and four aquatic snakes.
There are some estimates in the literature that provide a starting place for valuation for fish, but these typically provide estimated values for maintaining populations of well-known fish, like salmon, rather than individual aquatic animals fr om these RUP incidents. A 2006 meta-analysis of willingness to pay per fish based on recreatio nal fishing reported a mean value of about $17 per fish protected, but the range of estimates in the underlying st udies, even after outliers were
removed was from under five cents to over $300 per fish (Johnston et al. , 2006), which highlights the amount of uncertainty in estimates of aquatic valuation.

For birds, there are five incidents involving bird fatalities, one of which was already described
above that resulted in the death of three crow s and one hawk in addition to several mammals. Two of the remaining incidents, both in 2009, stem from a rodenticide being applied in a faulty
and careless manner which resulted in the deaths of a total of 30 dead geese in Oregon. Fifty Brewer’s blackbirds and grackles were killed in an urban area of Sacramento, California in 2010. Although the pesticide was ta rgeting these types of bi rds, it is designed to frighten rather than kill most of the birds, and the application was in an inappropriate area. The final bird kill was substantial, and very well documented. An RUP was used for a rat eradication project on an island in Alaska, and misuse resulted in the deat hs of 420 birds, of which 219 were identified. The birds were killed because, a lthough the label requires picki ng up spilled bait and any animal carcasses to prevent killing of non-target animals, this was not done until months after the application. There were many birds killed in this incident: 157 gulls, 41 bald eagles, one peregrine falcon, along with many others. As with the other species involved in RUP incidents,
it is difficult to find estimates of the value of individual birds, but it is clear that they have substantial societal value, both among recreationa l bird observers and th e general public. There are available estimates for protec ting populations of birds, and they confirm the substantial value for protecting these animals. Kotchen and Re iling (2000) report a mean annual willingness to pay per household (in Maine) of about $26 (1997 do llars) to protect the po pulation of peregrine*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 falcon. Richardson and Loomis (2009) report annua l mean willingness to pay per household in their meta-analysis of contingent valuation studi es. These include bald eagles, which were one of the species in the above incidents, for which they reported the mean values for maintaining the population of bald eagles: studies that repor t an average value of $39 (2006 dollars) per household per year, and studies that report a lump sum, or an average value of $297 (2006 dollars) per household per year. These estimates ar e based on protecting populations of birds at a regional level, so it is difficult to translate lo sses of individual birds into extinction probabilities
that these estimates reflect.

In all the cases involving wildlife, EPA is una ble to estimate the valu e of these preventable losses described above, although they could be substantial. The pr ovisions to the proposed rule could help to prevent in cidents like these.

These incidents likely represent a small percentage of the actua l ecological incidents caused by certified applicator errors. In addition to th e reasons for under-reporting mentioned earlier, the approach used to search the EIIS database onl y captured the incidents that occurred from 2009 through 2013. An example of unde r-reporting involves deaths of geese in Oregon from zinc phosphide poisoning. EPA’s search of 2009 – 2013 incidents identified two of these cases during 2009. By limiting ourselves to that time period, this analysis did not capture a number of similar incidents. A paper published in the Jo urnal of Veterinary Di agnostic Investigation discussed investigations of ten goose mortal ity events in Oregon from 2004 to 2008. The number of birds impacted in these incident s ranged from 5 to over 300 birds (Bildfell, et al

., 2013).



### 6.5. Quantified Human Health Benefits of Reduced Acute Illness from
Restricted Use Pesticides

EPA expects the proposed changes to the certification standards to result in benefits by reducing exposure to certified pesticide a pplicators, their families and the public. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute RUP exposure to be up to $77 million a nnually, although important non-quantifiable human health benefits are disc ussed later in the ch apter, and important ecological but unquantified benefits were discu ssed in the previous section. This section quantifies benefits from the reduc tions in adverse health effects associated with acute pesticide

exposure.



### 6.5.1. Methodology and Data

We use a two-step process to estimate the benef its of the proposed ru le that accrue through avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates th e number of acute pes ticide poisoning incidents that will be avoided through provisions in the pro posed rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate cause s of the exposure. EPA then determines whether the provision s of the proposed rule addre ss the causes to estimate the proportion of pesticide incidents that would be a voided. This proportion is applied to the total number of reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 in Section 6.5.2, under-reporting is likely large, whic h will lead to a downward bias in the
estimated benefits. This downward bias coul d be eliminated, if the amount of under-reporting was known. A discussion of under-reporting and the effect on estimated be nefits is provided at the end of Section 6.5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupati onal Risks – Pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides), administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety an d Health. SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses relate d to pesticide exposure. EPA also reviewed its own Incident Data System and annual report s from the Poison Control Centers to document
unintentional deaths from RUPs over time.

The second step is to estimate the value of avoide d incidents, given the seve rity of the effects.
The estimates here are based on avoided medical co st and avoided productiv ity loss and thus will underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL).

The value of avoided incidents is measured as av oided cost for treatment and lost productivity.
Information on medical costs comes from two sources . Cost of inpatient care comes from the
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and related software tools and produc ts developed through a Federal- State-Industry partnership and sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 9 . HCUP databases bring together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital as sociations, private data organizations, and the federal government to crea te a national information resource of patientlevel health care data. HCUP includes the larges t collection of longitudina l hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-l evel information beginni ng in 1988. Outpatient
costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedur e Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classi fication system used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by physic ians and other health care professionals 10

.

Finally, data to estimate the value of productiv ity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4.



### 6.5.2. Under-reporting of RUP Incidents

There is concern that pesticide incidents in ge neral are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before a pesticide-related illness can be recorded by any c ounting system: (1) the exposed person must perceive th at they have treatable symptoms; (2) the person must seek medical attention; (3) th e physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pe sticide related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide pois oning case from being tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al

., 2001).

9 More information on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project is available here: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/

10 More information on the Health care Common Procedure Code system and codes is available here : http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 (1) The exposed person must perceive that th ey have treatable symptoms of an illness. Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not uniquely indicative of pesticide e ffects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more common pesticides results in flu-like or cold- like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or de rmatologic effects similar to those caused by exposure to poison ivy. When fa rmworkers or bystanders are exposed, they may not perceive that their symptoms are related to pesticide expo sures because they are not working directly with pesticides and may not real ize that they were exposed to pesticide residues.

(2) The person must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, many pesticide-related acute health e ffects will gradually disappear w ithout medical intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhib ited by pesticide exposure, causes some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severit y, and repetition of exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophtha lmologic effects will gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Th erefore, many people w ith treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of Calif ornia workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance system showed that in 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment (Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported.

(3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specific ally diagnose the illness or injury as being caused by an occupational exposu re to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be drawn. It is unknown how often physicians mistak e pesticide poisonings for other causes, but physicians may not associate vague symptoms w ith pesticide poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the poi soning as a pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide ex posure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rath er than confirming the causes.

(4) The physician must report th e incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide related. Occupational dise ases in general are more likely to be underreported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and sa fety in the State of Washington says: "Frequently, occupational dise ases simply do not appear in workers' compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disi ncentives and inherent difficulties in health care provi ders recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 1991)

Barriers to accurate reporti ng by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting requirements and opportunities, relu ctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constrai nts on physicians that may prevent them from completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because health care professionals fear becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational inju ry claim in which they might have to defend an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this statement" (Arizona, 1990).

If any of the four steps needed for accurate r ecording of an occupationa l pesticide incident are not completed, then it will not appear in surv eillance databases. There is evidence in the literature that occupational medical incidents, es pecially exposures to po isons, are underreported, although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). Exposures that do not cause immediate symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of under-reporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summari zed in Table 6.5-1, and a discussion of the importance on benefit estimates is given in Section 6.5.4.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 Table 6.5-1 Summary of Results from Under-reporting Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Underreporting
Estimate

1990 Treated vs. Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies
Between a Poison Control
Center and a Member Hospital (Harchelroad et al

., 1990) Compare poison control center reports to actual toxic exposures presented to an urban area hospital 74% a

1983 Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of a Regional PoisonInformation Center (ChafeeBahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a poison information center by hospital staff over a two-year period “Sufficiently Large” b

1987 Interpretation and Uses of
Data Collected in Poison
Control Centers in the United States (Veltri et al

., 1987) Identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of the American
Association of Poison Control
Centers National Data Collection System 67%

2006 California Surveillance for
Pesticide-Related Illness and Injury: Coverage, Bias, and Limitations (Mehler, et al., 2006) Evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the California
Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 47% of hospitalizations for agricultural workers,

84% of poison control reports for all occupational exposure

2008 Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting Underreporting of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (US House of Representatives, 2008) Identifying issues involving the inclusiveness of reported workplace injuries and
illnesses 69%

2008 Examining Evidence on
Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (Ruser

, 2008) Identifying underreporting underreporting for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and how they can be
corrected

. 20-70% c

2008 Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Agricultural
Workers in the United States, 1998–2005 (Calvert,
et al. , 2008) Identifying agricultural pesticide exposure incidents
and estimate incident rates 88% to 95%, when compared to the Department of Labor National Agricultural

Workers Survey d

Notes:

a The EMD Emergency Medical Dispatcher evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCC Poison
Control Center ; resulting in underreport of 74%

b “Sufficiently Large” represents the aut hors’ interpretation of the differences be tween hospital’s poisoning reports and the hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of O ccupational Injuries and Il lnesses, conducted by BLS

d Based on calculation in Calvert et al., 2008, comparing SE NSOR-Pesticides to the National Agricultural Workers Survey

The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of O ccupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser (2008)*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent. Although attempting to record injuri es and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers
are not recorded in the SOII. The BLS reali zes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are of ten difficult to associate to the workplace.

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimat es that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). According to experts, a major cause of under-repo rting may be due to the fact that employers may have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and illnesses are less likely to be inspect ed by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.

There have been three studies on undercounts invo lving poison control data. The studies each focus on a specific region and compare cases re ported to poison control centers with those poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial under-reporti ng of poisoning incidents. Note th at these studies only estimate the under-reporting by physicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – poisoned people not seeking medical care or wher e the cause is misdiagnosed would not be
counted in these studies.

Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Po ison Control Center s (PCC), of actual toxic exposure results do cumented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 470 exposures that were observed by the em ergency department, only 26% were ever documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic exposure on the part of the potenti al callers are probably the majo r cause for non-reporting.

Chafee-Bahamon et al . (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identificati on of poisonings among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural hospitals or hospitals far from poison control cen ters were identified as being less likely to call poison control centers, so the cases were less lik ely to be recorded in poisoning databases.

The third study, by Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only under-reporting but misreporting may occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a region al medical center could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, wh ich indicates that exis ting data on pesticide poisonings may be consistently low.

Calvert et al. , (2008), estimated incidence rates of ag ricultural pesticide poisoning, finding that, among agricultural workers annual pesticide po isonings occurred at a rate of 51 per 100,000 farmworkers. Calvert compares these to results from the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey (NAWS), whic h in 1999 survey farmworkers about pesticide*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 exposure, illness and medi cal treatment. Calvert et al. report, based on the SENSOR-Pesticides data, that 0.07% of farmworkers suffer acute oc cupational pesticide poiso nings annually. They compare that to the NAWS, which reports that 1.4% of agricultural workers suffered medical symptoms as a result of pesticide exposure, and that 0.6% received medical treatment for illness from pesticide exposure. If these numbers are correct, that suggest 0.53% (the difference between 0.6% and 0.07%) of farmwo rkers received medical treatm ent but were not reported to the pesticide illness surveillance system, and 1.33% (the difference between 1.4% and 0.07%) suffered symptoms that were not recorded in counts of pesticide incidents. These number suggest substantial underreporti ng: if 0.53% of the 0.6% were not recorded, that is an underreporting rate of 88%. If we were to think about incide nts including those where medical treatment is not sought, then 1.4% of farmwork ers had illness from pesticide exposure, but 1.33% were not recorded, which is an underreporting rate of 95%.

There are several reasons to thi nk that pesticide incidents spec ifically are unde rreported. The OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide incidents to be underreported, most of which ar e consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents;

 No central reporting point for all incidents;

 Symptoms associated with pesticide pois onings often mimic symptoms from other

causes;

 Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects;

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the effects;

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects;

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; and

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases.

The limited available data for pesticide poisoning s by RUPs are consistent with the conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likel y to lead to medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this section estimates of acute benefits from avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of underreporting on those estimates is prov ided at the end of Section 6.5.4



### 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use a database from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) called the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure (SENSOR-Pesticid es). This database contains detail on the exposures that led to the incident report, their severity and thei r causes, although the data are not national in scope. SENSOR-Pesticides is a su rveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a two-year period, 2009 to 2010, during which time nine states (California, Florid a, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) reported incidents involving RUPs to SENSOR-Pesticides*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 (Fortenberry and Calvert, 2014). SENSOR-Pesticides reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide involved in the incident to determine if it was an RUP and to
evaluate the circumstances of the incident. Th ese data are used to es timate the proportion of incidents that would be avoided under the propo sed rule. Although SENSOR-Pesticides data are available for earlier years, only data from 2009 – 2010 are used here. 2009 and 2010 are the most recent years for which the reporting states ar e consistent. In addition, for these two years SENSOR-Pesticides reports any contributing factor (also known as the “prevention code”) identified for each incident. EPA initially focuse d this query on cases with prevention codes to draw upon the training and expert ise of NIOSH and the SENSOR-P esticides state surveillance coordinators who investigate and code these cas es. However, while investigating deaths and high severity cases over time in SENSOR, EPA real ized that some releva nt incidents were not captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or “unknown.”

To ensure that all relevant cases were cons idered, EPA took a second step while querying the
SENSOR-Pesticides data to iden tify cases to support the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The WPS-relevant cases involve the use of agri cultural pesticides used in the production of crops. For the WPS-cases, EPA identified whethe r the incident involved a RUP and compared the list to the initial query for 2009 – 2010 certifi cation rule incidents that was based solely on prevention codes. About 20 additional incidents involving the use of RUPs were identified that
were added to the list of cases that were reviewed.

EPA reviewed pesticide incident cases re ported to SENSOR-Pesticides from 2009-2010 that involved a pesticide ingredient commonly associated with RUPs. There were initially 197 cases,
but 55 were removed from consideration. Fift een were removed because they were either intentional exposures, because st ate follow-up investigation concl uded that the symptoms were unlikely to be related to pesticide exposure, or because EPA determined that a certified applicator was not involved in the incident. Another 30 were eliminated because they were more relevant to the protections for worker s and handlers under the agricultural Worker Protection Standard. EPA is finalizing changes to the Worker Protection Standard, which will also prevent acute pesticide pois oning incidents, and these incide nts were removed to eliminate potential double-counting under both rules. Finall y, ten incidents were eliminated because they
were related to soil fumigant exposures. Recent changes to soil fumigant labeling requiring increased training and safety equipment would pr obably have prevented those incidents. The proposed new soil fumigant category in the changes to th e certification standards codifies the current label requirements, so we do not include those incidents (which occurred before the label changes) here.

Using the pesticide incident reports from SE NSOR-Pesticides along with the NIOSH assigned prevention codes, EPA was able to identify th e proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA reviewed the narrative description of these cases, the information identified in the SENSOR-Pesticide database and, additional informa tion from the state if it was available for the
cause of the incident and determined whether th e provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate the exposure that caused the incident. Cases we re categorized as “pre ventable” or “possibly preventable” by the rule amendments. Categorie s were assigned using the following guidelines:*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27  Preventable Incidents: incidents wher e there was a clear link between the application/applicator and th e effect and the information demonstrated an error by the applicator or applicator incompetency.

 Possibly Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator erro r was possible but the available information did not identify a ny specific applicator errors.

 Incidents where the proposed changes would not have prevented the incident, or where there is not enough information to make a de termination: incident s with a clear link between the application/applicator and the eff ect and an applicator error was possible but
the available information did not identify any applicator errors.

The review of the SENSOR-Pestic ides data identified 100 cases that were preventable under the proposed revisions to the rule. Another 20 cases were possibly preventable. Cases deemed “preventable” were used to calculate the lo w-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total unintentional pesticid e incidents. Table 6.5-2 pr esents the results of th e review of the SENSORPesticides data. EPA concludes that 70 to 85 pe rcent of RUP incidents would be preventable or at least possibly avoidable th rough the proposed changes. Th e lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases similar to those deemed preventable due to the proposed changes, as discussed above. The higher estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibly preventable after the proposed changes.

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR-Pesticides Ca ses Avoided under the Proposed Changes, 2009
- 2010

Likelihood of being avoided by Proposed Rules Number of
Cases Avoided,
2009 - 2010 Percent of
RUP Cases (142 Cases) Annual
Avoidable
Incident rate

per 1,000
certified applicators National
Estimate of
RUP Cases

Avoided Annually

Preventable 100 70% 0.177 159 Possibly Preventable 20 14% 0.035 32 Both Preventable and Possibly
Preventable 120 85% 0.213 191

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data. The incident rates are based on an average of 282,323.5 certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states during 2009 – 2010, and the national estimates are based on an average of 896,496 certified applicators during 2009 – 2010. Note: The number of cases avoided is based on two years of information, while the final column is an annual estimate.

Also shown in Table 6.5-2 are the estimated annua l avoided cases per 1,000 certified applicators,
and the national estimate of annua l avoided cases. To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents avoided by this rule, we need to scale the da ta from the SENSOR-Pesticides states that reported RUP incidents to the national level. If we let PI s,l

be the number of preventable incidents in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and APP s be the number of certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticid es states, then we can define RP s,l

= PI s,l

/APP s , which will be an estimate of the number of preventable incide nts per certified applicator, which is done for each level of likelihood for the incident being avoided. We will assume that the rate of*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 preventable incidents pe r applicator nationally, RP n,l , is equal to RP s,l . Therefore, we can estimate the national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RP n,l by the number of certified applicators nationally.

The SENSOR-Pesticides data that we are using is from the y ears 2009 – 2010. Over those two years, the CPARD data on the number of certifi ed applicators show the average number of certified applicators as 282,323.5. This numbe r includes existing ce rtified private and commercial applicators plus the number of new certified applic ators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, averaged for 2009 and 2010. RP s , the rate of preventable incidents per applicator, is estimated by taking the number of avoided in cidents annually, and dividing it by the average number of certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pes ticides states, and then scaling the result into preventable incidents per 1,000 certified applicators.

The number of incidents avoided annually is half what is shown in the second column of Table 6.5-2, because the prevented incidents shown there are for both years, 2009 and 2010. These estimates are presented for both preventable and po ssibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the table. For every 1,000 certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, there are an
estimated 0.213 RUP incidents that are preventable or possibly preventable by the rule. The
final column in Table 6.5-2 shows the nationa l estimate of avoided RUP incidents. The estimates in this column were calculated by multip lying the annual preventable incident rate per applicator ( RP n,l = RP s,l ) times the number of certified applicators nationally. Nationally the average number of certified applicators for 2009 and 2010 was 896,496, which includes new and existing private and commercial applicators. Th ese calculations yield an estimate of annual RUP incidents prevented by the rule of 159 on the low end, and 191 on the upper end. This estimate accounts only for reported incidents, which are likely to be a small proportion of the total number of incidents. In Section 6.5.4 below, we consider other sources for unreported deaths.



### 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

As explained in Section 6.5.1, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoi ded, and the reduction in premature mortality. These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; ot her, unquantifiable benefits are
discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of a voided incidents depends on the severity of the effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they require more treatment, including hospitalization. People suffering from more severe effects are more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, a more severe effect is lik ely to result in a longer period of recovery during which th e victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to
estimate the value of a reduc tion in premature mortality.

Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable source s of value from avoiding pesticide incidents given the severity of effect s. For each severity level i , the value of an avoi ded case is given by

ܸ

௜ ௩஺ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௜ ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ ௜*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] is the expected medical cost for the case,
and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We use the four severity levels
described in the SENSOR-Pesticides database as described below: Lo w Severity, Moderate Severity, High Severity, and Death.

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed vi sits a health care facility given the severity of the effect, OutPtnt i is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and

InPtnt i is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any selftreatments.

The value of lost productivity is

VPL i = ( ω w ·work + ω H ·housekeeping + ω L ·leisure)·DUR i

where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

The value of a reduction in premature mortality, is simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. VSL es timates are derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortal ity risks. For example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in ri sk of 1/10,000, then the value of saving one statistical life equals $500 times 10,000 – or $5 m illion. Note that this does not mean that any
identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 mi llion in this hypothetical case. This analysis uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This value is based on a distribution of values in 26 publis hed estimates of VSL, and then adjusted from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010a).

Probability of Effect

The SENSOR-Pesticides data on RUP illnesses cont ains information about the severity of the
illness for each incident. As shown in Table 6.5-3, considering only the preventable and possibly preventable incidents, about 61% of the acute cases considered resulted in “low severity illness or injury”, over 32% percent in “m oderate severity illness or injury ,” 5% in “high severity illness or injury,” and under 2% in death. The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of low or moderate severity.

Table 6.5-3: Severity of Symptoms from Preventable SENSOR-Pesticides Cases*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 73 60.83% Category S-3: Moderate severi ty illness or injury 39 32.50% Category S-2:High severity il lness or injury 6 5.00% Category S-1: Death 2 1.67%

Total 120 100.00%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 - 2010

The four severity categories in the SENSOR-Pesticides data ar e defined as follows (NIOSH, 2001):

 S-4 Low severity illness or injury

This is the category of lowest severity. It is often manifested by skin, eye or upper respiratory irritation. It may al so include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is mi nimal lost time (<3 days) from
work or normal activities

 S-3 Moderate severity illness or injury This category includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving systemic manifestations. Generally, treatment was provi ded. The individual is able to return to normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from work or normal activities (3-5 days), co mpared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual impairment is present (although effects may be persistent)

 S-2 High severity il lness or injury The illness or injury is severe enough to be considered life threatening and typically requires treatment. This level of effect commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure and/or respiratory depr ession. The individual sustains substantial loss of time (> 5 days) from regular work (this can include as signment to limited/light work duties) or normal activities (if not employed). This leve l of severity might include the need for
continued health care followi ng the exposure event, prolong ed time off of work, and
limitations or modification of work or norma l activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment

 S-1 Death This category describes a human fatality re sulting from exposure to one or more pesticides.

Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and
the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5-2, EPA estimates the distribution of preventable RUP incidents across the four severity levels. Table 6.5-4 shows the estimated number of national incidents that may be preven ted by the rule for each severity level, based on*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 the high and low estimates of cases prevented from Table 6.5-2. The estimates, except for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers.

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prev ented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of
Cases Prevented Annually

Clinical Effect Share of Total Low End
Estimate

(70%) High End
Estimate

(85%)

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 60.8% 97 116

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 32.5% 52 62
Category S-2:High severity il lness or injury 5.0% 8 10
Category S-1: Death 1.7% 2.65 3.18

Total 100.0% 158.77 190.53

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3.

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbe rs, except for “Death” and the total. Death estimates are later revised based on further investigation, as shown in Table 6.5-10 and 6.5-11.

6.5.4.1 Additional Sources for Counting Preventable Deaths

Because deaths from pesticide exposure are such infrequent events, there is concern that only using two years of data from one data set that covers only a subset of states will not be representative of the actual risk and benefit from preventing deaths . In addition to the estimates of preventable deaths presented in Table 6.5-4, there are other data sources available that can be
used to document the number of unint entional fatalities over time.

In addition to the SENSOR-Pestic ides data, there were two othe r sources with information on deaths from pesticide exposure: Annual reports prepar ed by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) and the EPA’s Incident Data System (IDS). SENSOR-Pesticides data are also available beginning in 1999, although the states where data were collected were inconsistent, and incidents prior to 2009 were not evaluated by NIOSH staff to determine possible causes of incidents.

The National Poison Data System (NPDS) is the AAPCC’s database management system used to compile poisoning information gathered by the AAPCC-certif ied poison centers 11 . There are currently 57 certified poison cente rs. Poison center staff are hea lth care professionals and are

11 More information about the data available from the NP DS is available here: http://www.aapcc.org/data-system/*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 available for advice about poisonings free of char ge, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In addition to responding to calls from the ge neral public, staff also field calls from health care professionals and the public health agencies. The poison cen ters collectively receive over 3.6 million call encounters annually. These are primarily consum er oriented incident calls rather than occupational “work related” incident calls (Bronstein et al ., 2011). EPA does not have access to the raw data from the NPDS, and only summary in formation on pesticide events is available for
incidents that did not result in d eaths. However, for poisoning inci dents that did result in deaths, including pesticide incidents, the AAPCC annual reports include an appendix of case abstracts that provide more information on deaths, with a description of the scenario in which the poisoning occurred and the treatment received (A merican Association of Poison Control Centers, 1999 – 2012). These descriptions in the annual reports are not a full list of deaths reported to the AAPCC, because only a subset of fatal cases are chosen for reporting. Case abstracts presented in the annual reports meet a number of criteri a by AAPCC report authors (e.g., completeness of therapy details, educational value of the incident, et c.). Therefore, the cases gathered from this source, while limited, provides EPA with a number of compelling incidents.

EPA/OPP’s Incident Data System (IDS) contains reports of alleged human health incidents from a variety of sources, including mandatory Federa l Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, reports from other federa l and state health and environmental agencies and individual consumers. Case reports or “narratives” may be provided for the reported incidents, with varying levels of detail; however, there is no effort at validating or assessing how likely it is th at the reported exposure is causally related to the reported outcome. This system receives information pert aining to occupational and consumer oriented incidents. OPP focused on incidents categori zed at the highest severity level (death).

These two sources were investig ated to determine if there wa s information that would shed additional light on the frequency of preventable deaths from RUPs . The data from the AAPCC annual reports was available from 1999 – 2012, and there were 13 deaths that EPA staff determined were a result of a preventable expos ure to an RUP. The EPA IDS was queried from 2008 – 2014, and showed a total of six deaths that EPA staff classified as preventable. A summary of the information about deaths from th ese different databases is provided in Table 6.5-
5. EPA considered several methods for combin ing the additional inform ation from AAPCC and IDS to better estimate the number of deaths pr evented by the rule annually , without any potential double counting of the information already availa ble from SENSOR-Pesticides, or from earlier years of SENSOR-Pesticides data.

When using the SENSOR-Pesticides data se t from 2009 – 2010 to cr eate Table 6.5-4, we extrapolated from the SENSOR-Pesticides states to the national level by creating an index of incidents per certified applicator, which yielde d an estimate of 2.65 to 3.18 preventable deaths per year. The simplest way to estimate the number of deaths prevented by th e rule is to look at the total number of preventable deaths across all the data sets for the years in which all are available, without any scaling to the national level for SENSOR-Pes ticides data. By using three different data sets and only using unique incide nts, a reasonable estimate can be obtained without double counting. There are onl y three years for which all three da ta series were available, from 2008, 2009, and 2010. There were a total of six unique preventable deaths for those three years,*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 or two preventable deaths per year. Three were from SENSOR-Pesticides (one each in 2008, 2009, and 2010). The AAPCC data reported three prev entable deaths, one for each year, but the deaths for 2008 and 2009 were duplicates of the deaths reported in SENSOR-Pesticides, leaving one unique death. There were th ree preventable deaths reported in IDS for 2010 (none for other years), one of which was a duplicate to a repo rt in SENSOR-Pesticid es, leaving two unique deaths. This suggests that our extrapolati on from the SENSOR-Pesticides data in 2009 – 2010 yielding 2.65 to 3.18 deaths per year may be an overestimate. This approach is not much of an improvement on the initial approach using SENS OR-Pesticides data, however, because it only uses three years of data, rather than two. The relative rarity of deaths gives an important reason to look beyond the thr ee years available for all three data sets.

Another possible approach is using the maxi mum years available, from 1999 – 2014, over which time there were 21 unique preventable deaths, or 1.31 per year. The problem with this approach is that the correct number of years is not obvious, because none of the data sets spans the entire range. That would not be of concern if most of th e incidents appear in all the data sets, but that is rare – there is surprisingly little overlap (3 cases), even for this most severe of outcomes.

To use the data available without double countin g the incidents, one option is to combine the
initial SENSOR-Pesticides estimate for deaths with new estimates from AAPCC and the IDS.
The estimated rate for the nation estimated from SENSOR-Pesticide s is between 2.65 and 3.18 preventable deaths per year. We exclude any deat hs that were reported in AAPCC that were also reported in the SENSOR-Pesticides data from 2009 – 2010; there were two, leaving 11 unique preventable deaths reported by AAPCC between 1999 and 2012, or 0.786 per year. Finally, we consider the IDS cases reported from 2008 – 2014. There were five unique preventable deaths from IDS, or an estimated 0.714 per year, althou gh data for 2014 are incomplete. Because these
estimates from the three different data sources on ly consider unique preven table deaths, they can be added together, which would yield between 4.15 and 4.68 estimated preventable deaths per

year.

However, the estimate based on SENSOR-Pesticid es data from 2009 – 2010 was extrapolated to the national level, and hypothetica lly, one of the cases from AAPCC or IDS could have been one of the cases accounted for by the ex trapolation. For that reason, in stead of using the estimate of preventable deaths from Table 6.5-4 as our st arting point, we use only the reported estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides, not the extrapolated figures. Two preventable deaths from RUP exposure were reported in SE NSOR-Pesticides from 2009 – 2010, or one per year. This is a
conservative estimate because SENSOR-Pesticides onl y covers a few states, but we use it here. Combining that number with estimates from th e unique incidents from AAPCC and IDS yields an estimate of 2.50 preventable deaths per year.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 Table 6.5-5: Summary of Pesticide Deat hs from Additional Data Sources

SENSORPesticides
2009 - 2010 AAPCC
1999 - 2012 EPA
Incident Data System
2008 - 2014

Preventable RUP Deaths 2 13 6 Total Deaths Reported 3 267 49 Preventable RUP Deaths per Year 1 0.9 0.9 Total Deaths per Year 1.5 19.1 7.0

Sources: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data ; EPA analysis of the AAPCC Annual Reports; EPA queries and analysis of the Incident Data System

Note: The EPA IDS data for 2014 are not complete

Deaths from applicator errors involving RUPs occur for a variety of reasons. These include people accidentally ingesting an RUP that was improperly transfe rred to a beverage container, misuse of RUPs in or around homes, faulty equi pment and failure to wear appropriate protective equipment, and failure to confirm a living space is empty before fumigating.

Valuation of Effect

The value of the illnesses prevented is pres ented below (in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11). The estimates presented are almost surely underestim ates for two reasons. First, the estimated number of cases prevented is ba sed on the estimated number of re ported cases annually, which is likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 6.5.2.

Second, the estimates are based solely on the co st of medical care and lost wages to those affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particul ar, these estimates do not: (1) address the value of avoiding pain and suffering; (2 ) include costs that individual s incur to avoid the illness ( i.e.

, defensive or averting expenditures) ; (3) reflect aversion to risk (t he fear of becoming ill); (4) consider person’s anticipated value of preventing illness values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment returns in dividuals to their original health state ( i.e. , is equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely).

In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases
are estimated here. These costs include avoi ded outpatient physician visits and inpatient hospitalizations, lost productivity, and prematur e mortality. For each severity level except “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, ba sed on the probability that medical treatment is sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each se verity level except “death,” the value of lost productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on work, household activities, and leisure.

Direct Medical Costs

As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of vis iting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are treatment costs, and i indicates the level of se verity of the effect.

In order to determine the probability of visiting a h ealth care facility for each severity level, we
used the SENSOR-Pesticides information for thos e cases which deemed preventable or possibly preventable for 2009 - 2010. The SENSOR-Pesticid es data has a variable which indicates whether medical care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a physician’s office, an emergency room, or admitted to a hosp ital. Table 6.5-6 presents the number of cases that were seen at a health care facility, the tota l number of cases over these years, as well as the each category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the probability of treatmen t at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i) , we use the share of cases
from that were treated at a heal th care facility, in the final co lumn of Table 6.5-6. It is not surprising that the shar e receiving medical care is so hi gh, because to be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database requi res at least two reportable symp toms of pesticide exposure, and because the cases treated by medical profe ssionals are more likely to be reported to
SENSOR-Pesticides.

Table 6.5-6: Health Care Sought for Preventable Pesticide-Related Acute Exposures,
SENSOR-Pesticides 2009-2010.

Clinical Effect Cases Seen at
Health Care Facility Total
Cases Share of
Cases Seen

at Health
Care Facility

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 55 73 75% Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 39 39 100% Category S-2: High severity il lness or injury 5 6 83%

Source: SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 – 2010. Incidents from Category S-1, death, are not included, so the total number of preventable cases is 118.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 Inpatient costs were obtained from the Hea lthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, average for 2009 and 2010. For Diagnosis Related Grou p 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) the average charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $29,970 in 2007.

Outpatient unit costs were estimated using da ta from physician visit benchmark fees for evaluation and management cost s by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other hea lth care professionals) 12

. Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service re quired for both new and established patients. Outp atient unit costs are obtaine d for HCPC Criteria 99213, which describes a patient visit with an evaluation a nd management based on a focused problem. For 2009 - 2010, the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category was $68.72 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $75.61 for new patients. Given an equal chance that the person e xposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the average cost of an outpatient visit is estima ted to be $72.17. That cost seems low, but the
data reflects the maximum allowable reimburseme nt that Medicaid has authorized for those services. This may be an underestimate, whic h would imply that the outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs.

Expected medical costs, based on th e probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-7.

Table 6.5-7 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF| i ) Outpatient
Cost Inpatient
Cost Expected
Medical

Cost 1

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 75% $72.17 $0 $54.37

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 100% $72.17 $0 $72.17

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 83% $72.17 $29,970 $25,035.14

Source: EPA estimation.

1 Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

The Value of Lost Productivity

12 The average facility charge for all providers in 2009 - 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 The value of lost productivity is estimated as th e value of various activities in which a person is typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. As noted above, we calculate this value as

E ሾ ܸܲܮ ௜ ሿ ൌ ሺ߱
௪ ݎ݋ݓ݇ ൅ ߱ ு ݄ݏݑ݋݁݇݁݁݌݅݊݃ ൅ ߱ ௅ ݈݁݅ݎݑݏ݁ሻ ൈ ܦܷܴ ௜

where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and leisure for a typical working a dult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2013d), an employed person works an average of 38.6 hours per week or 5.51 hours per day over a seven-day week. According to the American Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2013e), the average time spent by those over 16 in housekeeping is 1.78 hours per day. Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 8.71 hours per day.

The hourly value of work is measured as the we ighted average wage rate for adult private and commercial certified pesticide applicators, weighted using the number of cer tified applicators of each type in 2014 (see Section 3.3.2 of this economi c analysis), or $38.41 per hour. This is an assumption made for simplicity, but the affected person may not be a cer tified applicator, and wages vary by occupation. This analysis assu mes that workers work 40 hours a week. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $11.23 (BLS, 2013f). This labor category was chosen as most closely repr esentative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeepi ng activities if an injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the after-tax wage rate for certified applicators, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 29.4 percent (Tax Foundation, 2013), which leaves an after-ta x return of $27.12 per hour for leisure.

Table 6.5-8 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term in the equation for VPL, including work, housek eeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, Table 6.5-8 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is estimated to be $467.87 per day.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 Table 6.5-8: Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value ( ω ) Total Value per Day

Work 5.51 a $38.41 c $211.80 Housekeeping 1.78 a $11.23 d $18.07

Leisure 8.71 b $27.12 e $236.08

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $467.86

Sources:

a BLS, 2013d, Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times and subtracting the time known for work and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

c EPA Estimates – see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2013f CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($449) and assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $11.23 per hour.

e Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (29.4%).

The SENSOR-Pesticides data do not report the duration of illness from the RUP incident, although the bounds of the duration can be inferred by the severity category. The definitions of the severity categories contain ranges of time lost from work 13 . For the lowest severity category, time lost from work is less than three days, while for moderate severity incidents, between three and five days of work are lost. For high severity incidents, time lost from work is greater than five days, although the description of the category cautions that “[t]his le vel of severity might
include the need for continued health care follo wing the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment.” This descri ption indicates that the damage from an RUP
incident could last substantia lly longer than five days. As shown in Table 6.5-9, for the moderate severity category, we use the low end (three days) and the high end (five days) of the range as the estimate of the time lost from the RUP exposure. For the low severity category, the high end (three days) is defined, but the low end is not, so we use the midpoint of the range between zero and three days, or 1.5 days. For the high severity categor y, the low end of the range is defined as five days, but the upper end is not defined, and could be permanent. For this analysis, we assume that the upper end is 30 days, which is somewhat arbitrary.

Table 6.5-9 shows the estimated av erage duration of clinical eff ects at each level of severity, with a high end and a low end estimate, as discu ssed above. The time of effects, measured in days, is multiplied by the value of a full da y of productivity ($467.86) to yield high and low estimates of lost productivity for each severity level.

13 The description of the severity indices can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pestsevindexv6.pdf*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 Table 6.5-9: Average Clinical Effect Durati on and Value of Lost Productivity by
Clinical Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Duration of
Clinical Effect (Days) E[VPL i ] a
Category S-4: Low severity illn ess or injury Low-End 1.5 $701.79

Category S-4: Low severity illn ess or injury High-end 3 $1,403.58

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury Low-End 3 $1,403.58

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury High-end 5 $2,339.31

Category S-2: High severity illn ess or injury Low-End 5 $2,339.31

Category S-2: High severity il lness or injury High-end 30 $14,035.83

Sources: EPA calculations

a The unit cost for lost productivity day by sever ity category was calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($467.86).

The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality

The value of reduced premature mortality is simp ly the value of a statistical life, which EPA (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings resulting in death, because any me dical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost productivity is included in the VSL.

Annual Average Benefits, Avoide d Acute Effects of Incidents

The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11. For each level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost pr oductivity costs, and the value of premature mortality multiplied by the numb er of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-10 shows the low end estimates, which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the number of prevented cases, while Table 6.5-11 shows the high end estimates.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

40 Table 6.5-10: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoided Aver age Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the
Certification Rule

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical Costs per
Case Lost Productivity

per Case Premature Mortality per Case Average Annual
Total Cost

Avoided

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 97 $54.37 $701.79 $0 $73,348

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 52 $72.17 $1,403.58 $0 $76,739

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 8 $25,035.14 $2,339.31 $0 $218,996

Category S-1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000

Total 159.50 $20,119,083

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as averag e annual costs are rounded.

Table 6.5-11: “High-End” Estimate of Avoided Av erage Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the
Certification Rule

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical Costs per
Case Lost Productivity

per Case Premature Mortality per Case Average
Annual Total
Cost Avoided

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 116 $54.37 $1,403.58 $0 $169,123

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 62 $72.17 $2,339.31 $0 $149,512

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 10 $25,035.14 $14,035.83 $0 $390,710

Category S-1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000

Total 190.5 $20,459,344

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as averag e annual costs are rounded.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

41 The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $20.1 to 20.5 million. Over a ten year period of anal ysis, the present value of these benefits is between $172 million and $175 million when a 3 per cent discount rate is applied and between $141 million and $144 million when a 7 percent discoun t rate is applied. Note that these
estimates are based on the number of deaths us ing additional sources of information to the SENSOR-Pesticides data, as described in Sect ion 6.5.4.1. Therefore, the estimated number of preventable deaths per year, 2.50, is lower than e ither the low- or high-end estimates (2.65 or 3.18 preventable deaths per year) based on SENS OR-Pesticides alone, which were shown in
Table 6.5-4. The overall estimates of the benefits for the rule ar e lower than they would be if only the SENSOR-Pesticides estimates were used. If the estimates based on SENSOR-Pesticides data alone were used, the total benefit estimate would be between $21.4 and $25.9 million annually.

There are limitations to these estimates. Becau se of the substantial value associated with preventing a death from RUPs, the estimates ar e very sensitive to the estimate of deaths prevented, although we use the most conservative es timate available here. Also, as discussed above, we expect that a large proportion of acci dental (acute) pesticide poisoning never get reported or investigated for various reasons. All indications are that under-reporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in th e poisoning surveillance databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. Th is under-reporting will bi as estimates of acute
benefits downward.

In Table 6.5-12, we show the effect of under-re porting at different rates on our monetized estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings . With 100% reporting (or 0% under-reporting),
the actual benefits of acute i llnesses are equal to the estimate d benefits. If there is underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-12 shows a range of benefit estimates corresponding to different re porting rates (100%, 50% , 25%, 20%, and 10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cas es are reported, and unde r-reporting is equally likely in all poisoning cases across all severity levels, then the hi gh-end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due to the rule would be over $204 million per year, substantially higher than those reported above, which assume 100% reporting. The distributi on of health effects associated with these unreported acute exposures are also not known. If reporting rates vary by severity, in such a way that more severe (and e xpensive) cases are more likely to be reported, then the effects of under-reporting would be co rrespondingly lower. A plausible estimate for under-reporting, based on the studies reported in Section 6.5.2 is 75%, which corresponds to 25% reporting in Table 6.5-12. This would yield annual estimated benefits from reduced RUP exposure of between $81 and $82 million.

The estimated cost of the rule is between approximately $47.2 million per year, based on a 3% discount rate (see Chapter 5). If we assume that there is no u nder-reporting of RUP incidents,
then the annual estimated benefits from the rule do not reach that level. Annual benefits of $47.2 million per year corresponds to a reporting rate of about 43% for the high-end estimates, or 57% of incidents not being recorded in the surveillance databases. This is a low assumption for under-reporting, based on the information from the studies in Section 6.5.2. Also, we have made no attempt to measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

42 substantial; the estimates are based on the avoided costs in medical care a nd lost productivity to
workers.

Table 6.5-12. Sensitivity of Annual Quanti fied Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about Under-reporting

Share of

Cases Reported Low-End
Estimate of

Prevented
Cases Low-End
Estimate of

Benefits High-End
Estimate of

Prevented
Cases High-End
Estimate of

Benefits

100% 159.5 $20,119,083 190.5 $20,459,344

50% 319.0 $40,238,165 381.0 $40,918,688

25% 638.0 $80,476,330 762.0 $81,837,377

20% 797.5 $100,595,413 952.5 $102,296,721

10% 1,595.0 $201,190,826 1,905.0 $204,593,442

Source: EPA Calculations

The values shown in Table 6.5-12 assume that unde r-reporting is equal across all severity levels. It is plausible that deaths, for example, are less li kely to be underreported than less severe events, although the lack of duplication in the available databases discu ssed above suggests this may not be the case. Because such a large portion of the overall value is from prevented deaths, different assumptions about reporting rates are important. For example, if 100% of deaths were reported, even if we assumed that that only 10% of less severe incidents were reported would not yield
annual benefits that exceeded the annual cost s – the estimated benefits would be about $27 million annually at the high-end. For the estimated acute benefits of the rule to exceed the cost, the reporting rate for deaths is just under 50%, even when only 10% of less severe incidents are reported.

All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section incl ude only the effects of reduced illness from acute exposure – the effects of chro nic exposure are discussed in the next section, which will discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects.



### 6.6. Risks to Human Health from Chronic RUP Exposure

In the previous section, estimates of reduced i llness from acute exposur es to pesticides are presented. Although these estimates are based on th e best available data, there are uncertainties reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generali zed pesticide exposure. EPA anticipates that benefits from reduced chro nic health effects would accrue primarily to commercial pesticide applicators, since they ar e most likely to face long-term minor exposures, but there may also be benefits from reduced exposure to applicators’ families and those working*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

43 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. This sec tion will describe the potential chronic health effects to commercial pestic ide applicators from pesticide exposure.

It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. Available data do not establish a causal link between these exposures and the health outcome s. However, information finding correlations between pesticide exposure and illness is comp elling enough to suggest some of the observed statistical associations may at some point in fu ture be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through changes to the certification rule may
have substantial benefits that ca nnot be quantified at this time.

While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific pesticide exposures and adverse ch ronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents
evidence of well-documented associations betwee n pesticide exposure and certain cancer and
non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically, several epidemiology studies conducted over time, using di fferent study designs, and taking place within different study populations in addi tion to other streams of scientific evidence are required before
researchers can move from a statistical associat ion to a causal determination. The environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in te rms of both quantity a nd quality of pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA expects additional causal links between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population w ill be provided over time. However, at this time, EPA is not making definitive causal conne ctions between any one specific pesticide exposure and a specific adverse health outcome.

Even though there have been rela tively few proven cause and eff ect associations between real world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposurechronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in the scientific peer- reviewed lite rature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. There is a large body of epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (s uch as cancer, neurological, respiratory, fertility, be havioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result from pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to specific pesticides, which highlights the importan ce of reduced general pe sticide exposure.

There are several ongoing studies with large agricultural cohorts funded by federal governments in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within thes e populations suggest se veral plausible hypotheses to link pesticide exposure to chronic health effect s. The most notable of these is the Agricultural Health Study 14 funded by the National Cancer Instit ute (NCI), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a nd co-sponsored by EPA, among other collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, including private and commercial pesticide applicators and th eir spouses. The nature of this powerful epidemiologic study design allows investigator s to examine many different adverse health outcomes within the study population, i.e. , pesticide exposure is asce rtained at the beginning of

14 More information on the Agricultural Health Study and partners can be found on their website, here: http://aghealth.nih.gov/*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 the study and updated periodically, while health information is continually updated and/or collected over time. Another study cohort in No rway includes over 245,000 people to investigate
links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, Nordby et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underw ay to investigate the links between agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean
Multi-Center Cancer cohort is co llecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factor s associated with cancer risk (Yoo et al ., 2002). These investigators ha ve initiated a collaborative effort, AGRICOH, which is designed to encourage internationa l collaboration. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and ot her disorders that can result fr om pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al ., 2011).

A complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, revised re -entry intervals, and at time s the cancellation of pesticide products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would necessarily have curren t regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, ch anges in pest pressure, agronomic practices, pesticide product formulation changes and other f actors may have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last seve ral decades, which is the relevant period for investigating chronic eff ects with typically long latency period s such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with ca ution when applied to
current use patterns.

Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be
linked to chronic health outcome s later in life. These early life exposures may occur from pesticides that are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pestic ide applicators and brought into the applicator home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or an agricultural worker may bring pesticide residues home on their body or cl othing (see Section 6.2.2).

These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and ot her scientific information are evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health effects in the applicator population and their families. EPA ta kes action to mitigate th e estimated risks of individual pesticides to human health. However, there are also instances in which there is cause for concern over generalized pe sticide exposure (be yond those that can be modeled using aggregate and/or cumulative risk assessment pr actices). The proposed rule changes are also designed to protect against commer cial pesticide applicator expos ures from all RUPs even when
the causal link between individual pesticides and specific health outcomes is not demonstrated.

In this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic hea lth effects that result from pesticide exposure. These case study examples are selected for discussion here because they meet EPA data quality standards, and due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of studi es available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

45 suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, es timates of the quantitative benefits from the proposal are not possible.



### 6.6.1. Cancer Risks

Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by various peer-review bodies, ther e is a wide range of literatu re demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical ca ncer sites, with biological plausibility illustrated in expe rimental toxicology studies. Many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and can cer. While it is premature to state there is a causal association between the studied pesticid es and cancer in the applicator population, EPA presents this information to demonstrate the growing body of knowledge as to possible chronic health effects of pe sticide exposure.

Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticid e exposure, review articles and meta-analytic results indicate eviden ce of an association between various pesticide exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non -Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); among solid tumors (brain and pros tate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric
cancer risk in associ ation with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et al .; 2007; Blair and Bean e-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010a; Van Maele
et al .; 2011; Wigle et al ., 2009; Turner et al ., 2009; Alavanja and B onner, 2012; and Alavanja et al ., 2013). This section will disc uss some of the evidence for the possible connection between pesticide exposure and these cancer effects.

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a revi ew of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations. They report that meta-a nalyses of mortality surveys of farmers find excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses of studies of individual cancers show the importa nce of identifying specific exposures that lead
to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these aut hors conclude factors other than pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009).

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticid e exposure and blood cancers has increased. For example, since the 1980s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997).
Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers ha ve increased between1973 -1990, a time period coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell
et al ., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

46 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal transl ocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly as a result of pesticide exposure; however, this is not known with certa inty at this time. Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pes ticide applicators rela tive to the general population, Koutros, et al . (2010a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Eriksson et al . (2008) reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a population-based case-control study in Sweden (Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers; ho wever, additional research is necessary to
understand whether the link is causa l in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contri bute to the risk of these cancers.

In a review by Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies with statistically significant results. Several case- control studies looked at children that had been exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia for children whose parents used insecticides on th e garden and on indoor plants a nd from those mothers exposed while pregnant (Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether publication bias
was a factor in the resu lts of this review.

In the Bassil et al . (2007) review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those associations were statistically significant. In one study that ex amined children’s exposure to pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where pesticides were used most days for professiona l home extermination, when children had direct postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated
risks found were over several cl asses of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007).

Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational exposure to pesticides and leukemia in farmwo rkers’ children. They found no evidence of a
direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational ex posure, but they report an association between a mother’s occupational e xposure to general pesticides and insecticides and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly high er for farm and other related exposures.

Prostate Cancer

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al. , 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of prostate cancer, which may be explained by pes ticide exposure, or possi bly by other farm- or non-farm related exposures. Comparing the inci dence of prostate cancer in farmers with members of the general population, researchers ha ve estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010a). Case-control an alysis within the AHS suggest exposure to several organophosphate pestic ides may be related to prostate cancer, but only among men with a family hist ory of the disease (Alavanja et al ., 2003). Additional follow-*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

47 up within the AHS cohort corroborat es this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007;
Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate can cer with certain pesticide exposure varies by family history of pr ostate cancer, and molecular ep idemiology studies are underway that may shed light as to the pot ential role of genetic variation in the associ ation. This work is not yet complete. However, initial investigatio ns recently released indicate that a genetic variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the associ ation between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010b). Since these genetic va riations do not fully explain the cancer relationships within a family, other shared environmental exposures may play an important role. Overall, however , across studies published, results are not consistent, possibly due to differing study designs used.

Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, this time focusing upon more aggressi ve cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cance r was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poor ly differentiated cell structure) indicative of
a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggr essive prostate cancer among those who reported using higher amounts of f our pesticides over thei r working lifetime. This work supports previous analyses noting li nks between specific orga nophosphate pesticides and prostate cancer. It also extends an understa nding of the possibility of a link with the aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed to distinguish clear causal pathways. Howeve r, the study is supportive of previous work concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pe sticide applicators enrolled in
the AHS.

Lung Cancer

There have been studies on the reporting a link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al

. (2004), reported a positive association be tween four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the AHS cohort. In this study, exposur e to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in the cohort, desp ite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the population as a whole. Other st udies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004).



### 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects

Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic hea lth consequence of pesticide exposure; however, none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary investigations have identified elev ated risks of respiratory and neur ological effects; as these are preliminary investigations, other ex planations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure and some neurological outcomes in adults su ch as Parkinson’s dis ease (PD) and general neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the pr oposed changes to the certification rule reduce chronic exposure to pest icides, they may reduce the incidence of these
chronic health effects as well.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

48 Neurological Function

The possible connection between pe sticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al . (2007), investigated the hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Stu dy participants included licensed private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 throug h 2003. They report a positive association of PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong associatio n” with PD for those who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative life time days of use was associated with a doseresponse relationship in cases diagnosed afte r the beginning of the study, but there was no association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prio r to the study. This study has recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cas es of PD, as opposed to participant selfreporting of PD, and authors reported statistica lly significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al ., 2011).

In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (2007) evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, and reported a positive associati on in 15 out of the 26 studies re viewed. The authors conclude that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past exposures of pesticides on the job.”

Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non-cancer health eff ects of pesticides in a review, and found most (39/41) studies displayed an increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in association with pesticide expos ure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al . (2007), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide exposure, with the greatest associ ation for organophosphate pesticides.

Research on the neurological eff ects of pesticide exposure continue s. Three recent studies (Rauh
et al. , 2011; Engel et al. , 2011; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and neurological effects in children through the ag e of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et al ., 2011) reviews the possibl e relationship between adult occ upational exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological sympto ms. The authors acknowledge uncer tainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of action, among other stu dy characteristics.

Respiratory Function

Several studies have shown linkages with both perm anent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and sh ortness of breath. Although the symptoms of asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptibl e to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and
several studies have shown an association be tween pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et al

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

49 (2008) reported an association be tween exposure to a range of pe sticides and asthma in farm women, despite the fact that grow ing up on a farm reduced the likeli hood of asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicat ors and may show an important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to fa milies, rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as well. Salam et al . (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were larges t for children with early onset asthma. An international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms.

Studies have also reported an association betw een pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructiv e pulmonary disease that makes it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant a ssociation between eleven pesticides and chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an a ssociation that was stro nger among those with a high pesticide exposure event.



### 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clea r cause-effect relation between specific pesticide exposur e and certain chronic health outco mes. However, the totality
of national and international res earch efforts and initial resear ch results in conjunction with plausible hypotheses, taken toge ther, suggest that pesticide e xposure may result in chronic adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements
and standards.

The proposed changes to the cer tification rule are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all RUPs, as well as reduce non-occupational exposure to the families of certified applicators and the general public. There is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public h ealth through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In general, while ther e is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, the literature doe s not provide sufficient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed rule changes are a way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an
overall benefit to health.

The health effects potentially caused by occupa tional pesticide exposur e can have dramatic
effects on the health and welfare of those who suffer from these diseases. These illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they al so may require extensive caregiving by family
members or others. It is also important not to underestimate th e effects on those stricken with
illness.

Because of the uncertainties in the number of chronic illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to deri ve quantified estimates*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

50 of pesticide-specific benefits from illness reducti on. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic disease are high, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous paragraph. As examples, the additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s
disease have been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been estimated at over $5,800 monthly fo r aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower-growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. , 2006). For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al ., 2006). These costs are only treatment costs, which is an under-estim ate of the true cost of illness.

EPA’s preferred approach for valuation of reduced risk is to use an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (EPA, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure consis ts of four components:

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness;

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication;

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure activities; and

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering.

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group woul d pay to receive the benefits resulting from a policy ch ange, without being made worse off. There are other values excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also
value the health of othe rs, and place some value on seeing others protected.

As with the estimated value of prevented acute illness in Section 6.5, we are unable to use the WTP to value prevented chronic illnesses, but the WTP for these serious chronic illnesses is surely much higher than the cost of illness es timates provided above. This indicates that prevention of these illnesses w ould have substantial value.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 7 Information Requested – Paperwork Burden Requirements

The information collection activities (ICR) for the current requirements for the certification of pesticide applicators are addre ssed in an information collection request document and approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0029 (EPA ICR No. 0155.10). The proposed rule contains some
information collection activitie s that must be approved by OM B under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in accord ance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. Therefore, EPA prepared a rule-related ICR document (EPA ICR number 2499.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW) to address the informa tion collection requirements contained in the proposed rule and the related to tal incremental burden related.

The rule-related ICR addresses various the pa perwork requirements contained in the propose rule, including:

 Annual reports required from States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies with EPA approved certification programs.

 Pesticide dealer record keeping.

 Commercial applicator records for both federal and state agencies.

 Certified applicator training for both priv ate and commercial applicators including
records and exams.

 Noncertified commercial and private applicator training record keep ing including records
and exams.

 State plan revisions.

The currently approved ICR for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators also includes paperwork burden estimates for anthrax related pr oducts which are ancillary to the Certification ICR and have not been changed. The burden es timates for anthrax products is due to the requirement for anthrax product registrants to de velop trainings, exams, and keep records of purchases of anthrax products. This annual burden is estimated to include 87 hours and $5,050 in costs both of which are included respectively in the total estimates below.

Because of the changes to existing requirement s as well as new requirements under the proposed rule, there will be an estimated increase d burden for information collection related
activities. The total annual hours for the informa tion collection related activ ities associated with this action is estimated to be 1,853,117 hours for all respondents. This represents a 140 percent
increase in the number of hours estimated in the currently-approved IC R, bringing the total
burden of activities under this ICR to 3,173,371 hours. The total a nnual cost burden annualized
at 3% for the information collection related activiti es associated with this action are estimated to be $57,363,250 for all respondents, an increase of 134 percent in paperwork costs over the currently-approved ICR. The total annual pape rwork cost of activitie s under this ICR is estimated to be $100,001,116.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## References

Abdel Rasoul, GM, Abou Salem ME, Mechael AF, Hedy OM, Rohlman DS, Ismail AA, Effects of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides, NeuroToxicology 29 (2008) 833–838

Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubi n, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and l ung cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85.

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupati onal Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environm ental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013 . Increased cancer bu rden among pesticide applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Ca ncer Journal for Clinicians, January 15, 2013.

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Bl air A., Use of agricu ltural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 1;157(9):800-14.

Anger WK, Patterson L, Fuchs M, Will LL, R ohlman, DS, Learning and Recall of Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Trai ning in Vineyard Workers, Journal of Agromedicine

, 14:336–344, 2009.

American Association of Poison Control Ce nters. 2000 – 2013. Annual Reports from 1999 – 2012, available here: http://www.aapcc.org/annual-reports/

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting. American Journal of Public
Health , 92: 1421–1429.

Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surv eillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in the United States: Current Perspectives and Fu ture Directions, Journal of Public Health Policy, Summer:9(2).

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, a nd KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11.

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Brad man, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Ti me Series." Environmental International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209.

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blai r, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al . 2005. Cancer incidence among male pesticide appl icators in the Agricultural Health Study cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. Mortality among participants in the agricultural health st udy. Annals of epidemiology, 15(4), 279-285.

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemio logic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine . 2009; 14(2): 125–131.

Bildfell RJ, Rumbeiha WK, Schuler KL, Meteye r CU, Wolff PL, and Gillin CM. A review of episodes of zinc phosphide toxi cosis in wild gees e (Branta spp.) in Oregon (2004-2011). Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation , 2013 25: 162.

Blondel, Jerome and Monica Spann. Review of the methyl parathion incident reports DP Barcode D242333, Chemical #053501, Reregistration Case #0153. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/c leared_reviews/csr_PC-053501_5-Feb98_039.pdf

BLS. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed o ccupation and age, incl uding median age. Demographics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm , accessed June 2014

BLS. 2014b. OES Research Estimates by State an d Industry, various Sectors, May 2013. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes_resear ch_estimates_2012.htm, accessed June 2014

BLS. 2014c. O ccupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 999200 - State Government, excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation) . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/ current/naics4_999200.htm

BLS. 2014d. O ccupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates , Sector 11 - Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting . Bureau of Labor Statistics , U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_11.htm

BLS. 2013b. Economic News Release: Table 2. Civilian workers, by occupational and industry

group . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm

BLS. 2013d. Current Population Survey: Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work. Bureau of La bor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf

BLS. 2013e. American Time Use Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. June 18, 2014. http://www .bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf

BLS. 2013f. Current Population Survey: Median w eekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright , and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides.
Pediatrics . Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year-old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95.

Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wild life in Benefit-Cost Analyses: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Water Res ources Research 23(5): 943-950.

Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta , D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G Logroscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 2009. Meeting report: consensus statement- Parkinson's disease and the environment:
collaborative on health and the environm ent and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect . 117, 117–121

Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum , C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pestic ide-related illnesse s among working youths,
1988-1999. Am J Public Health , 93:605-610.

Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Mo raga-McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. American Journal of Industrial Medicine , 51(12): 883-898.

Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983):
396-400.

Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides , chromosomal aberrations, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. JAgromedicine . 2009;14(2):250-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blai r, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos e xposure and incident cancer among male participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives

, 118(1):92-6.

Coronado, G D, et al. “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Work in Pome Fruit: Evidence for the Take-home Pesticide Pathway.” Envi ron Health Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 999-
1006.

CPARD. 2014. Certification Plan and Re porting Database maintained by the National Association of State Departments of Agri culture and EPA at the Washington State University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/

. Curl, CL, et al. “Evaluation of Take-h ome Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure Among Agricultural Workers and th eir Children.” Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 12 (2002):
A787-A792.

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka , SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja.
2005. Pesticide contamination insi de farm and nonfarm homes, . J Occup Environ Hyg

. 2(7):357-67, July.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sande rson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, andMC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and nonfarmers, Environmental Research , Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315

CTAG. 1999. Pesticide Safety in the 21 st Century: The Findi ngs and Proposals of the Certification & Training Assessment Group . January 1999. http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag/ pdf/1999_21stCentRpt.pdf

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harri son. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303-312.

Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain development, risk-taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology -Paris Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279-286.

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Sur vey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9 , Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Progr ammatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor,
March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agwor ker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

Dun and Bradstreet. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbau m, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS
Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol . 165(12):1397-404.

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Ca nfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8.

EPA. 2014a. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Ag ricultural Worker Standard Revisions

. Biological and Economic Analys is Division, Office of Pestic ide Programs, U.S. EPA. Available at regulations .gov, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184.

EPA. 2014b. Personal communication with North Carolina, California, Indiana, Wyoming and Florida on the subject of communication betw een certified applicat ors and noncertified applicators under their di rect supervision.

EPA. 2014c. National Assessment of the Pes ticide Worker Safety Program. Web page: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm

EPA. 2014d. Proprietary data on pesticide use.

EPA. 2012. Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FI FRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting held April 10 – 12, 2012 on Chlorpyrifos Health Effects. Memorandum, July 11, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/m eetings/2012/april/041012minutes.pdf

EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benef its Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida nce/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/page s/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

EPA. 2008a. EIIS Incident Report: I018678-001 . Report on fish kill from acrolein on the Cub River, Idaho, updated March 5, 2008.

EPA. 2008b. Child-Specific Expos ure Factors Handbook. September 2008. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimsco mm.getfile?p_download_id=484738

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline . Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc /2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf

.
EPA. 2006. EPA Interim National Program Guidan ce for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Certific ation Program (40 CFR Part 171 ). July 2006.

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerma n. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including hist opathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer

. 123(7):1657-63 Oct 1.

ERS. 2000. Farm Resource Regions. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. September. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/926929/aib760_002.pdf

. Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Brad man, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 2007. Environmental organophosphate pestic ide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect . 115:792–798.

Fortenberry GZ and Calvert GM, Identifying contributing factors associated w ith restricted use pesticides (RUPs), unpublis hed document, April 22, 2014.

Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Envi ronmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives

, Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362.

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet
Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April.

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Dec line of the Increasing In cidence of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Pr eventive Measures?" Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706.

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneber ger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic a nd nonatopic asthma among farm women in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376

. Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al . 2007. Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among fa rmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am
J Ind Med 50:969–979.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli-Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of
illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders , 20(11):1449-54, Nov. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641

. Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers . At http://www.iihs.org/research/fat ality_facts_2008/teenagers.html , accessed February, 24,
2011.

Johnston, R. Ranson, M.Besedin, E.Helm, E. “Wha t Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-Analysis of Recrea tional Fishing Values” Marine Resource Economics Vol 21:1-
32 , 2006

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposur e and self-reported
Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol , 165:364-74.

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update , Economic Research Report No. 60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June.

Karpf, Elissa. Results of Assessments of Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites, Repor t No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 . September 23, 1997. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ 900K1G00.PDF?Dockey=900K1G00.PDF

Kotchen, Matthew J. and Reiling, Stephen D., Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species, Ecological Economics 32(1): 93-107.

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler , JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer in cidence in the Agricu ltural Health Study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52(11):1098-105.

Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G A ndreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager , and MC Alavanja. 2010b. Pesticide use modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate

cancer. Cancer Res , 70(22):9224-33.

Koutros, S, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL He ltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, an d MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology , 177(1):59-74. Epub 2012 Nov 21, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882

. Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ
Health . 22(1):14-26, Feb.

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Ar ning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States duri ng the first two years of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544.

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, a nd C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the
Causes of Death and Cancer Inciden ce Among French Farmers and Agricultural Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology : Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al . 2004. Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to chlo rpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J
Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791.

Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Ho ppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Ba ldi, MA Dalvie, G Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair.
2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public
Health . 2011 May;8(5):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29.

Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andr ews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, Rundle A. Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environmen t characteristics as determinants of early childhood neurode velopment Am J Public Health. 2011 Jan;101(1):63-70

Lozier MJ, Curwin B, Nishioka MG, Sanderson W. Determinants of atrazine contamination in the homes of commercial pesticide applic ators across time. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(5):289-97

Lu C, Fenske R, Simcox N, Kalman D. Pes ticide exposure of childre n in an agricultural community: evidence of household proximity to farmland and take home exposure pathways. Environ Res. 2000;84:290–302

Madrigal, J.L., Glen C. Pixton, Bruce J. Collings, Gary M. Booth, and H. Duane Smith (1996). A comparison of two methods of estimating bird mortalities from field-applied pesticides. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15(6): 878 – 885.

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health Perspect , 114:1838-42

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppi n JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl exposure and incident cancer in the Agricu ltural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;121(8):1799-805.

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American children: the CHAMACOS study . Environ Health Perspect . 118(12):1768-74, Dec.

McCauley, LA, et al. “Work Characteristi cs and Pesticide Exposures Among Migrant Agricultural Families: a Community-based Research Approach.” Environ Health Perspect 109, no. 5 (2001): 533-538.

NASS. 2014a. Crop Production: 2013 Summary . January, 2014. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/c urrent/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-10-2014.pdf

NASS. 2014b. Crop Values: 2013 Summary . February, 2014. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/cur rent/CropValuSu/Cr opValuSu-02-14-2014.pdf

NASS. 2014c. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Na tional Agricultural Statis tics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey data for number of farms and workers. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ . Accessed July 2013.

NASS. 2012. Indiana Special Agriculture Report , 32:1, April 2, 2012. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Stat istics_by_State/Indiana/Pub lications/Ag_Report/2012/agrS pecCrop.pdf

NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agricu lture. Updated December 2008. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012a. National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core
Manual

. http://nasda.org/9381/Foundation/11379/11383/6684.aspx

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Resear ch Foundation. 2012b. Framework for the National Soil Fumigation Manual and Exam Item
Bank

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=4185

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Resear ch Foundation. 2011a . Aerial Applicator's Manual

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3786

National Association of State Depa rtments of Agriculture Research
Foundation. 2011b . National Right-of-Way Herbicide Applicator Test Plan and Training Syllabus

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3941

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011.

National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma , NIH publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/c ancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

NIOSH. 2001. Severity Index fo r Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-Related Illness and Injury. We b page revised 11/27/01. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pes ticides/pdfs/pest-sevindexv6.pdf

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristens en. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work
Environ Health . 31(2):89-96, April.

OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/om b/circulars_a004_a-4

. Oregon Department of Agriculture . 2013. Bumblebee incidents resu lt in pesticide violations, Press Release, December 19, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/ne ws/131219bees_pesticides.aspx

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms Accessed August 4, 2011.

Rao, P, et al. “Pesticide Safety Behaviors in Latino Farmworker Family Households.” Am J Ind Med. 49, no. 4 (2006): 271-280.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang, and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845-e1859

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven-Year Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common Agricultural Pesticide, Environ H ealth Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201.

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents : Gender Differences and Predictors of
Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health , 22: 314–320.

Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings , Sixth Edition,
available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pe sticide-worker-safety/recognition-andmanagement-pesticide-poisonings

Richardson, Leslie and John Loomis. 2009. The to tal economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analy sis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548.

Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pame la J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, Neurotoxicology. 2011 Ma rch; 32(2): 268–276.

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sw eitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health . Special Issue (1):159-169.

Rucker, Randal R. and Thurman, Walter N. Colony Collapse disorder: The Market Response to

Bee Disease , PERC Policy Series No. 50, 2012. http://perc.org/sites/default/files/ps50.pdf

Rucker, Randal R., Thurman, Walter N., and Michael Burgett. “Honey Bee Pollination Markets and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benef its,” Am. J. Agr. Econ. (2012) 94 (4): 956-977

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32.

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu-Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and Children's Health Study, Early-lif e environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760–765.

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J . 22(3):507-12, Sept. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143

. Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Ba ssil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non-cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1712-20.

SBA. 2014. Table of Small Business Size Standa rds. U.S. Small Business Administration. At http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/ files/Size_Stan dards_Table.pdf . July 14. Accessed August 2014.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning

, University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97-2505-A.

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and aff ective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69-74, Feb.

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249-
272.

Stevens, T.H.; J. Echeverria; R.J. Glass; T. Hager; and T.A. More. 1991. Measuring the
Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show? Land Economics 67(4): 390-400.

Stroud, Richard K., and Frank Kuncir (2005) . Investigating w ildlife poisoning cases.
International Game Warde n, Winter 2005: 8 – 13.

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Rich ards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and Parkinson's disease, Environ Heal th Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72.

Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is Apr il 18, Five Days Later Than Last Year. April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/artic le/tax-freedom-day-2013-april-18-five-dayslater-last-year

Thompson B, Griffith WC, Barr DB, Coronado GD, Vigoren EM and Faustman EM. Variability in the take-home pathway: Farmworkers and non-farmworkers and their children. Journal of Exposure Science and Envi ronmental Epidemiology (2014) 24, 522–531.

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Re sidential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41.

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries
and Illnesses . Committee on Education and Labor . Washington: Government

Van Maele-Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Li son. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides and childhood leukaemia: a systema tic review and meta-analysis. Environment
International . 37(1):280-91, Jan.

Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher . 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data
Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology : 389-97.

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Expos ure Pathways among Children of Agricultural
Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99.

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Farm Worker Health and Safety in Washington State: A Look at Workers' Compensation Data. Olympia, WA: Safety and
Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24-2-1991, 1991.

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of childhood leukemia and parental oc cupational pestic ide exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 117:1505-1513.*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev . 11(3-4):242-59, Mar.
Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody,
and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pa ttern Comparison of Prostate Cancer Treatments, CANCER ; Published Online: December 21.

WHO IARC. 1999. World Health Organization, Inte rnational Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insect icide Application, a nd Some Pesticides: Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation. Available here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking Carbofuran Tolerances . Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA.

Vyas, Nimish (1999). Factors influencing estima tion of pesticide-relate d wildlife mortality. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 15: 186 – 191.

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of
Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92.

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Brad man, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209

Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adam i. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes
and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33.

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pe sticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 Suppl 3:893-908, June.