*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***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*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***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

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT...........................................................................................................................................2

1.3 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED REGULATION ....................................................................................................................4

1.4 AFFECTED ENTITIES...............................................................................................................................................4

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

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

2.1 NON‐REGULATORY APPROACHES TO IMPROVE PESTICIDE SAFETY ..................................................................................1

2.2 PROPOSED CHANGES AND OTHER OPTIONS FOR REVISING THE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS ................................................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 OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................1

3.2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................1

3.2.1 General Methodology ............................................................................................................................2

3.2.2 Example Methodology ...........................................................................................................................5

3.3 COST ANALYSIS DATA............................................................................................................................................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 RESULTS OF THE COST ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................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 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR REVISING INITIAL CERTIFICATION STANDARDS.................................................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 OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................1

5.2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................3

5.3 PRIVATE APPLICATOR COSTS OF PROPOSED RULE .......................................................................................................4

5.4 COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ........................................................................................20

5.5 STATE AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ..........................................................................23

5.6 IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT....................................................................................................................................26

5.7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES ............................................................................................................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. WHICH BENEFITS CAN BE QUANTIFIED ................................................................................................................1

6.2. WHO IS AT RISK?.............................................................................................................................................2

6.2.1. Occupational Exposure ..........................................................................................................................2

6.2.2. Children and families .............................................................................................................................3

6.3. WHAT ARE THE RISKS? .....................................................................................................................................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. NON‐QUANTIFIED BENEFITS OF AVOIDING RUP INCIDENTS .....................................................................................9

6.4.1. Non‐Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents............................................................10

6.5. QUANTIFIED HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF REDUCED ACUTE ILLNESS FROM RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDES.......................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. RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH FROM CHRONIC RUP EXPOSURE...................................................................................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 analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes in the 

regulations governing the Certification of Pesticide Applicators to meet the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as 

amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule establishes requirements 

for applicators of restricted use pesticides. Pesticides that EPA has classified as restricted use 

may pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health and/or the environment without strict 

adherence to precise and often complex labeling provisions. To insureensure these labeling 

provisions are followed, EPA requires that restricted use pesticides 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 certification, such as minimum age 

and examination standards for commercial applicators 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 categories to address specific high-risk uses and 

application methods. EPA is also proposing changes to the rule that would result in improved 

competency of noncertified applicators who apply restricted use pesticides under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator by: requiring pesticide safety training, establishing 

standards for supervision, and establishing a minimum age requirement for such noncertified 

applicators. In keeping with the Agency’s commitment to work more closely with tribal 

governments to strengthen environmental protection in Indian Country, EPA is also proposing 

changes that would provide more practical options for establishing certification programs in 

Indian Country. Lastly, EPA is proposing several revisions to improve overall clarity and 

organization of the rule, and to improve program operation, efficiency and administration by 

addressing longstanding policy issues raised by EPA’s state regulatory partners and other 

stakeholders regarding rule implementation and requirements for state certification plans. 

EPA estimates that affected industries would face incremental costs of about $46.9 million 

annually from proposed revisions, including costs of $19.5 million to private applicators (about 

41% of the total cost of proposed revisions) and $27.4 million to commercial applicators. 

Revisions to state plans and certification programs, including development of new application 

method-specific categories, are likely to cost about $2.2 million over the first two years after the 

rule is finalized. The administration of exams or trainings for the new certification and 

recertification requirements would be ongoing and would cost $107 annually. These two 

components together, annualized over a 10-year 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 farm 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 anticipated to be less than one percent of annual sales 

while the impacts to small commercial pest control services are expected to be around 0.1 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

percent of annual gross revenue. Therefore, EPA concludes that there would not be a significant 

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

costs, EPA also concludes that the proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on 

employment. 

In estimating costs of the proposed rule revisions, EPA took a conservative approach – such as 

using conservative estimate for the number of noncertified applicators – when faced with 

uncertainty, and therefore, the cost estimates presented in this economic 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 Requirements for Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators 

 Private Applicators Commercial 

Applicators 

States and Other 

Jurisdictions 

Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63 

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

Per-Applicator Average: $40 

Range: $0 - $201 

Average: $66 

Range: $1 - $212 n/a 

Small Business 

Impacts 

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

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

although about half are unlikely to apply restricted use pesticides. 

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

entity. 

Impact on Jobs 

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

 Most private and commercial applicators are self-employed. 

 Incremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of 

the cost of a part-time employee. 

The rule changes proposed by EPA would improve the pesticide applicator certification and 

training program substantially. Trained and competent applicators would be more likely to apply 

pesticide products without unreasonable adverse effects and use them properly to achieve the 

intended results than applicators that have not received training or been certified. In addition to 

core pesticide safety and practical use concepts, certification and training ensures that certified 

applicators possess critical information on a wide range of environmental issues such as 

endangered species, water quality, worker protection and protecting non-target organisms such 

as pollinators. Pesticide safety education helps applicators improve their abilities to avoid 

pesticide misuse, spills and harm to non-target organisms. 

It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the human health risk reduction that 

would result from this rule, because people are potentially exposed to such a wide variety of 

pesticides, and few of these incidents are reported. The proposed changes, however, are 

designed to reduce human health and environmental exposure to restricted use pesticides; there is 

sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest reducing such exposure would 

result in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 
*** 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. Other beneficiaries would include the public, who can be exposed to 

RUPs, and the environment, including plants and animals that are not the intended target of 

RUPs. Although EPA cannot provide quantitative estimates for all benefits of the rule, we do 

estimate the benefit of reduced acute illness from RUP exposure. We estimate that this rule will 

result in quantifiable annual benefits of between $20.1 and $20.5 million dollars through reduced 

acute illnesses from RUPs. Over a ten year horizon, the present value of these estimates is 

between $171.6 and $174.5 million with a 3% discount rate, and $141.3 and $143.7 million with 

a 7% discount rate. However, these estimates are biased downward by an unknown degree. 

Pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may 

not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may 

not be filed to the central reporting database. The effect of under-reporting can be significant. If 

only 25% of poisonings are reported (within the range of estimates in the literature), the 

quantified estimated benefits of the rule would be about $80.5 million annually. Moreover, the 

approach here only measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to 

avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. 

In the past, misapplication and misuse of RUPs have resulted in a range of damages to human 

health, up to and including death. The proposed changes to the rule would result in an estimated 

reduction of 638 to 762 acute poisonings per year. In addition, we expect there would be 

benefits for which quantifiable benefits cannot be estimated. These benefits would include 

reduced chronic illness to applicators from repeated RUP exposure 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 from misapplication, which will reduce the impact 

on water and non-target plants and animals. 

 

EPA is not able to provide quantitative estimates of the benefits from reducing chronic exposure 

to pesticides, but there are well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic 

health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the 

proposed requirements would result in long term health benefits to certified applicators, the 

noncertified applicators they supervise, and their families. These benefits arise from reducing 

their daily risk of pesticide exposures but also reduced risk of chronic illness, resulting in a lower 

cost of healthcare, a healthier society and better quality of life. 
*** 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 certification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Broadly speaking, the modifications are meant to ensure that 

RUPs are used in accordance with the label to protect the health and safety of applicators, 

workers, the general public and the environment. 

 

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the 

rule. This chapter provides a brief background to the requirements, describes the reasons for 

EPA’s proposal and the statutory authority, and identifies entities that may be affected by the 

rule. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in developing this proposal and 

discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different options. It qualitatively describes 

the benefits of different requirement options in terms of training content, frequency of training 

and the supervision of noncertified applicators. Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the 

regulatory options, which mainly fall on self-employed certified applicators and employers of 

certified applicators. Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits of alternative 

requirements and presents the rational for choosing which options to propose. Chapter 5 

estimates the cost of the proposed rule. It also estimates the impact of the proposed changes on 

employment and small business. The benefits of the rule, which would accrue primarily to 

certified applicators and noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified 

applicators, as well as their families, the public and the environment, are described in Chapter 6. 

This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory 

Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business 

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

regulatory requirements are addressed in the Preamble for this rule. This document also serves 

as input in preparing any analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 

3501-21). 

1.1 Background 

The pesticide worker safety program at EPA includes two primary regulations, the Certification 

of Pesticide Applicators and the Worker Protection Standard. The Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Part 171, establishes national standards for the certification of 

applicators of RUPs and the requirements for submission and approval of state plans for the 

certification of applicators. Programs for the certification of applicators of RUPs are 

implemented by all 50 states, four territories (the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands), and 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 Departments of Agriculture (with two programs), 

Defense, Energy and the Interior. All plans are approved by the Administrator of the EPA and 

are on file with the Agency. This economic analysis focuses on the proposed revisions to the 

rules regarding the certification of pesticide applicators. 

The Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170, protects employees of agricultural 

establishments and commercial pesticide application establishments from exposure to pesticides 

on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. These two regulations, along with the other 

components of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety program, are intended to reduce and prevent 

potential exposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, employees, the general public, 

including vulnerable populations such as children, and to the environment. Proposed revisions to 

the Worker Protection Standard are the subject of a separate rulemaking (EPA, 2014a). 

The certification regulation or rule is a means to ensure the competency of people who apply 

RUPs. EPA classifies certain products as RUPs because of their toxicity characteristics and/or 

their potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment without 

strict adherence to often complex label restrictions. The designation of products as RUP restricts 

their use to certified applicators or persons working under their direct supervision. 

Approximately ten percent of all registered active ingredients are classified as RUPs. The 

designation, however, is product specific; thus, some active ingredients may also be formulated 

in products that are not RUPs. Most of the designated products are applied in agricultural and 

industrial settings although some are used in urban, recreational, and residential areas 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 pest management in agricultural 

production, building and other structural pest management, turf and landscape management, 

forestry, public health, aquatic systems, food processing, stored grain, and other areas. 

Changes to the certification regulation will largely impact certified applicators, both commercial 

applicators (who apply RUPs for hire) and private applicators. Certified private applicators 

apply RUPs for purposes of producing an agricultural commodity on property owned or rented 

by themselves or their employers or on the property of another without compensation (trading of 

personal services is permitted). Certain proposed revisions may also affect commercial 

agricultural services, including pesticide dealers, certifying agencies, such as states or tribes, and 

noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators. 

1.2 Problem Statement 

Pesticides, although useful to control pests, can present health risks to people and harm the 

environment. Pesticides that EPA has classified as restricted use may pose unreasonable adverse 

effects to human health or the environment without strict adherence to precise and often complex 

mitigation measures specified on the pesticide labeling. To ensure these measures are followed, 

EPA requires that these pesticides be applied only by applicators who are certified, or by 

applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 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 environment through proper use of 

RUPs. 

Since the last major revision of the certification regulation in 1978, poisonings involving RUPs 

indicate that the requirements are not adequate. In one of the most significant cases from the 

mid-1990s, there was widespread misuse of the restricted use pesticide methyl parathion, an 

insecticide used primarily on cotton and other outdoor agricultural crops (Blondell and Spann, 

1998). The improper use of methyl parathion product by a number of applicators across several 

states led to the widespread contamination of hundreds of homes, significant pesticide exposures 

and human health effects for hundreds of homeowners and children, and a clean-up cost of 

millions of dollars (Karpf, 1997). The incident resulted in one of the most significant and 

widespread pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s history, and highlighted the potential problems 

that can result from the misuse of RUPs. 

Many states have taken significant steps to improve regulatory controls of RUPs and changed 

their enforcement authorities to address the problems identified by the incident. EPA’s own 

certification standards, however, have not been substantially amended to address the evolving 

risk concerns. Because no major revision has been made to the federal regulation in almost 40 

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 states go beyond federal requirements for applicator certification. 

However, some states support only the federal minimum for applicator certification. This has 

created an uneven regulatory landscape, so that people face different risks based on where they 

live, as well as problems in program consistency. 

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to improper use of RUPs and undesirable effects on 

humans and the environment: incomplete information and externalities. The former implies that 

full information about proper use and the consequences of pesticide use is not available to the 

people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall 

on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, RUPs may be used in a socially 

undesirable way. 

Applicators may not have full information about the negative consequences of pesticides or the 

possible measures that can be taken to avoid such negative outcomes. This may be particularly 

true when the adverse effects are not readily observable, but occur due to chronic exposure. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, or 

other factors. Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide exposure do not manifest themselves 

immediately and applicators may not be fully aware the risks they face. 

Another factor that contributes to pesticide exposure is that the party making the application 

decision may not incur the negative effects of an incorrect pesticide application. When someone 

other than an applicator or decision maker is potentially affected 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 may 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 RUP application. Although EPA addresses negative 

externalities from pesticide use when it makes registration decisions and label restrictions, 

pesticides designated as RUPs generally 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 the target of the application. The higher risk 

requires additional safeguards to ensure safe applications to protect both human health and the 

environment and these additional measures require a higher level of skill than is otherwise 

required of a pesticide applicator making applications of non-RUPs. 

1.3 Overview of Proposed Regulation 

Most of the changes EPA is proposing are designed to improve the competence of certified 

applicators. The proposals jointly address the issues of inadequate information and externalities. 

The proposals address the problem of inadequate information by defining new certification 

categories and subcategories that include training or testing on the hazards specific to some 

application methods. To make sure the information used by applicators to make application 

decisions is current and complete, EPA is proposing more rigorous certification standards and 

more frequent recertification. EPA is also proposing to raise the minimum age for applicators. 

Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescents, who may be more susceptible to pesticide 

effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge the potential risks of exposure, especially the 

long-term effects, and take greater risks, which may result in excess exposure to themselves and 

others. More detail on the proposed changes are available in Chapter 2, or in the preamble. 

1.4 Affected Entities 

The entities that would be affected by the proposed changes include commercial and private 

certified applicators, people who wish to become certified, noncertified applicators, i.e., persons 

that work under the direct supervision of certified applicators, and states and other entities that 

certify pesticide applicators. Manufacturers of pesticides and pesticide dealers of RUPs may also 

be affected. 

Based on the Certification and Training Plan and Annual Reporting Database (CPARD, 2014), 

there are nearly one million pesticide applicators certified to apply RUPs. About 489,000 are 

private applicators, who apply RUPs for purposes of producing an agricultural commodity on 

property owned or rented by him/her or his/her employer, and about 414,000 commercial 

pesticide applicators, who apply RUPs for hire. 

States would be affected by the proposed changes if they become final regulations. FIFRA 

requires that states submit plans for the certification of commercial and private applicators of 

RUPs to EPA for approval The changes being proposed, if adopted, would necessitate changes 

to state plans. 
*** 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. Because agriculture is a heavy user 

of pesticides, several subsectors under NAICS code 110000 (agriculture) are likely to be 

affected. These include oilseed, soybean and 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 production (NAICS 112100), pig 

and hog production (NAICS 112200), poultry and egg production (NAICS 112300) and 

aquaculture (NAICS 112400). Other industries classified under agriculture include forestry pest 

control (NAICS 115000 and 113300), agricultural pest control for plants (NAICS 115100) and 

animals (NAICS 115200), demonstration and research pest control (NAICS 115100 and 

611300), soil preparation planting and cultivating (NAICS 115112), and support activities for 

animal production (NAICS 115210). 

Utilities may employ certified applicators for pest management and weed control. These 

industries include NAICS codes 221121 (electric transmission and control), 221210 (natural gas 

distribution), and 221300 (water supply, irrigation systems and sewage 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 services and ornamental and turf pest control 

(both NAICS 561730). Firms that sell RUPs to applicators will also be affected (NAICS 

424910, farm supplies merchant wholesalers). Among the manufacturing sectors, impacts are 

expected in industries that manufacture pesticides, like NAICS 325320 (pesticide and other 

agricultural chemical manufacturing), 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 for certification of applicators of RUPs. RUPs 

are typically higher toxicity pesticides that pose higher environmental or health risks than other 

pesticides. Only certified applicators or noncertified applicators working under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator can legally apply RUPs. Applicator certification enables the 

registration of pesticides that would not otherwise meet EPA’s safety standards, because such 

pesticides would, without specific and often complex use restrictions, cause unreasonable 

adverse effects on human health or the environment. Certified applicators have demonstrated a 

specific level of competency to ensure that a RUP can be used without causing these 

unreasonable adverse effects. 

This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the certification requirements and 

describes how they will increase pesticide safety by certified applicators and noncertified 

applicators working under their direct supervision. 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, adding 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 supervision of certified 

applicators would be provided additional training and protections that should increase their 

competence and safety and the safety of those around 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 and establish the identity of test-takers, 

recordkeeping, updates to state 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 RUPs. In Section 2.2, the individual line items that 

make up the regulatory options are described, as well as other alternatives that were considered. 

Please refer to the preamble for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule Revisions for a 

complete discussion of the regulatory options considered under this rulemaking proposal and the 

rationale for the Agency’s selection of the final proposed options. 

2.1 Non-regulatory Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 

In addition to the regulatory changes EPA is proposing, the Agency has and continues to pursue 

non-regulatory approaches to improve the competency of persons certified to use RUPs and 

those noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision, thereby protecting the 

applicators, the public, and the environment from pesticide exposure. Since the mid-1990s, EPA 

has continually engaged stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the rule and to determine 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

what improvements, if any, are necessary to maintain an effective program that ensure RUPs are 

used safely. 

EPA partners with stakeholders to pursue ways to improve certification programs across the 

United States. The Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG), composed of 

representatives from state lead agencies, EPA, USDA, and cooperative extension services, was 

formed in 1996. The purpose of CTAG is to evaluate the current state of the certification 

programs across states, tribes, and federal agencies, and proposes improvements at both the state 

and federal level. In 1999, CTAG issued a comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety in the 21st

Century (CTAG, 1999), which recommended improvements for state and federal pesticide 

applicator certification programs, including specific proposals on how to strengthen the 

certification regulation. EPA has worked with CTAG and other program stakeholders 

continually since issuance of the 1999 CTAG report to implement many of the non-regulatory 

measures identified in the report to improve the applicator certification program. EPA has 

undertaken several non-regulatory efforts such as supporting national workshops and 

professional development programs for state and tribal personnel involved in carrying out 

certification programs, supporting development of national training manuals and exams, and 

developing key guidance documents for certifying agencies. These non-regulatory activities are 

discussed in more detail below. 

In addition to CTAG, EPA has met with groups including, state regulators, professional pesticide 

applicator organizations, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing 

commodity producers to discuss potential improvements to the rule. Through public meetings 

and federal advisory committees, and as individuals and small groups, a broad spectrum of 

stakeholders provided recommendations to EPA. Some of the recommendations were not related 

to the regulation, for example, developing national training materials for pesticide applicators, 

promoting better cooperation between trainers and state regulatory agencies, and re-evaluating 

the formula used by EPA to distribute funds to agencies certifying pesticide applicators. Other 

recommendations, such as strengthening the initial certification requirements, establishing a 

recertification period and standards, and improving protections for persons working under the 

direct supervision of a certified applicator, could only be 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 protect human health and the environment from 

exposure to RUPs. 

As noted above, EPA has undertaken several non-regulatory efforts to improve the program and 

applicator competency including a variety of outreach activities designed to strengthen state 

applicator certification and recertification programs. EPA works with stakeholders and under 

cooperative agreements to develop best practices and model programs for state regulatory and 

training organizations such as criteria for secure exam administration, standards for online 

recertification training programs, and how to audit applicator training programs for effectiveness. 

EPA developed the Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s 

Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (EPA, 2006) to clarify provisions in the current rule. 

The guidance covers administrative requirements for written examinations, legal authorities for 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

certification plans, how modifications to certification plans are to be made and reviewed, 

requirements for state-tribal agreements for certification, and issues related to tribal certification 

plans and federal plans for certification of applicators in Indian Country. While this document 

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

weight of regulation. 

EPA also developed an online tool, the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 

(http://cpard.wsu.edu/), which allows states, tribes, and federal agencies to efficiently maintain 

their certification plans electronically. The CPARD system also provides an easy web-based 

reporting system to submit required annual program certification and recertification reports to 

EPA electronically, thereby reducing administrative burden and paperwork. 

EPA has taken a number of other non-regulatory steps to improve coordination with stakeholders 

in the program, including meeting regularly with stakeholders to review progress on key 

projects, supporting a biennial national meeting of regulatory program managers and pesticide 

safety educators, meeting biannually with CTAG, and providing updates to the Pesticide 

Program Dialogue Committee1 (PPDC) on pesticide applicator certification and training issues. 

The National Assessment process developed a network of interested and engaged stakeholders 

that has strengthened the program and produced new opportunities for collaboration. 

In cooperation with stakeholders, EPA supported the development of a national core manual and 

exam for pesticide applicator certification (National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture Research Foundation, 2012a). This core manual and exam cover the general 

competencies a commercial applicator must possess 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 industry to develop and make available national 

training materials and exams for aerial (National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture Research Foundation, 2011a), rights-of-way ((National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 2011b), and soil fumigation (National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 2012a) pesticide 

applications. The regulatory changes that EPA is proposing are designed to complement these 

activities to improve national consistency in pesticide applicator certification and to raise the 

level of RUP applicator competency to better protect the public and the environment. In many 

cases, the individual changes that EPA is considering came out of the process of consulting with 

stakeholders and industry participants. 

Despite this constant activity by EPA and industry stakeholders, the need for revised regulatory 

standards remains. Even with the support these non-regulatory activities provide, there continue 

to be serious incidents of misapplication of RUPs and other products by certified applicators, 

resulting in effects on human health and the environment2

. Certain protective changes essential 

to reducing incidents and improving the safe use of RUPs, such as a minimum age for 

 

1

 The PPDC is the Office of Pesticide 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 Section 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 specific use categories, and establishing training requirements for 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator can 

only be brought about at a national level by regulation change. 

2.2 Proposed Changes and Other Options for Revising the Certification 

Standards 

This section provides a discussion and a general overview of current standards and potential 

changes to the certification rules. For each of the possible modifications, an identifier is 

provided (such as Admin-04). The proposed regulatory text or the Code of Federal Regulations 

provide the actual regulatory language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes 

considered are not discussed. The preamble to the proposed rule presents additional detail on the 

rationale for the proposed changes. 

2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards 

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

RUPs. 

Initial Certification for Private Applicators 

The changes to the standards for initial certification are designed to more clearly reflect the 

knowledge and skills needed by private applicators to apply RUPs safely. These proposed 

changes are summarized in Table 2.2-1. 

Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Competency Standards 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 damage 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 pesticides in accordance with label instructions and 

warnings, 4) recognize local environmental situations that must be considered during application 

to avoid contamination, and 5) recognize poisoning 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 applicator general competency standards (Private Cert02, Private Cert-01 and Private Cert-03) would cover the following topics 1) label and labeling 

comprehension, 2) safety, 3) environment, 4) pests, 5) pesticides, 6) equipment, 7) application 

methods, 8) laws and regulations, 9) responsibilities for supervisors of noncertified applicators, 

10) professionalism, and 11) agricultural pest control. These competency standards substantially 

parallel the core standards for commercial applicators. Private and commercial applicators have 

access to the same set of RUPs, and these proposals would ensure a similar level of competency 

between private and commercial applicators. The Agency plans to maintain the distinction 

between private and commercial applicator general or “core” competency standards by requiring 

private applicator general certification to cover topics related to agricultural pest control and 

agriculture-specific regulations, such as the Worker Protection Standard. These topics are not 

covered in the commercial core competency standards. In addition, EPA is not proposing to 

require that private applicators obtain an additional category certification in addition to a core 

certification in order to apply RUPs using routine application methods. 

The proposal would clarify and expand the requirements for initial certification for private 

applicators. The current rule allows private applicators to be certified through a “written or oral 

testing procedure, or such other equivalent system as may be approved as part of a State plan.” 

The proposed option (Private Cert-02) would enhance the competency standards for private 

applicators by specifying minimum standards for an alternate system equivalent to a written or 

oral testing procedure. The proposal would require private applicators either to pass a written 

exam or to complete training that covers the private applicator general standards described in 

Unit VII.A of the preamble. EPA estimates this results in approximately 12 hours of training 

content. These more rigorous standards would ensure sufficient training on all of the required 

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

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

Cert-01) of an estimated 8 hours, or an exam or training on expanded content (Private Cert-03) 

of an estimated 16 hours for private applicator certification. The first alternative would be less 

burdensome on applicants who do not take a written exam, but limited content means that 

important topics would not be covered as fully during training. The second alternative would 

impose a higher burden on applicants who do not take a written exam, but the proposed material 

could be covered more in depth. This more substantial 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 Cert-13) would eliminate certification for private applicators who 

cannot read. Currently, non-readers can receive certification as private applicators for specific 

products using tests designed for non-readers. The proposal would eliminate this possibility. 

This is important because critical information on pesticide safety is transmitted through the 

pesticide labeling, which non-readers 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-readers may not be able to understand important changes to the 

labeling for the product(s) they are certified to use, putting the applicators, the environment, and 

public health at risk. As an alternative (Private Cert-14), the Agency considered retaining nonreader certification, but limiting it to a single product for a single season. Under the alternative, 

non-readers would be required to undergo certification for each product they intend to use every 

year. The alternative would retain the flexibility to certify people who cannot read the labeling, 

but establishes tighter restrictions on the certification to ensure competence and safe application. 

2.2.2 Establish Application Method-Specific Categories for Commercial and 

Private Applicators 

For commercial applicators to be certified, the rule currently requires them to pass at least two 

written exams – a core exam, which ensures general knowledge of pesticide safety, as well as an 

exam in at least one category of RUP use, such as agricultural pest control or ornamental and turf 

pest control. The existing rule does not establish categories of certification for private 

applicators. Pesticide application and agriculture both are becoming increasingly specialized. 

Improper application may lead to increased risks to the health of the applicator, workers, the 

environment, and the public. Certain categories of pesticides and methods of application, 

including fumigants and aerial application, pose an inherently higher risk of acute injury or death 

if the applicator does not understand 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 pesticide and application method being used. 

Some states have addressed these elevated risks related to applicators by requiring applicators to 

be certified in specialized categories related to specific application methods. EPA is proposing 3 

new federal categories of certification for commercial and private applicators specific to the 

method of application used: aerial, soil fumigation, and non-soil fumigation. EPA considered, 

but is not proposing, a category that would have covered applications via chemigation. These 

potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit VIII.A of the preamble. The proposed 

concurrent categories are shown in Table 2.2-2. 

Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Application Method-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, Proposed, and Alternative Application Method-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 pest control, (7) Industrial, institutional, structural and 

health related pest control, (8) Public health pest control, (9) Regulatory pest control, (10) Demonstration and 

research pest control 

Soil fumigation uses a pesticide to control pests or plant pathogens in the soil using a pesticide 

that either is or becomes a gas. Non-soil fumigation uses similar pesticides, but for control of 

pests in other places, such as structural treatment to buildings or to stored commodities. EPA is 

proposing to create application method-specific categories for soil and non-soil fumigation 

(Comm Cert-04), under which commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written 

exam administered by the states. Private applicators would demonstrate competency in these 

categories by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) 

administered by the states or completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered 

by the states (Private Cert-10). 

EPA considered an alternative that creates only one application method-specific category for 

general fumigation, which would cover both soil and non-soil pest control. Under this alternative 

category, commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written exam developed and 

administered by the states (Comm Cert-03). Private applicators would demonstrate competency 

in the general fumigation category by either passing a written exam or completing a 4 hour 

training program developed and administered 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 completing an 8 hour training program developed and 

administered by the states (Private Cert-09). This 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 fumigation in different situations. Soil and non-soil 

fumigation activities are quite different, and competence in one does not guarantee competence 

in the other. For this reason, the proposal would create both categories for fumigation. The 

general fumigation category would also necessarily minimize the detail of the training content, as 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

knowledge of more tasks would be covered. Finally, a general fumigation category would not 

match the labeling requirements for currently registered soil fumigants. The proposed soil 

fumigation category would ensure that certification in the category met all existing soil fumigant 

labeling requirements for applicators to have specific training. A general fumigation category 

would not be able to cover the soil fumigant requirements in enough detail to meet those label 

requirements without being too long when combined with the other required material applicable 

to structural, grain storage, and commodity fumigation. For these reasons, it is more practical 

and would result in better safety to establish separate categories for soil and non-soil fumigation. 

Aerial application refers to applying pesticides by aircraft. EPA is proposing to create an 

application method-specific category for aerial application, under which commercial applicators 

would be certified by passing a written exam administered by the states (Comm Cert-01). 

Private applicators would be certified by either passing a written exam (similar to that for 

commercial applicators) administered by the states or completing a training program of 

approximately 4 hours developed and administered by the states (Private Cert-04). EPA 

considered an alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would 

demonstrate competency by passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) 

administered by the states or by completing an 8 hour training program developed and 

administered by the states (Private Cert-05). Aerial certification would ensure that applicators 

applying pesticides by aircraft are able to apply products safely and in a manner to manage drift 

and potential exposure to adjacent areas and 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 irrigation equipment along with irrigation water. 

Chemigation has a relatively high potential for environmental contamination if not conducted 

properly. Due to the nature of the equipment, chemigation poses additional risks to the 

applicator or those working under his direct supervision, and to the environment through water 

contamination. Chemigation can contaminate ground 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 over-application, or improperly maintained 

equipment may leak treated water from the chemigation system. Several states have developed 

competency requirements for this kind of application for both commercial and private 

applicators. Under this alternative category, commercial applicators would be certified by 

passing a written exam developed and administered by the states (Comm Cert-02). Private 

applicators would demonstrate competency in the chemigation category by either passing a 

written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the states or 

completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered by the state (Private Cert-06). 

EPA considered a second alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they 

would demonstrate competency by passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial 

applicators) administered by the states or completing an 8 hour training program developed and 

administered by the states (Private Cert-07). However, most incidents relating to chemigation 

pertain to chemicals that would be covered under the soil fumigation category, such as 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 Categories for Commercial and Private 

Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements 

In addition to the application method-specific categories, the Agency is proposing to add specific 

categories for the use of the predacides Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) and sodium 

cyanide dispensed through an M-44 device. The proposed categories for both commercial 

(Comm Cert-05) and private applicators (Private Cert-12), would cover the use of these two 

specific pesticides which target predators of livestock and are highly dangerous to humans and 

non-target species. States and federal agencies that allow the use of these products already have 

a certification program in place for applicators using the products. The pesticide labeling for 

each of these products imposes specific requirements for the certification of applicators by any 

state or federal agency that allows their use. Thus, this proposal simply codifies the existing 

labeling requirements. These potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit IX of the 

preamble. 

2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private 

Applicators 

Under the current federal requirements, persons seeking to become certified as commercial 

applicators must demonstrate their competence 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. Recertification requirements may include options for exams 

or training. The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and 

conducting training. These provisions are summarized in Table 2.2-4, and discussed in detail in 

Unit X of the preamble. 

Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Administering 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 Administering 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 certification or recertification as a private or 

commercial applicator, whether by training or exam, would be required to provide proof of their 

identity. EPA is also proposing to codify EPA’s existing guidance that exams must be written, 

proctored, and closed book. 

The value of setting federal standards for examination practices is that states, employers, and the 

public could be confident that all certified applicators will have met a consistent standard without 

having to verify the examination practices of each state. Confirming the identity of the test 

takers would ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requirements. It would 

also help prevent persons from taking a certification exam or training or attending a 

recertification training session in the place of the actual candidate, thereby limiting certification 

to the candidates who are qualified. 

In addition to verifying the identity of test takers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing 

policy related to the security of the exam process. These standards would include requiring that 

the exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed-book exams to ensure that no 

outside materials would be used in the exam. These changes would also ensure that only 

competent applicators become certified. The states would have to ensure that these standards are 

met. 

2.2.5 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for 

Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training 

Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator 

currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, they also have a 

high potential for exposure and, if restricted use pesticides are misapplied, they may pose a risk 

to the public health and the environment. To address these risks, the Agency has proposed 

changes in the training of the noncertified person, clarification on who can provide that training, 

and clarification on what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

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, Proposed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensure the Competency of Noncertified 

Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Certified Applicator 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial 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, Proposed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensure the Competency of Noncertified 

Applicators Under the Direct Supervision 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 noncertified applicator using RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator must be competent, but the rule does not specify how to 

determine the competency of the noncertified applicator. Currently the rule does not require any 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

training or exam to gauge noncertified applicator competency or ensure an initial level of 

training/competency. The current rule also does not specify any interval for retraining or 

instruction for ensuring the ongoing competency of noncertified applicators. 

Competence of Noncertified Applicators Working Under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial 

Applicator 

The Agency is proposing to clarify the ways that noncertified applicators working under the 

direct supervision of commercial applicators would be able to demonstrate competence in the 

absence of certification. They would be able to demonstrate competence by one of three 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 requirements, proper application techniques, how to 

protect oneself and one’s family from pesticide exposure, and other topics related to the safe use 

of RUPs. Second, they could complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). 

Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam3. The proposed training requirements 

would be repeated annually; the proposed option to pass the commercial core exam would be 

repeated every 3 years. Commercial applicators supervising noncertified applicators would be 

required to maintain records of the training or completion of the core exam for 2 years (Comm 

Sup-06). An alternative approach, not proposed by EPA, would be to require the training records 

to be kept for five 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 alternative would limit the flexibility of commercial 

applicators and noncertified applicators 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 competent, leading to fewer available qualified 

noncertified applicators and increasing the demand for certified applicators to conduct 

applications. 

Competence of Noncertified Applicators Working Under the Direct Supervision of a Private 

Applicator 

The Agency is proposing to clarify the ways that noncertified applicators working under the 

direct supervision of private applicators can demonstrate competence. They could demonstrate 

competence in one of three ways (Private Sup-02). First, they could complete proposed training 

for noncertified applicators, which would include a range of information about the hazards of 

pesticides, what to do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety requirements, proper application 

techniques, how to protect oneself and one’s family from pesticide exposure, and other topics 

related to the safe use of RUPs. Second, they could complete the WPS handler training 

(specified under 40 CFR 170). Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam, which 

would make them certified applicators. The proposed training requirements would be repeated 

annually; the proposed option to pass the commercial 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 private 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 supervision have qualified under the proposed 

requirements. 

An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of private applicators would be to limit noncertified 

applicators to only those who have completed the training proposed under the rule or who have 

completed the WPS handler training (Private Sup-01). This alternative would limit the flexibility 

of private applicators and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision to 

decide how to meet the qualifications. 

Guidance Given To Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of 

Commercial and Private Applicators 

In addition to the general requirement to demonstrate competence through training or 

examination, the Agency is proposing to add to the instructions that must be given to 

noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private 

applicators. Currently the supervising commercial or private applicator must provide guidance 

on the labeling requirements and application restrictions and information on how to contact the 

supervisor. The proposal would require that, in addition to the above, the supervising 

commercial or private applicator provide a copy of all applicable labeling to each noncertified 

applicator for each supervised application; provide specific instructions related to each 

application, including the site-specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain 

and comply with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03). 

Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified 

Applicator 

EPA is proposing to replace the current requirement for the supervising commercial or private 

applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor 

(such as directions to a pay phone and a phone number), with a requirement for the supervising 

commercial or private applicator to ensure the noncertified applicator has the ability to 

communicate immediately with the supervising applicator (Comm Sup-05) for commercial 

applicators, Private Sup-05 for private applicators). Immediate communication between the 

supervising commercial and private applicators and the noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision may be important if the noncertified applicator has questions about the 

pesticide application or encounters an emergency situation. This immediate communication 

standard could be satisfied by, for example, cell phones or two-way radios. EPA also considered 

a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator maintain the noncertified 

applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm 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 increases 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 restrictions considered by EPA is shown in Table 2.2-6. These potential 

changes are a result of the need to protect adolescents from RUP exposure and to ensure that 

RUPS are applied 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, Proposed, and Alternative Age Requirements 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 applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to 

handle some of the highest risk pesticides and to supervise noncertified applicators using RUPs. 

Adolescents may not possess the judgment and maturity necessary to ensure they apply 

pesticides properly. The heightened potential for immature decision making places the 

applicator and others at significant risk if the pesticides are mishandled. The Agency is 

proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become certified as a commercial 

(Comm Age-02) or private (Private Age-02) applicator. EPA also considered establishing a 

minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either commercial or private applicators 

(Comm Age-01 and Private Age-01). EPA considered an additional option for private 

applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 years old, with a minimum age of 16 only 

for private applicators who are family members on family farms (Private Age-03). These 

changes would increase the protections to child and adolescent applicators. It should be noted 

that currently certified applicators would be able to maintain their certification, but those who do 

not meet the minimum age would not be allowed to obtain a certification. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under the 

Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

To protect noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and 

private applicators as well as to protect the health of others and the environment, EPA is 

proposing to establish a minimum age for noncertified applicators. The proposals and 

alternatives for age requirements for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of 

commercial and private applicators are shown in Table 2.2-7. 

Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Age Requirements for Noncertified 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 supervision of private 

and commercial applicators is 18 (Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05). The alternatives are a 

minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of both 

commercial (Comm Age-03) and private (Private Age-04) applicators. An additional alternative 

(Private Age-06) would require noncertified applicators to be 18, but with an exception for 

noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of an immediate family member, who must 

be at least 16 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 recertification standards only require states to have “provisions to ensure that 

certified applicators continue to meet the requirements of changing technology and to assure a 

continuing level of competency and ability to apply pesticides safely and properly” as part of 

their state plans (40 CFR 171.8(a)(2)). Currently, the rule specifies no requirements for the 

timing, content, or manner to evaluate ongoing competency, undermining the integrity of the 

applicator certification program. The lack of a national standard has resulted in the development 

of varying state programs that hinder state-to-state reciprocity and do not uniformly ensure that 

applicators have maintained their competency in core functions and the changing technology of 

pesticide application. The proposed recertification requirements would establish a maximum 

duration for certifications, set minimum standards for continuing education programs, and would 

require positive identification of candidates for recertification. The specific proposals are 

summarized in Table 2.2-8, with a more complete discussion available in Unit XV of the 

preamble. 

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

Regulatory 

Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Commercial Applicators 

Maximum time 

before 

recertification 

None 

Recertification 

required every 3 

years 

Requirements: 

exams for core and 

each category of 

certification OR 6 

Continuing 

Education Units 

(CEUs) for core 

recertification and 6 

CEUs for each 

category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-01) 

Recertification 

required every 5 

years 

Requirements: 

exams for core and 

each category of 

certification OR 6 

CEUs for core 

recertification and 6 

CEUs for each 

category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-04) 

Recertification required 

every 3 years 

Requirement: exams for 

core and each category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-02) 

Recertification required 

every 5 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 certification period of 

three years. In addition to the fixed time frame, the proposals would establish requirements for 

recertification, either by passing exams relevant to existing certifications or by completing a 

specific number of continuing education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency. EPA 

proposes to define a CEU as 50 minutes of educational contact time. For commercial 

applicators, the proposed recertification training requirements would be six CEUs for core 

certification and six CEUs per category of certification (Comm Recert-01), with recertification 

administered by the states. For private applicators, the recertification training requirements 

proposed would be six CEUs for general private applicator certification and three CEUs per 

application method-specific certification (Private Recert-01) with materials developed and 

administered by the states. Periodic requirements for retraining would ensure that certified 

applicators maintain knowledge of current information about pesticide application practices. 

EPA has considered several other options to ensure that certified applicators are aware of the 

most recent information about pesticide safety. 

For both private (Private Recert-04) and commercial (Comm Recert-04) applicators, the Agency 

considered the same recertification requirements at five year intervals rather than three years. 

For private applicators, EPA considered alternatives that require an exam or 8 hour training 

program for general private 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. Under these alternatives, recertification would take 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 and other certifying bodies 

could substitute an exam for the training requirements. 

For commercial applicators only, another alternative would be recertification at three year 

intervals but requiring recertification only by passing an exam (Comm Recert-02) with states 

developing unique examinations for both core certification and category certification, rather than 

offering the option to complete CEUs or pass core and category exams. EPA also considered an 

alternative with the same requirements, but with recertification at five year intervals (Comm 

Recert-05) 

The advantage of the proposal is that it would ensure a continuing level of competency among 

certified applicators, which will help to reduce the risk of RUPs. The alternatives would provide 

a lower level of confidence in the competence of applicators that have not been recently certified, 

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

19 

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

Federal Agencies 

There are several proposed requirements that are administrative in nature: new recordkeeping 

requirements for industry and requirements for states to implement the changes in the rule. The 

Agency is proposing new recordkeeping requirements for dealers of RUPs, shown in Table 2.2-

9. A more detailed discussion is available in Unit XVI of the preamble. 

Table 2.2-9. Current, Proposed, and Alternatives 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 identity of the purchaser, as well as information 

verifying the applicator’s certification is appropriate to purchase the RUP. 

The rule would also require the applicable States, Tribes, Territories and Federal agencies to 

engage in several activities to comply with changes elsewhere in the rule. The cost estimates for 

these administrative burdens are provided Chapter 3. These would include the certifying 

agencies revising regulations and making any required enabling legislative changes that would 

be necessary to bring their certification programs into compliance with proposed requirements as 

a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-02). They would also include the 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 certification plans that would be submitted to the Agency 

as a result of the proposed rule changes (Admin-06). More information on all of these 

administrative requirements that would be necessary can be found in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (Units XVI, XVII, and XIX, respectively). 

There are other administrative requirements that would be imposed by the proposed rule that 

would be required to implement the rule changes that will not be discussed in detail here. These 

include definitional changes that would clarify terms used in the regulation, and revisions that 

would clarify requirements for the content, submission and approval of certification plans by 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 

states, tribes, and federal agencies. Information 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 cost of changes to Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators rule (C&T) requirements in 40 CFR 171. We estimate the compliance cost of each 

potential certification and training requirement considered 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 pesticide manufacturers. States would also be impacted by individual 

requirements and the proposed suite of requirements, as they employ certified applicators and 

would be required to incorporate any new requirements into state law and carry out the proposed 

certification and training requirements of the rule. 

The requirements EPA evaluated would require employers of certified applicators and 

individuals certified as applicators to devote time and resources to the certification and training 

of using restricted use pesticides (RUPs), as well as time and resources to the training of 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their direct supervision. In analyzing the cost of 

these potential requirements, EPA values the time spent in required activities at the wage rate of 

the individual(s) involved in the task because the requirements implicitly take time from the 

productive activities of the operation or individual. Some requirements would also require 

expenditures on travel and materials. 

Section 3.2 describes the general methodology of cost estimation. In section 3.3, the state- or 

jurisdiction-level data are presented. Section 3.4 presents the results of cost 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 categories for commercial and private applicators; 

3.4.3 exam or training requirements; 3.4.4 standard for the supervision of noncertified 

applicators; 3.4.5 minimum age requirements for certified applicators and noncertified 

applicators under the direct supervision of certified applicators; 3.4.6 recertification requirements 

for certified applicators; and 3.4.7 general administration requirements. 

3.2 Methodology 

This section of the cost analysis evaluates the expected impacts of the proposed new certification 

and training requirements at the actor level (typically a certified applicator, a noncertified 

applicator working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, or a state government 

employee) and extrapolates to the jurisdiction (state, tribe, or territory) and national levels. 

Ideally, the cost analysis would be conducted with 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.) that either employ or are owned by the applicators 

and bear the cost of the potential rule changes. However, the data on individual applicators 

cannot be readily associated with particular establishments. For this reason, in this section of the 

cost assessment, we use applicators as the unit of analysis. Note that 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 cost’ of each potential requirement. These 

costs are estimated by actor, where actors are typically certified applicators either commercial or 

private, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, 

and state governments, depending on who would be implicated by a requirement or aspect of a 

requirement. These costs are a function of the labor costs to conduct an activity and any required 

material costs. As noted above, costs are generally a function of the time necessary to meet the 

requirement and the frequency at which it occurs. 

The third step multiplies the unit costs by the number of actors in each jurisdiction, and sums 

across the categories of actors to arrive at the jurisdiction-level cost of each potential requirement 

and the associated baseline regulatory costs. In steps four and five, we calculate the present 

value and then determine the incremental cost of the regulatory changes by taking the difference 

between the costs for the potential requirements and the baselines at the jurisdiction level. In 

step six we then sum across jurisdictions to obtain an estimate of the national costs and 

determine the annualized value. 

To better compare the impacts across the various potential requirements and the flow of expected 

benefits, in step 4, EPA calculates the present value (PV) of jurisdiction and national costs over a 

ten-year time horizon. The timing of the requirements depends on the activity that has to occur. 

For example, the implementation of requirements would require the states to review, revise 

current regulations and implement the proposed regulations. For some requirements such as age 

restrictions, there is a three year phase-in period where applicators who are currently 16 years of 

age would be allowed to continue working through the system as applicators and therefore could 

seek certifications in new categories before they turn 18. The time horizon is of limited 

importance as most of the costs will occur annually. Ten years was chosen because it is a typical 

time frame over which an agricultural establishment might financially amortize such 

expenditures. We use a discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and 

seven percent (see Appendix B) to represent the private discount rate as suggested 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 require certified commercial 

applicators who intend to apply RUPs aerially to be certified in a commercial aerial certification 

category. Data that are commonly used throughout the estimation are discussed in Section 3.3.2. 

Data that are specific to individual requirements are included in the discussion of the specific 

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

3 

Step 1. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of the Jurisdiction Baselines. For the purposes of cost 

analysis, the U.S. is divided into 52 “jurisdictions,” consisting of 50 states, Puerto Rico, and 

“Other.” The jurisdiction “Other” includes all territories and tribes, except Puerto Rico. This 

“jurisdiction” level approach is needed because different jurisdictions currently have different 

requirements (baselines) for certifying their applicators. We calculate the associated jurisdiction 

baseline cost of the existing regulatory requirement for each actor in each jurisdiction: 

a,௜,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓa ∙ ܪ௥,௜,a,௝

஻

௧

∙ Prob௧ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝

where costr,i,a

B

t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r, in jurisdiction i, for an 

actor, a, in time t; Hr,i,a,jB

t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current 

requirement; wa is the wage rate for the actor doing the activity; and Probt(j|i) is the probability 

or frequency of activity j in time t given the jurisdiction. The actor is generally the applicator, 

who is either obtaining or renewing certification and the activity may be preparing for an exam 

or taking a training. The probability or frequency is determined by the situation. All first-time 

applicators must obtain initial certification (Prob = 1), while recertification requirements may be 

spread over a period of time, e.g., a three-year cycle implies that one-third of the applicators seek 

recertification every year and/or applicators take about one-third of required continuing 

education units (CEUs) every year (Prob = 0.333). 

Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of Potential Requirement. The expected cost of a potential 

requirements is calculated as: 

a,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓa ∙ ܪ௥,a,௝

௉

௧

∙ Prob௧ሺ݆ሻ

௝

where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 

simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i, denoting a state or region. Since our goal is to 

determine the increased costs caused by any potential regulatory requirement, we typically 

restrict HBr, j|i,a ≤ HPr ,j|a, that is, jurisdictions are not anticipated to relax standards if the proposed 

federal requirement is less stringent. 

Step 3. Calculate Jurisdiction Costs of Potential Requirement and Jurisdiction Baseline. To 

estimate total compliance costs for the potential requirements and compliance costs for the 

current jurisdiction baseline, we multiply the per-actor unit costs by the number of affected 

actors of each type (e.g., first-time certified private applicators and existing certified private 

applicators) in the jurisdiction and sum across all 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 RCr,iX denotes the cost of potential requirement r to jurisdiction i of potential regulations 

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

Step 4. Calculate Jurisdiction Incremental Costs. As part of this step, we calculate the present 

value (PV) for both RCB and RCP. Generally, per-actor costs are constant, but implementation of 

the regulations will occur only after states and jurisdictions have revised their programs and 

developed any new training or examination materials. EPA considered whether the number of 

applicators is changing over time, but the data generally indicate little or no changes. See 

Section 3.3 below. The present value of costs is calculated as 

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௜,௥ܥܴ ෍൯ൌ௑

௑

௧

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

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 annually. Given constant annual costs, the PV of 

jurisdiction costs for the baseline simplifies to 

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

஻൯ ൌ ܴܥ௥,௜஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

and, assuming a two-year implementation period, the PV of jurisdiction costs for the potential 

requirements can be calculated as 

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௉൯ ൌ ܴܥ௥,௜஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1൅ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଶ

௧ୀଵ

௜,௥ܥܴ ൅

௉

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1൅ߩሻ௧ିଵ

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 jurisdiction cost of the potential 

requirement: 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ௥,௜൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜஻൯

where PV(RICr,i) is the present value of the stream of incremental cost of the potential 

requirement over the regional baseline in jurisdiction i. 

Step 5. Calculate National Costs of the Potential Requirement, Jurisdiction Baseline, and 

Incremental Costs. We sum incremental costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance 

costs for each potential requirement (NCPr), the jurisdiction baseline requirements (NCBr), and 

the national incremental cost (NICr) where 

௥ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௑൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜௑൯

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

5 

and 

ܸܲሺܰܥܫ௥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, proposed 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 ൅ ߩሻଵ଴

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻଵ଴ െ 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 applicator (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 jurisdictions of developing and administering aerial 

applicator exams. The costs to jurisdictions are calculated using the same method. 

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

Based on data from the Certification Plan and Reporting Database4

 (CPARD), 18 states (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 commercial applicators in these jurisdictions 

would bear the full impact of the potential requirement (Comm Cert-01). The other 32 states 

have an aerial category requiring an exam and are in full compliance with the potential 

requirement. Thus, these 32 states are taken out of the cost analysis. Table 3.2-1 presents the 

unit costs, that is, per-actor costs for the baseline and potential requirement (Comm Cert-01). 

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

The actors are the existing and first-time commercial certified applicators who intend to apply 

RUPs aerially. Under the new requirement, existing aerial applicators would be required to take 

an aerial category exam that requires a total of 6 hours (the preparation time and exam taking 

time), while first-time aerial applicators would take an aerial category exam that requires a total 

of 8 hours (the preparation time and exam taking time). These commercial applicators must also 

be certified in relevant current certification categories to qualify for the aerial category. The 

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

cost for existing and first-time aerial applicators, we multiply the wage rate times the number of 

hours required of them to complete the certification exam. The unit cost for existing aerial 

applicators is $129 and $172 for first-time aerial applicators. 

 

4

 CPARD (Certification Plan and Reporting Database) is an electronic database that authorized agencies use to 

establish and update their certification plans as well as report certifications issued each year. 
*** 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 "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a). 

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

Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 present regional costs in year three for the regional baseline and cost of 

the potential requirement, respectively. Regional costs are calculated as unit costs for existing 

and first-time applicators multiplied by the number of actors and summed across regions (see 

Appendix A). 

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

Jurisdiction 

Existing Aerial Commercial 

Applicators 

First-time Aerial 

Commercial Applicators 

Jurisdictionlevel Cost of 

Baseline 

(RCBr,i) 

$1,000 

Unit Cost 

of 

Baseline 

(UCB

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,a) 

Unit Cost 

of 

Baseline 

(UCB

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,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 Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. 

Department of Labor 2013a). 

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

Region 

Existing Aerial Commercial 

Applicators 

First-time Aerial Commercial 

Applicators Jurisdiction-level 

Cost of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(RCPr,i) 

$1,000 

Unit Cost of 

Proposal 

(UCP

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,a) 

Unit Cost of 

Proposal 

(UCP

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,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 unchanged 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 costs would be incurred for the first 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 present value of the cost streams, shown in Table 3.2-4. We then 

subtract the jurisdiction-level cost of the baseline from the jurisdiction-level cost of the potential 

regulatory requirement in year three to get the jurisdiction-level incremental costs (Table 3.2-4). 

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

National Incremental Costs. 

Finally, we sum costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance cost for the potential 

regulatory requirement, the national baseline cost, and the national proposal cost. These 

national-level costs are presented in Table 3.2-4. The costs are presented as present value over a 

ten year time period with costs starting in year three given a 3% discount rate. 

Table 3.2-4: Annualized Present Value of National-Level Costs of Commercial Aerial 

Applicator Certification (Comm Cert-01)1

Region 

National-level Cost 

of Baseline PV(NCB) 

National-level Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement PV(NCP) 

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 certified 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 working under the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator by jurisdiction and age, and wage rates for the various actors. 

3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators 

States and other certifying jurisdictions (e.g., Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, other 

territories and several tribes) report the number of certifications issued and maintained to the 

Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). EPA used data reported from 2008 to 

2013 to determine the number of certified applicators that would be affected by changes to the 

certification programs (CPARD, 2014). 

Table 3.3-1 presents the number of commercial applicators used in the analysis, including firsttime applicators (those obtaining an initial certification), existing applicators (those who would 

recertify), and the average number of certifications held by existing applicators. Commercial 

applicators must be certified in a core set of requirements and obtain at least one category, based 

on area of specialization, such as agriculture, forestry, and turf. Over time, many commercial 

applicators become certified in multiple categories. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the average 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

number of category certifications ranges from nearly one in Tennessee to a high of 3.6 

certifications per applicator in Wyoming. Any changes in recertification requirements will affect 

all the category certifications an applicator holds. EPA uses a simple average over the 2008 to 

2013 period to estimate the number of commercial applicators impacted by the rule. 

With the limited series of data available, trends are difficult to determine. We regressed the 

logarithm of the number of commercial applicators in the U.S. against a time trend. For firsttime applicators, the coefficient on time implied a two percent annual rate of growth, but the 

estimate was not statistically significant. For existing applicators, the coefficient on time was 

also around a two percent annual growth rate and the estimate was statistically significant. We 

decided to use the simple average for both groups, implying no growth, due to the limited 

number of observations and some problems with the data. Several states did not begin reporting 

to CPARD until 2010 and others initially reported only certifications issued, not the number of 

applicators. 

Table 3.3-1: 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 and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 

Data on the age distribution of certified applicators is not available. Because it is important to 

know the number of certified applicators that may be subject to an age restriction, EPA estimates 

the number of commercial applicators. Due to restrictions on adolescents regarding driving, and 

the availability to work due to education requirements, as well as general liability concerns, it is 

unlikely that there are commercial applicators under the age of 16. For those that are 16-17 years 

old, EPA assumes that 0.2 percent of new commercial applicators are 16 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 pesticide handlers were under 18 

years of age. EPA assumed that commercial pesticide 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 assume it is even less likely that commercial 

establishments would hire adolescents to apply RUPs. Further, 33 states prohibit certification for 

those under 18. The estimated number of commercial certified adolescents in shown in Table 

3.3-2. EPA assumes that 90 percent of certified 16 year olds return to work as 17 year olds. 
*** 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, application-specific categories. Table 3.3-3 presents the expected number of 

applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Many states already have developed an 

aerial category and seven states have a chemigation category. For those states, EPA uses the 

average number of applicators, as reported to CPARD between 2008 and 2013. 

In order to estimate the number of existing aerial applicators in states without an aerial category, 

we regressed the number of aerial applicators in states for which we had data against the number 

of certifications issued in agricultural plant protection, forestry, and turf categories, the number 

of acres of agricultural crops treated by air, and several dummy variable for different parts of the 

country. Data on acres treated by air comes from an annual market survey (proprietary) of 

pesticide use. Observations were for each state and year. The estimated coefficients were used 

to predict the number of existing applicators in the rest of the states. For the states with an aerial 

category, first time aerial applicators averaged 12 percent of existing applicators and that average 

value was used to predict the number of first time aerial applicators in the other states. 

Similarly, we estimated the number of commercial applicators who would obtain certification in 

chemigation based on a regression of observed certifications against the number of agricultural 

plant protection certifications, crop acres treated by commercial applicators with chemicals often 

applied via chemigation, and dummy variables to account for different agricultural practices, 

notably intensive production where chemigation might be through drip irrigation and more 

extensive systems of flood or sprinkler 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 seven percent of existing certifications and that 

value was used to predict the number of first-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 commercial applicators who have or would obtain 

certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Seventeen states have a soil fumigation category 

from which we can extrapolate to other states. As with aerial application and chemigation, we 

estimate a regression model where the number of applicators with a soil fumigation certification 

is hypothesized to be a function of the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection, 

forestry, and turf, as well as the crop acres treated commercial with fumigants. Data on crop 

treatments come from a proprietary market survey conducted annually. Initial certifications in 

soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications. 

Most states have a category for non-soil fumigation; some even have separate categories for 

fumigation of structures and fumigation of commodities. The regression model for non-soil 

fumigation included the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection and in the 

industrial, institutional, and structural category. The latter is quite broad and we included a 

dummy variable for states issuing more than 3,000 certifications in that category as many states 

subdivide it into more specialized areas. We also included a variable for acres of grain 

harvested, as an indicator of commodity fumigation, but the estimated coefficient was not 

significant. Initial certifications in non-soil fumigation average eight percent of the existing 

certifications. 

Table 3.3-4. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil 

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

Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation.

1

 No commercial soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

2

 No commercial non-soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

EPA considered a general fumigation category that would cover both soil and non-soil 

fumigation. No state currently has such a category on which to base estimates of the number of 

applicators implicated. Considering how different the methods and purposes of soil and non-soil 

fumigation are, EPA assumes that there would be no overlap in the number of applicators 

seeking certifications between the categories. Thus, the expected number of applicators that 

would seek a certification in a general fumigation category is simply the sum of the number of 

applicators in the soil and non-soil categories. 

3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 

certified applicators 

Data on the number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators (UTS applicators) are not available. However, based on the state 

regulations, it appears that four states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) do 

not allow noncertified applicators to apply RUPs. The number of UTS applicators in those states 

is set to zero. Data are available, by state, on employment in occupations related to pest control 

(BLS, 2014b). EPA took the total number of people employed as pest control workers in the 

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 sometimes resulted in negative numbers. For example, in the case of 

Kentucky, BLS reports an average of 8,720 people employed in non-agricultural pest control. 

However, Kentucky reports an average of 13,973 certified commercial applicators over the same 

period. As an alternative, EPA calculated the number of UTS applicators assuming three UTS 

applicators for every existing commercial applicator. In the case of Kentucky, the six-year 

average number of certified commercial applicators is 10,022, resulting in an estimate of 30,066 

UTS applicators. As a refinement, we made a calculation where different categories of 

applicators would have different numbers of UTS applicators. For example, there may be three 

UTS applicators for every applicator in the turf category (e.g., a golf course or landscaping 

enterprise) but public health applicators would not have UTS applicators. This approach resulted 

in an estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators in Kentucky. If the estimated number of UTS 

applicators in a state using the BLS data was less than half that calculated from the simple three 

UTS applicator per certified applicator, which occurred in 29 states, we used the lower of the two 

numbers calculated by assumption. For Kentucky, we used the estimate of 27,907 UTS 

applicators. In 15 of the 29 states for which the BLS data appeared to undercount the number of 

UTS applicators, we used the simple assumption of three UTS applicators for each certified 

commercial applicator. Estimated numbers of noncertified 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 applicators in the U.S. is estimated at nearly 950,000 

people. 

The number of noncertified adolescents applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator is also of interest, given that EPA is proposing a minimum age. According to the 

Current Population Survey (BLS, 2014a), in 2013, about 77,000 people were employed in pest 

control occupations within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and 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, institutional, and structural category which houses 

the majority of certified applicators. We therefore apply this percentage across all states to 

estimate the number of noncertified 16 and 17 year olds applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a commercial applicator. Since the BLS data includes 18 and 19 year olds, we are 

likely overestimating the number of adolescents applying RUPs. Several states have set a 

minimum age of 18 for applying RUPs, as shown by the estimated zero adolescents in the state. 

Table 3.3-5: Estimated Number of Noncertified Applicators 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

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

3.3.3 Private certified applicators 

The number of private certified applicators is also reported to CPARD by the states. The total 

number of private certified applicators in the U.S. from 2008 to 2013 was regressed against a 

time variable. The estimated coefficient on time for the number of initial certifications was 

negative, while that for existing applicators was positive, but neither was statistically significant. 

Given the limited time series and conflicting results, EPA 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 numbers 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 and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 

As with commercial applicators, CPARD does not provide information on the age of private 

applicators. Since private applicators are often the owner or operator of a farm, EPA bases its 

estimates of adolescent applicators on the number of principal operators under the age of 25, as 

reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We assume a 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 percent are 15 and 16 and will be certified, and one 

percent are 17 years old with certification. This would be an overestimate of principal operators, 

as the distribution is probably heavily skewed toward operators in their early 20s rather than 

mid- to late-teens. Further, not all principal operators will be certified applicators since not all 

farms use pesticides, much less RUPs. However, there are other situations where an adolescent 

may be a certified operator. Many states have age restrictions, however, typically either 16 or 18 

years of age and we adjust our estimates accordingly. Where the 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 applicators. Included is an estimate of 

adolescents hired as a private applicator. The above approach applies to family members only. 

Hired adolescents on farms is likely very rare. According to the National Agricultural Worker 

Survey (DoL, 2005), only about 2.3 percent of those handling any kind of pesticide were under 

18 and fewer would handle RUPs. We assume that hired 17 year-olds may obtain certification, 

at a rate of 25 percent of the number of family members obtaining certification at that age. 

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

Jurisdiction

First-Time Applicators, 

Family

Existing Applicators, 

Family

First-Time 

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 

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

22 

EPA also estimates the number of private applicators that will obtain and retain certification in 

potential new, application-specific categories. Table 3.3-8 presents the expected number of 

applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Wisconsin is the only state that has 

established a private aerial category and they have not reported any certifications. Hawaii, 

Idaho, Nevada, and Wisconsin require certification in chemigation for private applicators and 

Wyoming has recently imposed a similar requirement. 

Private aerial application is likely very rare. EPA simply assumes that there will be one private 

aerial applicator in a state for every 100 commercial applicators. As with commercial 

applicators, we assume that new certifications will be 12 percent of existing certifications based 

on the observed ratio between new and existing certifications nationally. 

We also estimated the number of private applicators who would obtain certification in 

chemigation in relationship to the number of commercial applicators certified in chemigation. 

We constructed a state-specific ratio by comparing crop acres treated with chemicals used in 

chemigation by commercial applicators to that treated by the farmer. This ratio ranged from a 

low of 1.5 (50 percent more acres treated by farmers than by commercial 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 survey were missing (Alaska, Hawaii, and the New 

England states), we used the estimated coefficient on agricultural plant certifications from the 

commercial applicator equation to calculate chemigation certification as a proportion of all 

private certifications (0.9 percent). As with commercial chemigation certifications, new 

certifications are calculated as seven percent of existing certifications. 

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

Categories. 

Jurisdiction 

First-Time 

Applicators, 

Aerial 

Existing 

Applicators, 

Aerial 

First-Time 

Applicators, 

Chemigation 

Existing 

Applicators, 

Chemigation 

Alabama 1 2 0 0 42 605 

Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Arizona 1 2 0 0 9 135 

Arkansas 1 2 0 2 6 80 

California 1 2 0 4 8 115 

Colorado 1 2 0 1 5 68 

Connecticut 1 2 0 0 1 13 

Delaware 1 2 0 0 5 69 

Florida 1 2 0 3 12 173 

Georgia 1 2 0 2 103 1,478 

Hawaii 1 0 0 1 14 

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; estimated number of applicators. 

2

 No private chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

Table 3.3-9 presents the expected number of private applicators who have or would obtain 

certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Five states (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, 

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have a private soil fumigation category. For the remaining states, 

we estimate existing applicators using the estimated coefficients from the regression model for 

commercial applicators, where the number of applicators with a soil fumigation certification is 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 treatments come from a proprietary market survey 

conducted annually. Initial certifications in soil fumigation are 11 percent of the existing 

certifications, as with commercial soil fumigation. 

Seven states (Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Utah) have a 

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

category, EPA calculated the ratio of private to commercial certifications. The ratio varies from 

about 0.1 to almost 2.0, with an average of 0.6. The number of private certifications in states 

without the category was estimated as the number of commercial certification multiplied by the 

average ratio or the ratio of a state with similar agronomic characteristics, following the Farm 

Resource Regions defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS, 2000). Initial 

certifications in soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications, as with 

commercial certifications in this category. 

Table 3.3-9. Expected Number of Commercial 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 category; estimated number of applicators. 

3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified 

applicators 

The number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs on farms is likely to be a function of farm 

size, where farm size is measured by value of sales. Most smaller farms would not need more 

than one applicator, in general, and even larger farms would probably not have a large enough 

demand for RUPs that they would need to rely on a certified applicator. We assume that one of 

every two private applicators on a farm with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year will 

have an applicator under his or her supervision to apply RUPs, while private applicators on farms 

with more than $1 million per year in sales will, on average, have one noncertified applicator 

under his or her supervision. We obtain the number of farms, by sales, in each state from the 

2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). From a special tabulation of data from the 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 the proportion of farms in 

each sales class that utilize pesticides. Using this national figure, we estimate the number of 

farms in each state that use pesticides. For example, nearly 80 percent of farms with sales 

between $100,000 and $1 million per year used pesticides 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 Alabama private applicators will have someone under their 

supervision. Another 7.0 percent of Alabama private applicators are estimated to be on farms 

with more than $1 million in sales and will have someone applying RUPs under their 

supervision. Therefore, we estimate that the number of noncertified applicators in Alabama is 

15.3 percent of the 5,402 certified private applicators, or 827 noncertified applicators. Table 3.3-

10 presents estimates for all the states and jurisdictions. 

Finally, we estimate the number of noncertified adolescents that may apply RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a private applicator. 

To estimate the number of noncertified adolescent 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 certified 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 again assume a nearly normal distribution, where 0.5 

percent of second and third operators under the age of 25 are 14, 0.75 percent are 15 and 16, and 

one percent are 17 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 obtain the estimates shown in Table 3.3-10. 

Finally, some states have age restrictions precluding adolescents from applying RUPs. This is 

shown in Table 3.3-10 where there are zero adolescent noncertified applicators. The exception is 

Alaska, which does not have a restriction but where our procedure above resulted in an estimated 

zero applicators younger than 16 years of age. 

Table 3.3-10: Estimated Number of Noncertified Applicators 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 

Source: EPA estimation.

3.3.5 Wage Rates 

Wage rates are used to estimate unit costs for the baseline and potential requirements. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data series for 

national industry-specific occupational employment 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 the over (under)-estimation of impacts for the low 

(high) wage jurisdictions. However, the differences in wages across jurisdictions 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 would have been extremely high. 

Finally, it would not have been consistent with how the paperwork burden is calculated for the 

ICRs, which is done at a national 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 years 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 applicators 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 include a third age group of 

private applicators — those who are under the age of 16. We assume that all operators are over 

the age of 18, while hired applicators can be in any of the three age groups. We also assume that 

underage private applicators under 16 years old are paid a wage that is 50% of the operator wage 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 

rate, and that private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid a wage 60% of the operator 

wage rate. Thus, private applicators under 16 years old are paid the loaded wage rate of $25.98 

and private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid the loaded wage rate of $31.18. 

Wage rates of noncertified commercial applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision 

of certified applicators 

The loaded wage rate for all noncertified commercial applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision of certified applicators is based on the national mean unloaded hourly wage rate of 

$12.65 for the employment category 37-3011 (Landscaping 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 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators 

under age 16. Noncertified commercial applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision 

of certified applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are assumed to earn 75% of the adult wage rate or 

$13.76. 

Wage rates of noncertified private applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators 

For noncertified private applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified 

applicators, we have identified the same three age groups as those for private applicators. For 

noncertified private applicators 18 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, 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 are, respectively, 50% and 60% of the average 

wage rate for a noncertified private applicator applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

certified applicator. Assuming that private applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of 

the total remuneration, we calculate average loaded wage rate for noncertified private applicators 

under age 16 to be $10.75 and for those aged 16 or 17 to be $12.89. 

The loaded average overall wage rates for each age group and labor category appear in Table 

3.3-11. 
*** 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 the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

Employment Statistics (BLS 2014d). 

Wage rates for state costs 

Wage rates for state implementation costs are organized into three groups: Senior Technical, 

Junior Technical, and Clerical. Unloaded wage rates for these three groups are obtained from 

BLS (BLS, 2014c) for 11-0000, Management Occupations; 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social 

Science Occupations; and 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations, 

respectively. We then load the unloaded wage rates with benefit rate of 45% to obtain loaded 

wages. Table 3.3-12 presents the wage rates for each group of state costs. 

Table 3.3-12: Wage Rates for State Costs 

Senior Technical Junior Technical Clerical 

Unloaded Wage Rate ($/hr) 39.78 27.20 18.76 

Benefits Factor 1.45 1.45 1.45 

Loaded Wage Rates ($/hr) 57.69 39.44 27.21 

Source: Unloaded wage rates and benefits factors are obtained from BLS Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation - May 2013 (BLS, 2014c)). 

3.4 Results of the Cost Analysis

This section provides EPA’s cost estimate for each potential requirement that was considered for 

inclusion in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 171. The estimated cost of each potential 

requirement is provided at the national level. The annualized costs of Step 6 (see the 6-step 

methodology above) are presented in this section. Additional details on the calculation method, 

data, and cost results are provided in Appendix A. 

In the information given below, and in Appendix A, EPA gives cost estimates by affected group. 

These groups include pesticide applicators who are certified and private, commercial, and state 

employees who do not have certification. These applicators are either employed by, or the 

owners of farms, commercial pest control firms, railroads, state governments, and a plethora of 

other private, commercial, and public entities that apply restricted use pesticides. Pesticide 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 

dealers and registrants are also impacted by the potential requirements. State governments are 

required by many of the potential requirements to implement the changes by changing state 

regulations and state plans and to carry out many of the activities under the potential 

requirements including training, administering exams, and development of training and 

examination materials. 

A summary, including cost, of each potential requirement is given by category below. We 

provide a brief summary of the cost of each potential requirement in tabular form by affected 

entity. The data presented in these tables are the present value of the cost over the ten-year time 

horizon and provide national level costs considering the jurisdiction baselines (NCB) and national 

level costs for the potential requirements (NCP). This is followed by the national level 

incremental costs (NIC) from the national level cost for the potential requirement to the current 

national level cost of the jurisdiction baseline. Tables are followed 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. 

Industry and state cost are presented together for each potential requirement. Cost results follow 

a similar grouping as they do in the preamble of the rule. The sections are enhancement of 

private applicator competency standards and addition of private applicator categories, additional 

concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators, predator control category for 

commercial and private applicator certification, examination and alternate certification method 

security standards for commercial and private applicators, standards for supervision of 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, 

levels of supervision, and provisions for commercial applicator recordkeeping of applicator 

training for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified 

applicators, age requirements for certified applicators and noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, standards for recertification of 

certified applicators, requirements for submission, approval and maintenance of state 

certification plans, and federal agency certification plans; tribal certification plans; and EPAadministered federal certification plans. 

Affected entities will have two years to become compliant with the potential regulatory 

requirements. As a result, most costs for the current and potential regulatory requirements start 

in Year 3 of the analysis. Costs incurred before Year 3 include state costs to rewrite regulations 

and develop training programs and examination materials. 

Some potential regulatory requirements provide options for compliance to the implementing 

jurisdiction. For instance, a potential requirement may call for first-time private applicators to 

pass a written exam or complete a 12-hour training course for initial certification. To estimate 

the unit cost of the potential regulatory requirement, we calculate the cost for an actor to comply 

with the more expensive option (e.g., a 12-hour training course is more costly than a written 

exam). However, EPA assumes that some regions 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 Applicator General Competency Standards 

The potential requirements in this category would enhance private applicator core competency 

standards and certification requirements to more clearly reflect the knowledge and skills needed 

by private applicators to apply restricted 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 Baseline, Total, and Incremental industry costs for 

each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the 

potential requirements. 

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

Standards1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost 

of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(NCP) ($000) 

National Cost of 

Baseline (NCB) 

($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 Applicators (Private Cert-01, -02, and -03) 

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 

seeking initial certification as private applicators. 

The EPA’s proposal, Private Cert-02, would require a written exam or completion of a 12 hour 

training course. Industry incremental costs are $3.7 million for the 12 hour training. 
*** 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 certification. The national incremental cost for the 

industry is $2.0 million annually. 

The potential requirement Private Cert-03 would require a written exam or completion of a 16 

hour training course, with industry incremental costs of $9.0 million. 

These are high cost requirements, but many states have similar requirements and are in 

compliance as high baseline costs indicate. 

For the EPA’s proposal (Private Cert-02), state costs are $4 thousand for developing the exam or 

the trainings and $61 thousand to administer the exam or 12-hour training. For Private Cert-01, 

state costs are $3 thousand for developing the exam or the trainings and $35 thousand to 

administer the exam or 8-hour training. For Private Cert-03, state costs are $20 thousand for 

developing the exam or the trainings and $86 thousand to administer the exam or 16-hour 

training. States can choose between requiring certification training for the specified time period 

or a written certification exam for each of the potential requirements. 

 

3.4.2 Application Method-Specific Categories

3.4.2.1 Establish Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial 

Applicators 

The potential requirements would establish additional, concurrent certification categories for 

commercial applicators using restricted use pesticides in fumigation (including soil and non-soil 

fumigation), chemigation, aerial application, and demonstration and research such as university 

projects. Potential requirements address the elevated risks associated with certain application 

methods and promote consistency in protections across jurisdictions. 

The potential requirements propose the following commercial certification categories: aerial, 

chemigation, fumigation, and predator control. Table 3.4-3 presents the number of commercial 

applicators in each of these groups within the proposed certification categories at the national 

level. See Chapter 3.3.1, Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 for state-level estimates. 
*** 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 individuals or employers of individuals who apply restricted use 

pesticides using methods included in the new concurrent certification categories. Jurisdictions 

administering certification programs are also affected by these potential requirements. The cost 

of establishing additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators would be 

significant for both applicators and jurisdictions. 

Table 3.4-4 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each 

potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 

requirements. 

Table 3.4-4: Annualized Costs for Establishing Additional Concurrent Certification 

Categories for Commercial Applicators1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($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 Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators 

(Comm Cert-01, -02, -03, and -04) 

Potential requirements would require that commercial applicators who intend to apply aerially, 

by chemigation, or through fumigation must be certified in a specific commercial category by 

passing a written exam. Potential requirements would also include commercial soil and non-soil 

fumigation categories. 

Commercial applicators who want to certify in the aerial category would also need to be certified 

in either agricultural plant pest control; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; 

aquatic pest control; right-of-way pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health 

related pest control; or public health pest control. Under this potential requirement, existing 

aerial applicators would be required to take a 30-minute aerial category exam, while first-time 

aerial applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. 

The Annual National Incremental Costs (ANIC) for commercial applicators obtaining aerial 

certification are estimated to be $97 thousand (Comm Cert-01), while state costs to develop the 

exams are estimated at $8 thousand (Table 3.4-4). 

Commercial applicators who want to certify in the chemigation category would also have to be 

certified in either agricultural plant pest control; or ornamental and turf pest control categories to 

qualify for the chemigation category. Under the potential requirement, existing chemigation 

applicators would be required to take a 30-minute chemigation category exam. First-time 

chemigation applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category 

exams. The ANIC for commercial applicators obtaining chemigation certification are estimated 

to be $16 thousand (Comm Cert-02), while state costs to develop the exams are estimated at $43 

thousand. 

Commercial applicators in the fumigation category would also have to be certified in either 

agricultural plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; industrial, institutional, 

structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and 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 category 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 also have to be certified in either agricultural 

plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and 

research pest control categories to qualify. However, as the soil fumigators must comply with 

the label requirements now and under the potential requirement, the incremental cost for this 

potential requirement is zero, and not listed in the table. Commercial applicators in the non-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 qualify. Under the potential regulatory requirements, 

affected actors would obtain certification in soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or general 

fumigation. 

Commercial applicator incremental costs of obtaining non-soil fumigation certifications (Comm 

Cert-04) are estimated to be $131 thousand for commercial applicators employed by industry. 

State incremental costs to develop non-soil fumigation certification exams are estimated at $7 

thousand. 

Finally, commercial applicator incremental costs of obtaining general fumigation certifications 

(Comm Cert-03) are estimated to be $659 thousand, which is the largest of all new certification 

categories. This is because all jurisdictions, except three states, do not currently have the 

category, and thus would be fully impacted by the proposal if it becomes regulation. 

In addition to the costs described above, these potential requirements would also entail relatively 

small state costs of administering certification exams (Table 3.4-4). 

 

3.4.2.2 New Certification Categories for Private Applicator 

To address the elevated risks associated with certain application methods and to promote 

consistency in protections across states, the potential requirements would establish certification 

categories for private applicators using restricted use pesticides by aerial application, 

chemigation, or fumigation (including soil and non-soil fumigation). Potential requirements 

would no longer allow for the certification of applicators who are non-readers. 

For the newly proposed certification categories (aerial, chemigation, soil, non-soil, and general 

fumigation), EPA developed estimates of the number of applicators by new category as 

presented in Table 3.4-5 below. 
*** 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 national-level annualized costs of potential 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 Certification Categories for Private Applicators1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost 

of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(NCP) ($000) 

National Cost of 

Baseline (NCB) 

($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 

(NCP) ($000) 

National Cost of 

Baseline (NCB) 

($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 terms 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 private applicators who intend to apply aerially, by 

chemigation, or through fumigation would be certified in a specific private category by passing a 

written exam or completing a training course. Potential requirements also include private soil 

and non-soil fumigation categories. Training requirements of 4 and 8 hours would be included 

for each category. Of the category certifications, the incremental costs associated with the 

general fumigation category certification would be the highest (between $621 thousand and $1.2 

million for 4 and 8 hours of training, respectively) as a result of the large number of applicators 

who would pursue certification. The aerial category is relatively low cost as a result of the small 

number of aerial applicators who would pursue certification. (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 written exam for each of the 

potential requirements. 

 3.4.3 Examination and Alternate Certification Method Security Standards for Commercial 

and Private Applicators 

Examination and alternate certification method security standards for commercial and private 

applicators aim to improve the quality and administration of pesticide applicator certification. 

The potential requirements would add requirements for those seeking certification or 

recertification to present identification at the time of the session and for examination sessions to 

be proctored. 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 they enter the exam or training room. 

Administration requirements would primarily impose costs on individuals or employers of 

individuals seeking to become certified or recertified private or commercial pesticide applicators, 

as well as states administering certification programs. Administration requirements would have 

a minimal industry impact on a per applicator basis but, nonetheless, individuals and employers 

affected by these requirements would pay an opportunity cost for their time or their workers’ 

time while fulfilling the requirements. 

Costs of these potential requirements are presented together with the costs of the potential 

requirements that entail them. For example, in Table 3.4-6 above, jurisdictions’ costs of 

proctoring application method-specific category exams for private applicator certification are 

presented together with the industry costs. 

3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of 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 

Noncertified applicators using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. They also have a 

high potential for exposure and may pose a risk to public health and the environment, if 

pesticides are misapplied. EPA evaluated several potential requirements that would change the 

training of the noncertified applicator that applies RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator, clarify who can provide training to noncertified applicators that 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 certified applicators employing noncertified applicators 

that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, pesticide registrants, and 

states that implement the requirements and employ noncertified applicators that apply RUPs 

under the direct supervision of certified applicators. 
*** 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 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. Costs of the potential 

requirements are significant, led by requirements related to direct line of sight and core 

competency training requirements. 

3.4.4.1 Commercial Applicators 

Table 3.4-7: Costs of Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 

Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision1 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Competency Qualifications for Noncertified Commercial Applicators 

Commercial applicators would keep 

records of noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision for two years 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-06) 

568 244 324 

Commercial applicators would keep 

records of noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision for five years 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-07) 

835 244 591 

Noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision 

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 Commercial Applicators 

Clarify guidance provided to 

noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-03) 

This proposal involves EPA codifying the current practices 

by jurisdictions which are in compliance with the proposal, 

and thus the incremental cost is zero. 

Communication between Supervisor and Noncertified Commercial Applicator 

Noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision 

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 Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified 

Commercial Applicators (Comm Sup-01, -02, -04, -06, and -07) 

There are four potential requirements EPA evaluated to ensure the competency qualifications for 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified commercial 

applicators. 

The EPA’s proposal, Comm Sup-06, would require commercial applicators to keep records of 

the competency qualifications of the people working under their direct supervision and to keep 

the records for two years. The incremental cost of the requirements is estimated to be $324 

thousand. 

The potential requirement Comm Sup-07 would require commercial applicators to keep records 

of the competency qualifications of the people working under their direct supervision and to keep 

the records for five years. The incremental cost of the requirements is estimated to be $591 

thousand. 

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Sup-01) related to competency qualifications for noncertified 

applicators who apply RUPs under 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 Protection Standard (WPS), or by passing the core 

exam. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators would choose to comply with the proposal by 

obtaining WPS handler training, which would be provided by the potential employer (a 

commercial or private applicator). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal at $6.6 million. 

The potential requirement Comm Sup-02 would require that individuals working 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 noncertified applicators that would have to pass the 

commercial core exam. 

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of 

Certified Applicators (Comm Sup-03) 

The potential requirement would clarify the content of the guidance provided by commercial 

applicators to the noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their direct supervision 

regarding the pesticide application they are conducting. This would be, however, a no cost 

requirement as all certified applicators are already in compliance. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

42 

Communication between Certified Commercial Applicator and Applicator Applying RUPs under 

their Supervision (Comm Sup-04 and -05) 

There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified and 

noncertified applicators. 

The EPA proposal, Comm Sup-05, would require commercial applicators and individuals 

working under their direct supervision to have a method for immediate communication during 

use of an RUP by a noncertified applicator under the 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 applying RUPs under their supervision own and 

communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the potential requirement to 

industry would be negligible or zero. 

The potential requirement Comm Sup-04 would require certified commercial applicators and 

individuals working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. 

EPA estimates industry costs of this potential requirement at $15 billion. Under this potential 

requirement, EPA assumed commercial applicators would generally prefer to replace 

noncertified applicators in their employment with certified applicators to comply with the 

potential requirement, and the wage difference between certified and noncertified applicators 

would represent the cost of this potential requirement. EPA assumed that the industry would 

replace one-third of noncertified applicators in their employment with certified applicators under 

this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly, due to the large number of full 

time noncertified applicators that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as only three 

states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement. 

3.4.4.2 Private Applicators 

 

Table 3.4-8: Costs of Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 

Supervision of Certified Private Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision1 

Potential Regulation 

Type of 

Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional 

Baseline (NCB) 

($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 Private 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 (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional 

Baseline (NCB) 

($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 Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified 

Private Applicator (Private Sup-01and -02) 

There are two potential competency qualification requirements for noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicator. 

The EPA’s proposal, Private Sup-02, would require the individuals working under the direct 

supervision of a private applicator to establish competency by completing training specified in 

the rule, having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection Standard, or by 

passing the core exam. EPA estimates that this requirement would cost $639 thousand. 

The potential requirement Private Sup-01 would require the individuals working under the direct 

supervision of a certified private applicator to establish competency by completing training 

specified in the rule or by having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection 

Standard. A cost estimate equal to the EPA proposal (Private Sup-02) would result from this 

potential requirement because EPA assumed that under the both potential requirements, 

noncertified applicators would choose to comply by taking whichever training was less costly, 

which in most cases would be to take the Worker Protection Standard handler training, and EPA 

estimated that cost. 

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a 

Certified Applicator (Private Sup-03) 

The potential requirement clarifies the content of the guidance provided by certified applicators 

to the noncertified applicators without certification under their direct supervision regarding the 

pesticide application they are conducting. This is, however, a no cost requirement as all certified 

applicators are already in compliance as applicators are already doing this. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 

Communication between Supervisor and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a 

Private Applicator (Private Sup-04 and -05) 

There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified applicators 

and those working under their direct supervision. 

The EPA proposal Private Sup-05 would require certified applicators and individuals working 

under their direct supervision to have a method for immediate communication during use of an 

RUP by the applicators. Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that 

in all jurisdictions most supervisors and noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their 

supervision own and communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the proposal 

to 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 within each other’s direct line of sight. EPA 

estimates the incremental cost of this potential requirement at $80 million. Under this potential 

requirement, EPA assumed private applicators would generally prefer to replace noncertified 

applicators in their employment with certified applicators to comply with the potential 

requirement, and the wage difference between certified and noncertified applicators would 

represent the cost of this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly, due to the 

large number of noncertified applicators that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as 

only three states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement. 

3.4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Applicators and Applicators Applying RUPs 

under the Supervision of Certified Applicators 

Minimum age requirements for certified applicators aim to improve the safety of application of 

restricted use pesticides. There are currently no federal age requirements for certified applicators. 

This economic analysis evaluates two EPA proposals and two alternatives for commercial and 

private applicators: The EPA proposals would require commercial and private applicators to be 

18 years old and the alternatives would require commercial and private applicators to be 16 years 

old. EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require private applicators to be 18 

years old, but would allow for private applicators 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 applicator are the same as those for certified applicators, a minimum 

age of 16 or 18 for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator, and for the same reasons. EPA also considered a potential requirement that 

would require a minimum age of 18 years for noncertified 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 private applicator to apply 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 certified 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 age. To the extent that adolescents would be prevented from 

obtaining a certification, they may be paid for lower wage jobs, rather than applying RUPs. 

These costs would be hidden, because they are borne by adolescents who would have become 

certified, rather than those who are already certified. The potential requirements would not allow 

for current noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified 

applicators under the age of 18 to continue to apply RUPs. 

Table 3.4-9 below presents national-level baseline, total and incremental industry costs for each 

potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 

requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation 

of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 

3.4.5.1 Commercial Applicators 

Table 3.4-9: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Certified Commercial Applicators1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of Potential 

Regulatory Requirement 

(NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Commercial Applicators 

Minimum age 

requirement of 16 

Industry costs 

(Comm Age-01) 1,178 1,178 0 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18 

Industry costs 

(Comm Age-02) 1,472 1,178 294 

1

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

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

There are two potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for commercial 

applicators: all commercial applicators would either have to be at least 16 years old or 18 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 commercial applicators that are less than 16 years of 

age and that existing applicators 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 applicators 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 commercial applicators aged 18 years or older. 

EPA estimates that the loaded average wage rate for commercial applicators aged 18 and older is 

$21.49 while the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators aged 16 and 17 is $16.12. EPA 

further assumes that the average commercial applicator under the age of 18 years old works 16 

weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per 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 pesticides 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 certified 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 applicators under the age of 16 years, so the potential 

requirement (Comm Age-01) that imposes a minimum 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 Minimum Age Requirements for Certified Private Applicators1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of Potential 

Regulatory Requirement 

(NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Private Applicators 

Minimum age 

requirement of 16 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-01) 416 355 61 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-02) 529 355 174 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18; 16 

for family members 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-03) 423 355 68 

1

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

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

There are three potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for private 

applicators: all private applicators would have to be at least 16 years old (Private Age-01), all 

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

applicators would have to be at least 18 years old except persons 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 employees working 16 weeks per year at 40 hours per 

week for a total of 640 hours. EPA also assumes that private applicators make 20 applications 

per year at 4 hours per application (a total of 80 hours) and that 70%, or 56 hours, are spent 

making applications of RUPs (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). 

The EPA’s proposal, Private Age-02, related to private applicator minimum age requirement 

would require that all private applicators to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private 

applicators can currently be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under age 18 

would be grandfathered in and may continue to work as certified applicators. Hence, under the 

potential regulatory requirement, first-time private applicators aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 years would 

be replaced with private applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average wage rate for 

private applicators over the age of 18 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 applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and 

older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $174 thousand. 

The potential requirement Private Age-01 related to private applicator age requirement would 

require that all private applicators be at least 16 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators 

can be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under the age of 16 years would be 

“grandfathered in” and allowed to continue to work as private applicators. EPA further assumes 

that 16- and 17-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 hired 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 applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 and 

older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $61 thousand. 

The potential requirement Private Age-03 related to private applicator age requirement would 

require private applicators who are family members to be at least 16 years old and those who are 

not family members to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as 

young as 14 years old, and that existing private applicators under the age of 18 years would be 

grandfathered in and may continue to work as private applicators. Under the potential regulatory 

requirement, all first-time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years and first-time private 

applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are not family members would 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 the age of 18 is $51.96 per hour, the rate for those who are 16 or 17 

years old is $31.18 per hour, and the rate for those who are 14 and 15 is $25.98 per hour. Based 

on the difference in employment costs of private applicators younger than 16, 16 and 17 years 

old, and 18, and applicators older than 18 years old, 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 Minimum Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying 

RUPs under the Supervision of Commercial Applicators1

Potential 

Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($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 under 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 supervision of commercial applicators: 

all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial 

applicators must be at least 16 years old (Comm Age-03), and all noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 18 years 

old (Comm Age-04). 

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-04) would require all noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision of commercial applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under the 

potential requirement, all noncertified applicators (first-time and existing), who are under the 

direct supervision of a commercial applicator and are under the age of 18 years would be 

replaced by first-time 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 commercial applicators 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 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 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 pesticides (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). The loaded 

average wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

commercial applicators over the age of 18 years is $18.34 per hour and $13.76 per hour for 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators 

under the age of 18. Based on the difference in employment costs of noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators younger than 18 and those 

who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $12.8 

million. This is a large cost, due to several factors; a sizeable difference between adolescent and 

adult noncertified wages, a considerable number of applicators involved, and a substantial 

number of hours worked by adolescent noncertified applicators. EPA believes, however, that the 

assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of the proposal. 

EPA assumes that there are no noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision of commercial applicators under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement 

(Comm Age-03) that would impose a minimum age requirement of 16 for noncertified 

applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators would be a no 

cost requirement. 

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

49 

Table 3.4-12: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying 

RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applicators1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($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 Applying RUPs under the Direct Supervision of 

Certified Applicators (Private Age-04, -05, and -06) 

There are three potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators. 

The EPA’s proposal (Private Age-05) related to applicator age requirements would require all 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be 

at least 18 years old. Under this potential requirement, all noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 18 (both first-time and 

existing) are replaced by noncertified 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 supervision of private applicators under age apply RUPs for 56 hours per 

year (EPA, 2014a). The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while 

the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired 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 

applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the 

potential requirement would be $1.1 million. 

The potential requirement Private Age-04 would require all 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 applicators under the age of 16 (both first-time and existing) would 

be replaced by noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private 

applicators aged 16 years or older. Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision of private applicators under age 16 years are assumed to apply pesticides for 80 

hours per year (20 applications per year, 4 hours each on average), 70% of which is estimated to 

be spent applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). 

The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision of private applicators 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 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 noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 

and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $83 thousand. 

The potential requirement Private Age-06 would require all noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators who are family members to be at least 

16 years old and those who are not family members to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes 

that noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators 

under age 18 apply pesticides for 80 hours per year, 70% of which is estimated to be spent 

applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). Under this 

potential requirement, all 14 and 15 year-old family member noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators would be replaced by hired noncertified 

applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators aged 18 years or 

older. In addition, 16 or 17 year-old family member noncertified applicators that apply on 

family farms would not be affected by Private 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 applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private 

applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average hourly wage rate for 

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 applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and 

older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $634 thousand. 

3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators 

Standards for recertification of private and commercial applicators assure that certified 

applicators maintain core competencies and keep pace with the changing technology of pesticide 

application. They also ensure that the general public, the environment and applicators are 

protected from misapplication and misuse. Potential requirements include maximum time 

requirements for recertification in the basic (core) and category certifications. Recertification 

requirements include trainings, exams or a combination of both and are to be determined by the 

states. 

The potential requirements primarily impact individuals who are certified applicators and their 

employers. EPA considers state costs of administering recertification programs to be small as 

many applicators recertify via continuing education trainings, which already have been 

developed by states. Applicators obtain state-required continuing education units (CEUs) by 

completing training, and states currently verify that applicators get required number of CEUs. 

Recertification costs for commercial and private applicators will be presented in two parts: one; 

costs of potential requirements for recertification of general competency and two: costs of 

potential requirements for recertification of new category certifications. 
*** 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 baseline, total, and incremental costs for each 

potential requirement for recertification of core competency of commercial applicators. The 

table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description 

of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful 

for the reader to understand the cost results. 

Table 3.4-13: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial Certified 

Applicators – Core Competency1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Commercial Applicators 

Exam or six-hour training for 

commercial core competency 

and category recertification 

(every three years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Recert-01) 57,948 51,447 6,500 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm 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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 Recertification (Comm Recert-01, -02, -04, and 05) 

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 

seeking recertification as commercial applicators. 

The EPA’s proposal, Comm Recert-01, would require recertification every 3 years by 

completing 6 hours of training for core competency and 6 hours of training per category, or by 

passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its incremental cost is estimated at 

$6.5 million, which is much higher than the alternatives Comm Recert-04 and -05, because 

recertification is on a faster cycle (every 3 years). 

The potential requirement Comm Recert-02 would require recertification every 3 years by 

passing a written certification exam for core and all applicable categories. Its incremental cost is 

estimated at $6.5 million. 

The potential requirement Comm Recert-04 would require recertification every 5 years by 

completing 6 hours of training for core competency and 6 hours of training per category, or by 

passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its incremental cost is estimated at 

$1.7 million. 

The potential requirement Comm Recert-05 would require recertification every 5 years by 

passing a written certification exam for core and all applicable categories. Its incremental cost is 

estimated at $1.7 million. 

The potential requirements Comm Recert-04 and -05 would cost the same because the only 

difference between them is that the latter does not have a training option and all have to take an 

exam, but EPA assumed that the exam would take applicators six hours on average (5 hours to 

prepare and 1 hour for exam taking time). Therefore, it would take the same number of hours of 

applicators’ time whether recertification is completed by training or exam, thus the same 

incremental costs. Although costs of these two potential requirements are high the baseline costs 

are also high – both due to a large number of applicators recertifying – resulting in relatively 

small incremental costs of $773 thousand. The same logic applies to the pair Comm Recert-01 

and -02. 

b. New Categories Recertification 

Table 3.4-14 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for 

each potential requirement for recertification of commercial applicators in the proposed 

application method-specific categories. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs 

of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when 

the presentation of this information 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 Categories1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($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 (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

fumigation category 

recertification (every five 

years) 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-04) 

3.5 0 3.5 

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

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

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for commercial 

applicators seeking recertification in application method-specific categories. For each of 

application method-specific categories (aerial, chemigation, general fumigation, and non-soil 

fumigation), there are two options: the first option would require recertification every 3 years by 

completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam; and the second option would 

require recertification every 5 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written 

exam. The recertification costs for different categories for commercial applicator are estimated 

to range from $13 to $151 thousand. 

3.4.6.2 Private Applicators 

a. General Competency Recertification 

Table 3.4-15 below presents national-level baseline, 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 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. 
*** 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 Competency1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Private Applicators 

Exam or 6-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-01) 50,020 36,394 13,627 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-01) 

516 509 7 

Exam or 8-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-02) 58,786 36,394 22,392 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-02) 

516 509 7 

Exam or 6-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs: 

(Private Recert-04) 39,943 36,394 3,549 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-04) 

512 509 4 

Exam or 8-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-05) 43,789 36,394 7,395 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-05) 

512 509 4 

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

 Private Applicators – General Competency Recertification (Private Recert-01, -02, -04, and -

05) 

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 

seeking recertification as private applicators. 

The EPA’s proposal, Private Recert-01, would require recertification of general competency 

every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential 

requirement Private Recert-02 would require recertification of general competency every 3 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 written exam. Private applicator costs of the 

potential requirements would range from $3.5 to $22.4 million. Potential requirements for 

general competency recertification 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 per applicator) and a large number of applicators that need to 

recertify. 

b. Application Method-Specific Categories Recertification 

Table 3.4-16 below presents national-level baseline, 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 description of estimation method and data are also 

given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost 

results. 

Table 3.4-16: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – 

Application Method-Specific Categories1

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Private Applicators 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for aerial category 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-01) 2.6 0.0 2.6 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private 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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

recertification every three 

years 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

category recertification 

every five years 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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 recertification 

training (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-Specific Categories Recertification (Private Recert 

01, 02, 04, & 05) 

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for private 

applicators seeking recertification in application method-specific categories. 

For aerial and non-soil categories, Private Recert-01 and -02 would require recertification every 

3 years, with Private Recert-01 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Private Recert-02 requiring 

exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and-05 would require recertification every 5 years, 

with Private Recert-04 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Private Recert-05 requiring exam 

or 4-hour training. 
*** 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 requiring exam or 3-hour training and 

Private Recert-05 requiring exam or 4-hour training. 

Private applicator costs of the potential requirements would range from $1.5 thousand (aerial 

category) to $808 thousand (general fumigation category). Most private applicators are not 

expected to have aerial certification whereas many private applicators are estimated to certify 

and recertify in general fumigation category, which explains the wide range of recertification 

costs. 

3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration 

There are several proposed new requirements that are administrative in nature, which would 

include recordkeeping requirements for industry, and requirements for state and federal 

governments to implement the changes in the rule. 

3.4.7.1 Dealer Recordkeeping 

The Agency is proposing new recordkeeping requirements for dealers of restricted use 

pesticides. Under the proposal, dealers selling RUPs to both private and commercial applicators 

would be required to keep records of RUP sales, including information on what RUP was 

purchased and the date, the identity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the 

applicator is certified. 

3.4.7.2 Jurisdiction Administration 

The costs of the potential requirements in this category are state costs, and capture the cost of 

changing jurisdiction requirements to reflect the rulemaking. 

3.4.7.3 Federal Administration 

This category includes the potential requirements for EPA for reviewing the plans or programs of 

jurisdictions and federal agencies, and for revising EPA-administered tribal plans. 

Table 3.4-17 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for 

each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the 

potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the 

presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 

Table 3.4-17: Costs to Revise Requirements for Dealer Recordkeeping and the Submission, 

Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans1

 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional 

Baseline (NCB) 

($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 Restricted Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01) 

The EPA proposal Admin-01 would require pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, 

including the pesticide(s) purchased, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the 

sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a 

zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisdictions are already doing these activities. 

Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03) 

The EPA proposal Admin-02 would require all jurisdictions to rewrite their laws and regulations, 

and to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. EPA 

assumes that all jurisdictions would need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total 

cost of $119 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations. Since the potential regulatory 

requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, regulations, and plans, EPA 

assumes that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each of the two years. 

Another EPA proposal, Admin-03, would require jurisdictions to submit the revised plans to 

EPA. EPA estimates a total incremental cost at $4 thousand. 

Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06) 

There are two EPA proposals being considered that relate to federal certification and tribal 

certification plans. The first potential requirement would be to update tribal certification plans 

(Admin-06). A total incremental cost is estimated at $4 thousand. One other potential 

requirement would be to codify existing policy requiring federal agencies to conform to the same 

standards as jurisdictions for implementing 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 Certified Pesticide Applicators 

EPA is proposing revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule that would balance 

improvements in the protections to certified pesticide applicators, the environment, and the 

public against the additional costs to applicators and employers of applicators. Out of the 

potential 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 Certification of Private Applicators 

Private Cert-13 Eliminate Non-reader Certification 

Comm Cert-01; 

Private Cert-04 

New Aerial Category 

(Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) 

Comm Cert-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 Supervision of Commercial Applicators 

Private Sup-02 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under 

the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 

Comm Sup-03; 

Private Sup-03 

Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators Working under the 

Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

Comm Sup-05; 

Private Sup-05 

Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private 

Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator 

Comm Age-02; 

Private Age-02 Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators 

Comm Age-04; 

Private Age-05 

Minimum Age of 18 for Noncertified Applicators under the Direct 

Supervision of a Certified Applicator 

Comm Recert-01 

Commercial Applicator Recertification: Exam (Core and Appropriate 

Categories) or 6 CEUs for Core + 6 CEUs per Category Certification; 

Three Year Recertification Interval 

Private Recert-01 Private Applicator Recertification: Exam or 6 CEUs + 3 CEUs per 

Category Certification; Three Year Recertification Interval 

Admin-01 Dealer Recordkeeping of RUP sales 
*** 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 and Programs, Certification Program 

in Indian Country, and EPA Administered Plans 

Admin-06 Revise EPA-Administered Plans 

This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the 

proposed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule, and describes the reasons 

why EPA is proposing specific options. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of 

different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or 

more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the cost of each requirement, which is 

predominantly the opportunity cost of time. The emphasis of a cost-benefit 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 advantages and disadvantages of the options, EPA considered the full 

range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory 

development process (e.g., professional pesticide applicator organizations, CTAG, state 

regulators, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing commodity 

producers). Only the information relevant to the costs and benefits of specific proposals is 

discussed in this chapter. This includes factors such as equity considerations (e.g., potential 

distribution of costs) and the feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory 

experiences. A discussion of all information provided through the regulatory process is 

discussed in the NPRM for this proposed rule. 

4.1 Proposed and Alternative Options for Revising Initial Certification 

Standards 

4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards 

The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule currently requires applicants seeking certification 

as private applicators to demonstrate competency to use or supervise the use of RUPs either by 

completing an approved training program or through an alternate mechanism, for example, by 

passing an exam. States may require private applicators to demonstrate competency by taking an 

exam or through another 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 (Private Cert-02, Private 

Cert-01 and Private Cert-03) would cover 11 essential topics, including additional information 

about equipment, responsibilities for supervising noncertified applicators, and laws and 

regulations. The proposal and the alternatives differ in the specific minimum requirements for 

the content of and mechanisms to ensure private applicator competency. For the purpose of 

estimating the cost of each alternative, we differentiate between the proposals by the expected 

amount of time that certified applicators would need to prepare for an exam or spend in training, 

although the proposal does not require a specific minimum number of hours for private 

applicator 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 certification program. EPA also considered 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 (about 8 hours). EPA also considered a more stringent proposal 

that would cover the necessary topics in more detail (about 16 hours). Because most of the cost 

of these proposals is a result of the time of the prospective certified applicators, the most 

stringent proposal (Private Cert-03) would be the most expensive (about $9.0 million per year 

above current costs), and the least stringent (Private Cert-01) is the least expensive (about $2.0 

million per year). The cost of the proposed option is between the two, at about $3.7 million per 

year. EPA chose to propose the option it did because the proposal balances the burden to the 

private applicator candidates with the need to ensure that private applicators have sufficient 

information, knowledge, and skills necessary in order to apply RUPs effectively and without 

unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed level of required detail better outlines the 

knowledge and skills EPA expects private applicators to have in order to apply RUPs effectively 

and without unreasonable adverse effects. 

4.1.2 Establish Application Method-Specific Categories for Commercial and 

Private Applicators 

EPA is proposing three new federal categories for commercial applicator certification: aerial 

application, soil fumigation, and non-soil fumigation. Pesticide application and agricultural 

practices are increasingly specialized. Improper use of application equipment may lead to 

increased risks to the health of the applicator, workers, the environment, and the public. 

Additionally, certain categories of pesticides (e.g., fumigants) and application methods (aerial 

application) pose an inherently higher risk of acute injury or death if the applicator does not 

understand and follow the label. These increased risks can be reduced by requiring applicators to 

demonstrate a specific set of competencies related to the application method being used. 

EPA is proposing to create similar categories for private applicators. Private applicators 

performing soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or aerial applicator would require category 

certification as well. Initial certification would require that private applicators pass an exam or 

complete training (about 4 hours). An option for each category would be for a more rigorous 

exam or completion of a more detailed training (about 8 hours). 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

States may also bear costs associated with the development of new exams or training material 

and with the cost of administering new certification categories. 

Comm Cert-01: New Aerial Category 

EPA is proposing to create an application method-specific category for aerial 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 environment. 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 incremental cost of adding this category is about $258,000 

per year, including $98,000 annually for initial certification and $151,000 annually for 

recertification. This cost includes the time for applicators to prepare for an 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 manner 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 certification in aerial application that would require an 

exam or training (four hours) (Private Cert-04) is expected to cost about $26,000 annually. 

There are expected to be only around 70 private aerial applicators, resulting in an annual perapplicator cost of $371. The alternative, an exam or training (eight hours) (Private Cert-05), is 

expected to cost $29,000 annually. EPA chose the proposed option because of the importance of 

ensuring that aerial applicators have the knowledge and skills necessary to apply RUPs by 

aircraft without causing unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed option is slightly less 

expensive, and it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without 

becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary information. 

Comm Cert-04: New Commercial Applicator Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil 

fumigation 

Because of the specialized nature of fumigation applications, EPA decided that additional 

competence was necessary for applicators who use fumigants. EPA considered an alternative 

that creates only one application method-specific category for general fumigation, which would 

cover both soil and non-soil pest control (Comm Cert-03), but decided 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. Treating these two categories as separate allows more detailed 

information about each topic in a given amount of time. In addition, the incremental costs are 

lower for the two categories than for a combined category. The national incremental 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 the state developing examination materials, and 

$277,000 annually for recertification. The cost of the joint category is about $992,000 annually, 

of which about $716,000 is for the initial certification and $277,000 is for recertification. 

The cost is lower for two categories, because pesticide label requirements on soil fumigants 

currently require training equivalent to that which would be needed to become certified in the 

soil fumigant category or allow states to require certification in an EPA-approved soil fumigation 

category in lieu of the training. If applicators who currently perform soil fumigation were 

required to be certified in a general fumigation category, they would face additional costs to 

become familiar with or trained in the non-soil uses. 

Private Cert-10: New Private Applicator Categories for Soil and Non-Soil Fumigation 

The incremental cost for establishing separate soil and non-soil fumigation categories for private 

applicators is estimated to be about $122,000 annually. One alternative, a general fumigation 

category covering both soil and non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-08), would be more costly at 

$674,000 annually because, as with commercial applicators, private applicators making soil 

fumigations must already be trained under the pesticide label requirements. An alternative 

requirement to pass an exam or complete a more detailed training for certification in the two 

categories (Private Cert-11) would cost about $218,000. EPA chose the proposed option because 

it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or 

incorporating unnecessary information at additional cost. Despite being lower cost than 

alternative options, it will ensure that soil and non-soil fumigant applicators have the knowledge 

and skills necessary to use fumigants without causing unreasonable adverse effects. 

New Category for Chemigation – Not Proposed 

EPA considered adding both private applicator and commercial applicator categories for 

chemigation, the application of a pesticide through irrigation equipment, the application of a 

pesticide through irrigation equipment. Chemigation has a relatively high potential for 

environmental contamination if not conducted properly, and, due to the nature of the equipment, 

chemigation poses additional risks to the applicator or those working under his direct 

supervision. However, based on a review of incidents, most of the chemigation risks are 

associated with chemicals that are covered by the soil fumigation category. The incremental cost 

of adding this category for commercial applicators is about $80,000 per year; about $59,000 for 

initial certification (which includes state costs for developing materials) and $21,000 for 

recertification. There are an estimate 875 commercial chemigators, so the cost per chemigator 

would be about $91. The cost of a private chemigation category is 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 creation of an additional certification 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 Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for 

Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training 

Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator 

currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, these noncertified 

applicators also have a high potential 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 information supervisors must provide and what it means 

to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

Comm Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct 

Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator 

The Agency is proposing to establish the competency of a noncertified applicator working under 

the direct supervision of a commercial certified applicator in one of three ways (Comm Sup-01). 

First, noncertified applicators can complete proposed training outlined in the regulation. Second, 

noncertified applicators can complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). 

Third, noncertified applicators may pass the commercial applicator core exam5. These proposals 

are expected to cost noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 

applicators, their supervising applicators or employers about $6.6 million per year. 

An alternative for commercial applications is to limit noncertified applicators to only those who 

have passed the commercial applicator core exam (Comm Sup-02). This alternative would be 

substantially more expensive than the proposed alternative. The estimated cost of Comm Sup-02 

is $31.8 million per year. While passing the commercial core exam may be a more reliable 

option for establishing competency, the additional benefits over an annual, focused training do 

not outweigh the additional cost. 

Private Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct 

Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 

EPA is proposing the same three options for noncertified applicators working under the direct 

supervision of private applicators. These proposals are expected to cost noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of private applicators and their supervising applicators or 

employers $639,000 per year. 

EPA considered an alternative to the proposed option that would limit the ways of establishing 

the competency of noncertified applicators to completion of the training proposed under the rule 

or completion of the WPS handler training (Private Sup-02). EPA did not choose this alternative 

because it was no less expensive than the proposed option (both had an annual cost of $639,000), 

 

5

 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial 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 applicators and noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision to decide how to meet the qualifications. 

Comm Sup-06: Retain Records of Training for Noncertified Applicators Working under the 

Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators for Two Years 

EPA is also proposing that commercial certified applicators supervising noncertified 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 working under the supervision of the certified 

applicators. Requiring commercial applicators to maintain records of noncertified applicators’ 

training would increase the likelihood that the noncertified applicators will be trained in 

accordance with the proposed requirements. In addition, records can help ensure that 

noncertified applicators meet the proposed minimum age requirement. Records are a key 

component of an effective enforcement program. EPA considered an alternative requirement to 

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 because the current recordkeeping requirements for 

commercial applicators is two years and has proven to be an adequate retention period to 

determine compliance. 

EPA is prohibited under FIFRA from requiring private applicators to keep records, so EPA is not 

proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified applicators 

working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed requirements.    

Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03: Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators Working 

under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

In addition to general training or knowledge, the Agency is proposing to clarify the instructions 

for each specific application that must be given to noncertified applicators working under the 

direct supervision of commercial and private applicators. Currently the supervising commercial 

or private applicator must provide guidance on performing the application and information on 

how to contact the supervisor. The proposal would specify that the supervising commercial or 

private applicator must provide a copy of all applicable labeling to each noncertified applicator 

for each supervised application; provide specific instructions related to each application, 

including the site-specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain and describe 

how to comply with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03). EPA did not 

consider alternative options because this proposal is a clarification of the existing requirements 

and 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 requirement for the supervising commercial or private 

applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor 

(such as a cell phone number), with a requirement for the supervising commercial or private 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

applicator to ensure the noncertified applicator can communicate immediately with the 

supervising applicator (Comm Sup-05 for commercial applicators, Private Sup-05 for private 

applicators). This immediate communication standard could be satisfied by the supervising 

applicators ensuring that they and all noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct 

supervision have cell phones, two-way radios, or other forms of communication technology and 

contact information for the supervisors. Immediate communication between the supervising 

applicator and the noncertified applicator is critical if the noncertified applicator has a question 

before application or encounters an emergency situation related to the misapplication. This was 

a low cost option (estimated to be zero) because most certified applicators and the noncertified 

applicators have cellular phones which can be used for immediate communication, so EPA 

decided that the benefits of immediate communication outweigh the minimal cost. 

EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator 

maintain the noncertified applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm Sup04 and Private Sup-04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in 

hilly, forested, or obstructed view areas, it would require commercial or private applicators to 

hire more certified applicators instead of noncertified applicators, thus incurring higher labor 

costs. As a result, it would be extremely expensive (about $80 million annually for private 

applicators and about $14.9 billion annually for commercial applicators). At the same time, it 

would not be substantially more protective than the option chosen; in some locations, being in 

sight would not necessarily mean being in immediate communication. 

4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators 

Comm Age-02 and Private Age-02: Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators 

The Agency is proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become certified as a 

commercial (Comm Age-02) or private (Private Age-02) applicator. These proposals are 

expected to cost about $294,000 for commercial applicators and about $174,000 for private 

applicators annually. It is unclear who would ultimately bear 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 certification. Employers of certified commercial applicators could 

bear some costs in that they are expected to pay higher wages, on average, to older, more 

experienced applicators. However, the costs are unlikely to reflect actual increases in labor costs 

since adolescents can still be employed to work with non-RUP pesticides. In those cases where 

an adolescent private applicator would have been used, he or she would likely be a family 

member of the farm owner/operator. The farm would have to assign an adult family member, 

presumably at a higher opportunity cost, to make the RUP application and in some situations 

farms would have to pay a commercial applicator to apply RUPs. 

EPA decided that these costs are justified because there is currently no minimum age for 

certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to handle some of the highest risk 

pesticides. EPA estimates that there are about 200 adolescents who are certified private 

applicators and fewer than 200 adolescents who are certified commercial applicators. The cost 

per adolescent of this proposal is therefore about $1,500 per year per adolescent commercial 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

applicator and $900 per year per adolescent private applicator. Aside from avoiding the risks to 

the adolescents from pesticide exposures, discussed in Chapter 6, adolescents 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 pesticides are mishandled. 

EPA also 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). On the commercial side, 

we estimate the incremental costs and benefits to be zero since there are likely no certified 

commercial applicators under 16 years of age due 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 private applicators under 16 at any given time, implying a cost per 

adolescent protected of about $1,100 per year. Thus, at approximately the same cost per 

adolescent, about 140 more adolescents are protected under the proposal. EPA also considered 

an additional option for private applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 years old, 

with a minimum age of 16 only for private applicators 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 applicators of 16 or 17 years of age, implying a 

cost of around $680 per year per adolescent protected. Although these alternatives are less 

expensive, EPA decided that the additional expense of a minimum age of 18 is justified because 

of the risks posed to the adolescent, bystanders, and the environment. 

4.1.5 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Using RUPs under the 

Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05: Minimum Age for Noncertified Applicators 

To protect noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and 

private applicators as well as human health and the environment, EPA is proposing to establish a 

minimum age for noncertified applicators. The proposed minimum age for persons to qualify as 

noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private and commercial applicators is 18 

(Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05). EPA made this decision for the same reasons as choosing 

a minimum age of 18 for certified applicators. Younger people are more likely to lack the 

experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unnecessary exposure to RUPs. These proposals 

are estimated to be expensive – about $12.8 million annually for commercial applicators and 

about $1.1 million for private applicators. Costs are driven by estimates of the number of 

adolescents applying RUPs under the supervision of certified applicators. EPA estimates that 

there are over 11,000 such adolescents working under the supervision of commercial applicators, 

meaning that the proposal costs about $1,100 per adolescent applicator. EPA also estimates that 

there are 2,800 adolescents working under the supervision of private applicators, resulting in a 

cost per applicator of about $400 per year. The lower cost per adolescent working under a 

private applicator is due to many fewer hours any one adolescent on farm spends applying RUPs. 

EPA considered less expensive alternatives, as well. The alternatives include a minimum age of 

16 for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 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 estimated to have zero costs and 

benefits due to a lack of adolescents under 16 working in these jobs. A similar alternative was 

considered for noncertified applicators working under the supervision of a private applicator 

(Private Age-04). An additional alternative (Private Age-06) would require noncertified 

applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators to be 18, but with an 

exception for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a private applicator who is 

also an immediate family member of the noncertified applicator. These alternatives were 

estimated to be less expensive than the proposed alternative. For private applicators, we estimate 

the cost of the minimum age of 16 to be about $83,000 annually, or about $120 for each of the 

estimated 690 adolescents applying RUPs, and for a minimum age of 18 but with a minimum age 

of 16 for family members to be about $634,000 annually, or about $920 per adolescent. Thus, on 

the basis of the cost per adolescent protected, the proposal provides the greatest cost 

effectiveness even though it is more costly in total. 

4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators 

EPA is proposing new standards for recertification of both private and commercial applicators. 

The proposed recertification requirements would establish a maximum duration of three years for 

certifications and set minimum standards for continuing education programs. Security standards 

discussed in Chapter 4.1.7 apply to recertification as well. 

Comm Recert-01: Commercial Applicator Recertification – Exams or Six CEUs for Core 

Recertification plus 6 CEUs for Each Category, Three Year Recertification Interval 

The proposal establishes requirements for recertification of commercial applicators – either 

passing exams relevant to existing certifications or completing a specific number of continuing 

education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency. EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50 

minutes of educational contact time. For commercial applicators, the proposed recertification 

training requirements are six CEUs for core certification and six CEUs per category of 

certification (Comm Recert-01), with recertification administered by the states. 

The estimated cost of these proposals is about $6.5 million annually for commercial applicators. 

This estimate only includes costs to applicators, it does not include the costs to states of altering 

and administering recertification at shorter interval. 

The Agency considered an alternative with the same recertification requirements at five year 

intervals (Comm Recert-04) rather than three years. The estimated annual cost is about $1.7 

million per year. This option is substantially lower in cost because most jurisdictions already 

meet or exceed the requirement. Only one state, Maine, has a recertification period of six years; 

all others are five years or fewer. While many states do not specify requirements to recertify in 

core categories, most require a sufficient number of CEUs that, with some reallocation, 

applicators would face few changes to meet the requirements of this alternative. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 

While substantially more expensive, the proposal offers substantially higher benefits as well. 

Maintaining competency necessities that applicators are knowledgeable about changing 

technology, product reformulations, new labeling and regulatory requirements, and other 

essential labeling information. Applicators also must be reminded about personal safety and 

basic application principles (Anger, et al., 2009). A three-year recertification period ensures that 

even those commercial applicators who delay obtaining the required training receive new 

information and are reminded of safety protocols at a reasonable interval. Moreover, the 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 advantage of the proposals over the 

alternatives is that it ensures a continuing level of competency among certified applicators by 

more frequent recertification, which will help to reduce the risk of RUPs. 

Two other alternatives for commercial applicator recertification were considered that would 

require passing an exam, without the option of training or CEUs, over three years (Comm 

Recert-02) or five years (Comm Recert-05). EPA assumes that the option of exam is equivalent 

in effort to obtaining CEUs; therefore the estimated annual costs of these options are the same as 

the respective alternative allowing an exam or CEUs. These alternatives, which rely on an exam 

without the options of certification by CEUs, have less flexibility for the certified applicators, 

and also impose an additional burden on the certifying authority, which would be required to 

hold exams. 

Private Recert-01: Exams or Six CEUs for General Recertification plus Three CEUs for Each 

Category, Three Year Recertification Interval 

The proposal is similar to that for commercial applicators, but with fewer CEUs required for 

category certification (six CEUs for general private applicator certification and three CEUs per 

category). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to be $13.6 million per year, which is 

approximately $30 per year per private applicator. As with commercial applicators, the benefits 

are derived by maintaining the competency of private applicators given changing technology, 

product reformulations, new labeling and regulatory requirements, and new practices to better 

control undesirable effects of pesticide exposure. Applicators also must be reminded about 

personal safety and basic application principles. 

For private applicators, EPA considered requiring private applicators to obtain eight CEUs for 

general private applicator certification and an additional four hours of training per application 

method-specific category. If recertification would take place every three 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 categories. If the recertification period would be 

every five years (Private Recert-05), the estimated cost is about $7.4 million, or $16 per year per 

private applicator. Finally, if six CEUs were required to maintain general certification over five 

years (Private Recert-04), the cost is estimated to be $3.5 million. Impacts would be 

concentrated, however, in fewer than 20 states. EPA selected a three-year recertification 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 Commercial and Private 

Applicators 

The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the certification exams and 

conducting training. These changes may impose costs on states and other jurisdictions in 

administering exams or trainings or in approving CEUs for recertification. 

The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and conducting 

training: that exam takers provide identification for themselves, and that the exams be written, 

proctored, “closed book” exams. Three are multiple line item designations are for costing 

purposes, because initial and recertification exams, and for different periods of recertification 

(three vs. five years) were considered separately. 

There are substantial benefits to closed-book, proctored exams. These standards ensure the 

security of the exams, reduced the burden on certifying authorities to update exams after security 

breaches, and limiting instances where candidates taking an exam can cheat. The value of 

setting federal standards for examination practices is that states, employers, and the public can be 

confident that all certified applicators have met a consistent standard without having to verify the 

examination practices of each state. Certifying authorities using EPA-developed exams or 

sharing a state-developed exam with another state have confidence that the exam administration 

would meet a consistent security standard. Confirming the identity of the test takers would 

ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requirements. It would also help 

prevent persons from taking a certification exam or training or attending a recertification training 

session in the place of the actual candidate, thereby limiting certification to the candidates who 

are qualified. 

In addition to verifying the identity of test takers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing 

policy related to the security of the exam process. These standards include requiring that the 

exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed-book exams to ensure that no outside 

materials are used in the exam. These changes should also ensure that only competent 

applicators become certified. The Agency chose to codify the exam standards and identification 

of test takers because they were low cost, and no other way to ensure the security of 

examinations and training was identified. These requirements would help preserve the integrity 

of the exam process and give confidence that the security of EPA-developed exams is not 

compromised by varying administration standards across states. 

Checking identification of the test takers (e.g., checking their driver’s license as they enter the 

examination room) would take a few seconds of both the state employee proctoring the exam and 

test takers’ time. These costs are very small and are incorporated into the proctoring cost (one 

hour proctoring time for one hour exam) for the state proctor and one hour of exam taking time 

for the 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 Maintenance of State Certification Plans 

There are several proposed new requirements that are administrative in nature, which would 

include recordkeeping requirements for industry, and requirements for state and federal 

governments to implement the changes in the rule. 

Dealers Maintain Records of Restricted Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01) 

The EPA proposal Admin-01 would require pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, 

including the pesticide(s) purchased, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the 

sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a 

zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisdictions are already doing these activities. 

Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03) 

Changes to the regulations governing certification programs would require all jurisdictions, i.e., 

states, territories, and tribes, to rewrite their laws and regulations, and to update plans as 

necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. While many states have 

implemented similar changes, no state has implemented all revisions and EPA assumes that all 

jurisdictions would need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total cost of $119 

thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations, detailed under Admin-02 in Chapter 3. Since the 

potential regulatory requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, 

regulations, and plans, EPA assumes that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each 

of the two years. 

EPA estimates a total incremental cost of submitting revised certification plans at $4 thousand. 

See Admin-03 in Chapter 3. 

Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06) 

The proposed revisions would also necessitate changes to federal certification plans and the 

tribal certification plans administered by EPA. The total incremental cost of the latter is 

estimated at $4 thousand (Admin-06). Federal agencies are expected to incur a total incremental 

cost at $41 thousand (Admin-04). 
*** 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 cost of proposed changes to the requirements for 

the certification of pesticide applicators in 40 CFR 171. EPA estimates that the present value 

(PV) of the incremental cost of the proposed rule over ten years to be $415 million, given a three 

percent discount rate. The annualized cost is about $47.2 million per year. Using a seven 

percent discount rate would have little effect in this case as most of the costs recur annually. 

Private applicators, as a group, would bear additional costs of about $19.5 million per year, about 

41 percent of the total cost of the proposed rule. Commercial applicators would be expected to 

bear costs of about $27.4 million per year. States and other jurisdictions that administer 

certification programs would bear annualized costs of about $359,000 per year, but most of the 

state costs would be borne immediately after the rule is finalized as they modify their programs 

to follow the new federal rules. Those immediate costs of the proposed rule if it is implemented 

are estimated to be about $2.2 million, with subsequent incremental costs in administering the 

certification programs to be around $936,000 per year. 

The changes in the certification requirements would be unlikely to have an impact on jobs. Most 

private applicators are self-employed. The annualized incremental cost of obtaining and 

maintaining private certification would be about $30 per applicator, on average, and this would 

represent a small fraction of the cost of employing an applicator, even part time. The average 

annualized cost of obtaining and maintaining commercial certification would be less than $80 in 

all jurisdictions and is similarly a very small fraction of the cost of employing a part-time 

applicator. 

The changes are not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 

businesses. In most cases, incremental costs represent less than one percent of gross revenues 

for commercial enterprises or less than one percent of total sales of agricultural products for 

farming enterprises. Incremental costs in a few states could exceed two percent of total sales of 

agricultural products for farms with sales less than $5,000 per year. The number of farms facing 

such impacts is likely to be quite small, however. Perhaps a fifth of the farms affected by 

proposed changes to the certification requirements might also bear costs associated with 

proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard. 

5.1 Overview 

The proposed Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule consists of a number of requirements 

that would affect commercial and private applicators; state and other government agencies; and 

pesticide dealers. Table 5.1-1 presents the estimated regional incremental cost (RIC), that is, by 

state and jurisdiction, using a three percent discount rate. Variations in state cost depend on 

current state requirements and the number of certified applicators in each state. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

Table 5.1-1. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements, by State or Jurisdiction. 

State/Jurisdiction NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 4,391 499 

Alaska 436 50 

Arizona 4,482 510 

Arkansas 19,300 2,198 

California 27,110 3,085 

Colorado 6,704 762 

Connecticut 1,999 227 

Delaware 2,149 246 

Florida 10,141 1,154 

Georgia 25,126 2,858 

Hawaii 1,255 143 

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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

The states with the highest incremental costs would include California, Georgia, Missouri, 

Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Kentucky. The main driver in these states is the relatively large 

number of certified applicators. In California, commercial applicators would bear a relatively 

large proportion of the cost, in part because California would need to establish a new non-soil 

fumigation category and EPA anticipates a large number of commercial applicators would obtain 

certification. For the other states, the primary change would be in the initial certification of 

private applicators. 

States with the lowest incremental costs include Alaska and the New England states where there 

are 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 increased 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 changes in the labor force 

and the differences in the opportunity cost of time when estimating the impact of new 

requirements, e.g., initial certification. 

Where interactions occur, EPA’s methodology for estimating the cost of the proposed rule is 

similar to the methodology employed for estimating the cost of individual potential 

requirements. In the first two steps, we estimate the per-actor costs for the suite of proposed 

requirements and the associated baseline. Typically, the main actors are certified applicators, 

where private and commercial applicators are separated into those obtaining initial certification 

and those pursuing recertification. We also consider noncertified applicators under their 

supervision. To account for the age restrictions, we further define actors within each of these 

groups by age: adults (18 years old and older), 16 and 17 year old adolescents, and adolescents 

under age 16. Other actors include state regulators, who would have to revise regulations and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

develop examinations and/or training programs, and state administrators, who would have to 

oversee or proctor the trainings or examinations. Federal agencies, including EPA, will also bear 

some costs. 

As in Chapter 3, the third step extrapolates the per-actor costs, baseline and proposal, to the state 

level by multiplying by the number of actors within each state or jurisdiction who would be 

affected by the proposed set of requirements. Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas 

that operate certification programs. In Step 4, state level costs are estimated over a 10-year time 

horizon. It is at this step that interactions with the minimum age requirement may come into 

play, as adolescents who are certified before the requirement goes into effect would be allowed 

to continue to work as applicators and pursue recertification. 

Subsequent steps are essentially identical to those presented in Section 3.3. The incremental cost 

of the proposed rule is calculated as the difference between the present value (PV) of baseline 

cost and the PV of the compliance cost. State or jurisdictional costs are summed to obtain 

national costs. Finally, we calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed rule at the 

state and national levels. 

The next section presents the results of the analysis of costs to private applicators and 

demonstrates the methodology for the case of the private applicator obtaining an initial 

certification, if the proposed rule becomes regulation. The data required for the analysis are 

presented in Chapter 3. 

5.3 Private Applicator Costs of Proposed Rule 

Table 5.3-1 presents the requirements EPA is proposing that would impact private applicators. 

These include new or amended requirements for initial certification and recertification and 

requirements for training and communication with applicators under their supervision. Age 

restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and applicators 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 certified 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 Private Applicator Requirements. 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

Description 

Private Cert-02 Exam or 12-hour training for private certification 

Private Cert-04 Add private aerial category and require exam or 4-hour training for certification 

Private Cert-10 Add private soil and non-soil fumigation categories and require exam or 4-hour training for 

certification 

Private Cert-12 Add private predator control category, codifying existing label requirements 

Private Cert-15 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for certification 

Private Recert-01 Within three years, exam or 6-hours of training for private core competency and exam or 3-

hours of training for category recertification 

Private Recert-03 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for recertification 

Private Sup-02 Private noncertified applicators must complete training or be handlers under the Worker 

Protection Standard or complete commercial core exam 

Private Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators by certified private applicators 

Private Sup-05 Private noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors 

Private Age-02 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for certified private applicators 

Private Age-05 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for private noncertified applicators 

As an example of how costs are computed, EPA presents the details of the cost calculation for 

the proposed initial certification requirements for private applicators. For the other components, 

including recertification, training for and communication with supervised applicators, and labor 

costs, we only present the present value of costs over ten years. Details of the estimations are 

provided in Appendix B. 

5.3.1 Initial Certification, Private Applicators 

This section presents the method for calculating the costs of the proposed suite of requirements. 

As an example, we present the costs to first time private applicators, who may be self-employed 

or employed on an agricultural establishment. The underlying data and assumptions can be 

found in Chapter 3.3. 

Step 1. Calculate the per-applicator cost to each actor of the requirements under the current 

regulatory regime. Per-applicator costs will generally consist of the value of time to conduct 

required activities. This is calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the time spent multiplied by 

the frequency or probability that an actor will engage in the activity. In the case of initial 

certification, the actor is the individual seeking certification who must prepare for an exam 

and/or obtain training as explained in Chapter 3.4.1. Because of the proposed age requirement 

(Chapter 3.4.5), however, we also distinguish these individuals by age. 

Table 5.3-2 presents the baseline costs that first-time private applicators in selected states would 

incur if they were to become a certified applicator, given the training requirements. These are 

states where the baseline cost differs from the cost under the proposal. Other states have initial 

certification requirements similar to the proposal, which is described in Step 2 of this example. 

Costs are calculated as the wage rate multiplied 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 required for the states shown in Table 5.3-2 are in 

terms of a required training. All first-time certified 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 Private 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-applicator cost is a weighted average of the cost of the 

two options. 

2

 Wyoming offers the choice of a 6-hour training or a take-home exam (approximately 2 hours), where 

the majority of applicators take the training. Per-applicator cost is a weighted average of the cost of 

the two options. 

3

 All other jurisdictions require an exam, which EPA considers equivalent to the proposed training. 
*** 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 activities under the proposed rule. 

Costs to prepare for an exam or take a training that covers the proposed content are calculated in 

the same fashion, as shown in Chapter 3 (Private Cert-02). A training is expected to take about 

12 hours, as in the case of EPA’s training for programs the Agency administers. Preparing for an 

exam is assumed to require a similar investment in time. Costs for an adult are calculated to be 

$623.51. Under the proposal, only individuals at least 18 years of age would be certified (Private 

Age-02). 

Step 3. Calculate the state/jurisdiction baseline cost and cost of the proposed requirements. To 

obtain the 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 RCR,iX 

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; costR,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, RCR,iB 

t, for t = 1, for first-time private applicators. 

In fact, this would be the baseline cost in all years. States noted in Step 1 are presented 

separately; all other jurisdictions, where requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements, 

are aggregated. Per applicator costs are multiplied by the number of applicators in each age 

group and summed. Adolescent applicators are likely to be few in number and many states have 

established minimum ages. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of private certified applicators 

has averaged 34,039 and has been relatively stable. 

Table 5.3-3. Baseline costs, Initial Private Certification 

Jurisdiction Adult 16-17 Year Old < 16 Years Old 

RCR,iB

($1000) 

Arkansas 

costINIT CERT,a

B $207.84 $124.70 103.70 

Na 1,482 0.9 1.5 

costINIT CERT,a

B x Na $308,019 $112 $156 $308 

Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee 

costINIT CERT,a

B $103.70 $62.35 $51.96 

Na, GA 1,667 1.7 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NGA $172,868 $106 $0 $173 

Na, KY 2,567 4.8 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NKY $266,198 $299 $0 $267 

Na, TN 401 1.3 2.0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NTN $41,584 $81 $104 $42 

Mississippi 

costINIT CERT,a

B $779.39 $467.63 $389.69 

Na, MS 1,344 0 0 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NMS $1,047,364 $0 $0 $1,047 

Missouri 

costINIT CERT,a

B $155.88 $93.53 $77.94 

Na, MO 1,628 0 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NMO $253,773 $0 $0 $254 

Montana 

costINIT CERT,a

B $376.70 $226.02 $188.35 

Na, MT 257 1.4 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NMT $96,812 $316 $0 $97 

New York 

costINIT CERT,a

B $2,182 $1,309 1,091 

Na, NY 244 2.1 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NNY $531,603 $3,142 $0 $535 

South Dakota 

costINIT CERT,a

B $268.11 $160.87 $134.05 

Na, SD 2,147 1.3 2.0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NSD $575,632 $209 $268 $576 

Wyoming 

costINIT CERT,a

B $301.36 $180.82 $150.68 

Na, WY 387 0.7 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NWY $116,626 $127 $0 $117 

Other Jurisdictions 

costINIT CERT,a

B $623.51 $374.10 $311.75 

Na, total 21,807 55.8 36.8 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NOTHER $13,548,566 $20,594 $9,576 $13,579 

U.S. Total, Na 33,934 68.6 31.8 

costINIT CERT,a

B x Na $16,960,528 $20,594 $10,136 $16,995 

Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

Baseline costs by state for initial certification are presented in the final column of the table. The 

baseline national cost for the initial certification for first-time private applicators is estimated to 

be $17.0 million per year. This estimate is different from that estimated in Chapter 3 because it 

considers adolescent applicators, whose time is assumed to be less valuable. 

The costs of the proposed requirements for first-time private applicators, RCR,iP, are presented in 

Table 5.3-4 for the first year of implementation, which is expected to be in the third year 

following finalization of the rule. The eight states shown in Table 5.3-4 would see cost increases 

due to more hours needed for training or to prepare for exams. Due to the age restrictions 

(Private Age-02), no adolescents would be allowed to obtain certification. This restriction would 

contribute to the cost of initial certification, including in states that meet or exceed the proposed 

training requirements for certification, as adults, who are assumed to have a higher opportunity 

cost of time, replace those certified as adolescents. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

Table 5.3-4. Proposed Initial Certification Costs for First-Time Private Adult Applicators 

in Year 3. 

Jurisdiction 

Adult 

(Na) 

State/Jurisdiction Cost 

RCR,iP 

($1000)

costINIT CERT,a

P = $623.51 1 

Arkansas 1,485 $926 

Georgia 1,669 $1,041 

Kentucky 2,572 $1,603 

Tennessee 404 $252 

Missouri 1,628 $1,015 

Montana 258 $161 

South Dakota 2,151 $1,341 

Wyoming 388 $242 

Other Jurisdictions 23,485 $15,236 

U.S. Total 34,039 $21,817 

Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 Costs in Mississippi and New York are assumed to remain at $779 and $2,182 per applicator, 

respectively. 

Step 4. Calculate the present value of state and national costs. Per-applicator costs for the 

baseline are expected to remain constant through time, that is, EPA assumes that states will not 

revise their certification requirements. As explained in Section 3.3, the equation for the PV of 

the cost stream is 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ௜

஻൯ ൌ ܴܥோ௜,ଵ஻ ∙෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

where r is the discount rate, and all other variables are as previously defined. Given a three 

percent discount rate, the value of the summation on the right hand side is 8.79. 

Under the proposed rule, states will have two years to revise their requirements and applicators 

would incur new costs beginning in the third year. The PV of the cost stream is, therefore 

ܸܲቀܴܥோ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܴܥோ௜,ଵ஻ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଶ

௧ୀଵ

൅ ܴܥோ௜,ଵ

௉ ∙෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ

where the values of the summations are 1.97 and 6.82, respectively. 

State and jurisdictional costs are summed to obtain national level costs for both the baseline and 

the proposed rule. Table 5.3-5 presents the PV of costs for first-time private applicators initial 

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

10 

Table 5.3-5. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators, Initial Certification. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC ($1,000) 

Alabama 3,071 3,071 0 0 

Alaska 47 47 0 0 

Arizona 459 456 4 0 

Arkansas 6,918 2,711 4,206 479 

California 8,886 8,879 6 1 

Colorado 2,149 2,145 4 0 

Connecticut 112 112 0 0 

Delaware 383 383 0 0 

Florida 1,865 1,865 0 0 

Georgia 7,433 1,523 5,910 673 

Hawaii 170 170 0 0 

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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

Step 5. Calculate the incremental cost of the proposed rule. Incremental costs are simply the 

difference between the cost of compliance with the proposed rule and the baseline compliance 

cost. 

ܸܰܲቀܴܥܫோ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܸܲቀܴܥோ௜,௧௉ ቁ െ 	ܸܲቀܴܥோ௜,௧஻ ቁ

The national PV of the incremental cost for initial certification is $32.9 million over 10 years, 

using a three percent discount rate (Table 5.3-5). Annualized costs are calculated to be about 

$3.7 million per year. Given that there are about 34,000 new private applicators certified each 

year, the average additional cost per applicator is about $110. For an individual, this would be a 

one-time cost. Note, however, that about the same number of new applicators become certified 

each year. The incremental costs are heavily concentrated in eight states with low requirements, 

as discussed in Chapter 3.4.1. Costs are highest in Kentucky, where current certification 

standards are less stringent than those proposed (incremental costs are around $400) and over 

2,500 private applicators obtain certification each year. 

5.3.2 Category Certification and Recertification, Private Applicators 

The proposal establishes several new categories: aerial application (Private Cert-04), soil and 

non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-10), and predator control (Private Cert-12). The cost to private 

applicators of the new application method-specific categories is simply the sum of the cost of 

initial certification and of recertification (Private Recert-01). No adolescents are expected to 

obtain certifications in these very technical application methods and so there are no interactions 

as was the case for initial core certification. Table 5.3-6 presents the present value of the 

incremental cost over a ten-year time horizon as well as the annualized cost of certification and 

recertification of new categories. 

Table 5.3-6. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators, Category Certification. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC ($1,000) 

Alabama 17 0 17 2 

Alaska 0 0 0 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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

Total annualized cost of the new private category certification and recertification is estimated to 

be about $179,000 per year. California and Florida see the highest costs, due to the number of 

applicators expected to obtain certifications in the new categories in those states. 

5.3.3 Noncertified Applicators under the Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 

A few proposed requirements would impact noncertified applicators under the direct supervision 

of certified applicators. They must show competency (Private Sup-02) through completion of 

the core exam or be trained, which for many would be covered by the proposed Worker 

Protection Standards; they must be provided guidance by their supervisor (Private Sup-03); and 

they must have a means of immediate communication with the supervisor (Private Sup-05). As 

with the certified applicators, the age restriction (Private Age-05) influences the impact of the 

other requirements through the wage rates that determine the value of time spent in training. 

The present value of proposed and baseline costs associated with private noncertified applicators 

under the direct supervision are shown in Table 5.3-7. Details of the calculations are provided in 

Appendix B. 

Table 5.3-7. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators under the Supervision of a 

Certified Applicator. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC ($1,000) 

Alabama 143 0 143 16 

Alaska 5 0 5 1 

Arizona 7 0 7 1 

Arkansas 678 0 678 77 

California 837 0 837 95 

Colorado 200 199 1 0 

Connecticut 12 12 0 0 

Delaware 49 0 49 6 

Florida 103 102 2 0 

Georgia 645 0 645 73 

Hawaii 6 0 6 1 

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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

Nationally, the cost of proposed supervision requirements, which are essentially the competency 

(training) requirements, are estimated to be about $644,000 per year. Twelve states or 

jurisdictions would bear the majority of the costs because they have 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 requirements, Private Age-02 and 05, affect the cost of 

labor because older, typically higher paid individuals would be needed to replace adolescents. 

These costs were estimated in Section 3.3 and are not affected by other proposed requirements. 

The combined costs of the age restrictions are shown in Table 5.3-8. Note that ‘baseline’ costs 

are not the result of any regulation or requirement as in other cases, such as initial certification. 

Further, the analysis captures only those labor costs estimated to arise from the employment of 

adolescents, not total costs of employing or utilizing private applicators. Hence, a state like 

Alabama, which does not allow applications of RUPs by anyone under 18 years of age, would 

have zero labor costs. 

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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

In total, EPA estimates the cost of the minimum age provisions to be about $1.3 million per year. 

As noted in Chapter 3, these estimates are heavily influenced by assumptions as to the number of 

adolescents certified or working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, the hours 

spent working with RUPs, and the difference in wage rates between adolescents younger than 18 

and those 18 and older. 

5.3.5 Recertification, Private Applicators 

Recertification requirements, like initial certification and supervision requirements, would 

interact with the minimum age requirements. Adolescents who obtain certification before the 

rule goes into effect could maintain their certification and some may even go through the 

recertification process before turning 18. Thus, the same methodology is applied to account for 

the potential interaction; we consider each age group as a separate category of actors. 
*** 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 national incremental cost is $120 million, or about 

$13.6 million annually. In twenty jurisdictions, applicators 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, Private 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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

5.3.6 Total Costs, Private Applicators 

The total incremental cost of the proposed rule to private applicators is the sum of the five 

components: (1) initial certification costs, (2) category certification costs, (3) costs for 

noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, (4) additional labor 

due to minimum age requirements, and (5) recertification costs. Table 5.3-10 presents the 

compliance costs for the proposed requirements and the baseline for the states and jurisdictions 

and at the national level. 

Table 5.3-10. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Private Applicators. 

State/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. Given that there are nearly 490,000 certified private 

applicators nationally, the average 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 component. Recertification costs comprise about 

70 percent of the total cost because of the large number of applicators obtaining or working 

toward recertification. Additional costs for initial certification requirements make up about 19 

percent of the total incremental cost. The impacts of the supervision and minimum age 

requirements are each estimated to be about three to four percent of the total. 

Table 5.3-11. Incremental Cost, Private Certified Applicators, by Component.

Component Annualized 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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

5.4 Commercial Applicator Costs of the Proposed Rule 

Table 5.4-1 presents the proposed requirements that affect commercial applicators. As with 

private applicators, these include new certification categories, supervision requirements, and 

recertification requirements. Commercial applicators would also be subject to some 

recordkeeping requirements. Age restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and 

applicators under their supervision. 

The costs of the proposed requirements to commercial applicators are calculated using the 

methodology described above for private applicators. For further details discussing the costs of 

the proposed option for each line item and the proposed regulation see Appendices A and B. 

Table 5.4-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting Commercial Applicators. 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

Description 

Comm Cert-01 Add commercial aerial category 

Comm Cert-04 Add commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories 

Comm Cert-05 Add commercial predator control category 

Comm Cert-06 Identification check for commercial certification 

Comm Sup-01 Commercial noncertified applicators must complete training, be handlers under the 

Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam 

Comm Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators by certified commercial 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 age requirement of 18 years old for certified commercial applicators 

Comm Age-04 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for commercial noncertified applicators 

Comm Recert-01 Exam or 6-hour training for commercial core competency and category recertification, at 

least every three years 

Comm Recert-03 Identification check for commercial recertification (every three years, Industry cost) 

There are very minor interactions between the minimum age requirements and the training 

requirement for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

commercial applicator, we estimate slightly higher incremental costs here. Given the presence of 

adolescents currently employed in pest control operations, who are presumably paid less than 

their adult counterparts, the baseline costs are slightly lower than shown in Chapter 3. Table 5.4-

2 presents the national annualized incremental cost for commercial applicators to comply with 

the proposed regulatory requirements. Nationally, 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 discount 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 number of commercial applicators in those states. 

Together, these eight states account for almost one-third of the 414,000 commercial applicators 

in the United States. The overall average cost per applicator of around $66.18 per year, although 

there is considerable variation across states and jurisdictions. Per-applicator costs are discussed 

in more detail in Section 5.6. 

Table 5.4-3 presents the incremental cost to commercial applicators by component. The costs 

associated with initial certification are a function of the minimum age requirement; adolescent 

applicators are presumed to cost less to certify because they have a lower opportunity cost of 

time than adults. The impacts of the minimum age requirements in terms of additional labor cost 

are estimated to be half of the total cost, and are a function of assumptions made about 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 

uncertified applicators applying RUPs. Data are extremely limited and EPA assumes that 

adolescents are typically employed for 40 hours per 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 residential, commercial, and public areas where RUPs would rarely be used. If 

only 25 percent of adolescents’ time is spent handling RUPs, the additional labor costs fall to 

$6.7 million annually and the total incremental cost to commercial applicators would be 

estimated at $17.1 million per year. Recertification costs and supervision costs each comprise 

about 20 percent of the total incremental cost. 

Table 5.4-3. Incremental Cost, Commercial Certified Applicators, by Component.

Component Annualized 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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

5.5 State and Governmental Agency Costs of the Proposed Rule 

The costs of the proposed requirements to state and government agencies are calculated simply 

as the sum of the components as there are no interactions. Table 5.5-1 presents the proposed 

requirements that would affect states or other government entities. Admin-02, 03, 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 applicators estimated in the previous section. 

Table 5.5-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting States, Other Jurisdictions, and Federal 

Agencies. 

Regulatory 

Requirement Description 

Admin-02 Revise State regulations and Update plans 

Admin-03 Submit state plans 

Admin-04 EPA review of State and Federal Agency plans 

Admin-06 Revise EPA administered tribal plans 

Comm Cert-01 Develop/Adapt commercial aerial category exam; ID check and proctor exams 

Comm Cert-04 Develop commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories; ID check and proctor 

exams 

Comm Cert-05 Commercial predator control category exam (codification) 

Private Cert-02 Develop/Adapt private certification training and/or exam 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 

Private Cert-04 Develop/Adapt private aerial category exam/training 

Private Cert-10 Develop/Adapt private soil and non-soil fumigation categories exam/training 

Private Cert-12 Private predator control category exam (codification) 

Private Cert-15 ID Check and Proctor/Administer private certification exams/trainings 

Comm Recert-03 ID Check and Proctor commercial recertification 

Private Recert-03 ID Check and Proctor private recertification 

Table 5.5-2 presents the estimated costs to government entities other than EPA. The two key 

components of these requirements are (1) states, territories, and other jurisdictions, along with 

several federal agencies, must revise regulations and certification plans and (2) administer exams 

or trainings to certify applicators, both commercial and private. Costs for the former would be 

incurred immediately after the rule is finalized; EPA anticipates the process would take about 

two years. The administration costs occur as the new requirements are implemented and would 

be on-going. See Chapter 3 and Appendix A for details. 

Table 5.5-2. Total Incremental Cost to Government Entities of Proposed Requirements 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RIC) Revise & 

Others1

($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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

Includes all requirements in Table 5.5-1 except Private Cert-15, Comm Recert-03, and Private Recert-03 

The annualized cost to government entities including EPA, assuming a three percent discount 

rate, is estimated to be about $359,000. As shown in Table 5.5-2, Column 2, revisions to state 

plans and certification programs, including development of new application-specific categories, 

is likely to cost about $2.2 million over the first two years after the rule is 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 administering the certification program 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 required content is anticipated to 

take about 12 hours of training, but some of these states currently offer an option for exam. 

Incremental costs are estimated assuming that the states continue to offer training and the 

applicators continue to choose training instead of exam. State costs could be lower if more 

applicators opt for exams as the state would not need to provide trainers for as many sessions. 
*** 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 State, local, and tribal governments 

and the private sector. In general, Title II mandates especially rigorous economic analysis for 

rules imposing high costs on either the public or the private sector, and it directs energetic 

consultation with small governments prior to actions that may significantly or uniquely affect 

them. Under UMRA, an agency must generally prepare a written statement, including a benefitcost analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. This proposal does not result in expenditures of this 

amount, but EPA has prepared this benefit-cost analysis 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 changes 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 employing a certified applicator and, potentially, a reduction in the 

demand for certified applicators. On the other hand, if the applicator bears the cost of changes in 

certification requirements, because training and exams are taken outside working hours as a 

means of increasing skills and employment opportunities, increased costs of obtaining and 

retaining certification may lead to a reduction in the supply of certified applicators. 

Thus, an important consideration is the impact the revisions to the Certification requirements 

have on employment. The magnitude of the incremental per-applicator cost, relative to the cost 

of employment or return to employment, provides a measure by which EPA can judge the 

impacts on jobs. Tables 5.6-1 and 5.6-2 present the estimated annual cost for private and 

commercial applicators for each state (from Tables 5.3-10 and 5.4-2), the total number of 

applicators, and the average cost per applicator. 

Table 5.6-1. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Private Applicators. 

Jurisdiction

Annualized RIC, 

Private 

($1,000) 

Number of Private 

Applicators 

Cost per Private 

Applicator 

Alabama 163 5,963 $ 27.34 

Alaska 1 89 $ 11.24 

Arizona 12 473 $ 25.39 

Arkansas 1,715 20,997 $ 81.68 

California 180 18,601 $ 9.68 

Colorado 214 6,049 $ 35.38 

Connecticut 0 564 $ -. 

Delaware 39 746 $ 52.26 
*** 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 discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

The average cost per private applicator across the United States is estimated to be about $39.80 

per year (Table 5.6-1). There is substantial variation across states, however. Average 

incremental cost per applicator is estimated to be less than $10 per year in 17 states while 

applicators in five states – Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, and South Dakota – are 

expected to bear incremental cost of over $80 per year. The estimated cost to applicators in other 

jurisdictions such as tribes and Pacific Islands are estimated to be $195 per year, but this is an 

artifact due to lack of specific information about current certification requirements in these 

territories. EPA assumed that these jurisdictions maintained the minimum standards in all 

components for the certification of private applicators. 

The average cost per applicator can be influenced by the turnover in applicators. For example, 

Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee have very similar requirements for certification and 

recertification, but the average per-applicator cost in Kentucky is higher because they have a 

higher proportion of first-time applicators obtaining certification, who face much higher 

incremental costs than do applicators obtaining recertification. Compared to current state 

requirements, the proposed certification requirements would increase the cost of initial 

certification in those states by about $400. Two things should be noted. Initial certification is a 

one-time cost, not an annual cost, and this increase in cost largely brings the cost of certification 

in these states in line with the cost to applicators in other states. 

As to the impact on jobs, it is important to note that most private applicators are self-employed as 

the owner or operator of a farm or livestock operation. Some operations, however, would 

employ a pesticide applicator and he or she may need to be 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 and therefore needs to have a certified private 

applicator. Let us assume that there is a 20 percent chance over a ten-year time horizon that an 

initial certification is needed while 80 percent of the time the holder may need recertification. 

This represents the likelihood of turnover in employees, where newly certified applicators in 

Kentucky make up nearly 20 percent of the total number of applicators. For a farm that does not 

need certification in one of the new application-specific categories, the incremental costs are 

estimated to be about $108 per year. The additional cost in the year an initial certification is 

required would be about $400, but maintaining the certification in Kentucky would cost about 

$54 per year more than is currently the situation. If an application-specific certification is 

needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumigating grain in storage, the cost of a certified 

applicator is estimated to be about $128 per year. According to wage data from BLS (2014a), a 

private applicator earns about $38.83 per hour and costs the employer about $51.96 per hour, 

including 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 employing 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 increased cost of changes in certification and 

recertification requirements represents less than one percent of the likely returns to a typical 

salary for a certified applicator. Given this analysis, EPA concludes that the revisions to the 

Certification requirements would not negatively impact employment 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 per year, ranging from $1.34 in Iowa to about $212 per year in 

Rhode Island. Eight states are expected to see incremental costs of over $100 per year. Note, 

however, that this cost includes the cost of supervising noncertified applicators, which would not 

be a consideration in an employer’s decision to hire a certified applicator. Absent supervision 

costs, the incremental cost per applicator is $100 in or less in all jurisdictions, even accounting 

for the possibility of obtaining certification in one of the new, application specific categories. 

The unloaded wage rate for commercial applicators is $14.82 per hour while the loaded wage 

rate is $21.49 per hour, according to BLS data (2014a). Even assuming 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 per year due to the rule would be 0.3 to 0.5 

percent of employment costs. The applicator’s take-home pay would range from $7,700 to 

$12,450 for six to eight months and an incremental cost of $100 per year would represent 0.8 to 

1.3 percent of his or her salary. 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 applicators may have on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, 

including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments. In some instances, when 

significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, agencies are 

also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic effects on 

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 three percent or more of annual revenue 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 percent 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 firms and their proportion of all 

affected small firms to determine if a substantial number of small firms would be impacted. 

Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we set the following 

thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial” for impacts 

greater than one percent of annual sales: 

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 

than 30 percent of all small entities; 

 Between 100 and 1,000 small entities may be affected, provided the number 

represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or 

 More than 1000 small entities may be affected, but the number represents less than 

ten percent of all small entities. 

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, or if impacts cannot be quantified, the thresholds 

at which EPA concludes a substantial number of small entities would not be affected are as 

follows: 

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 

than 20 percent of all small entities; 

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than ten percent of all 

small entities; or 

 More than 1000 small entities may be affected, but the number represents less than 

five percent of all small entities. 

For firms employing commercial applicators, we utilize lower thresholds for the number of 

impacted small entities considered substantial because there are fewer firms than there are farms. 

For impacts greater than one percent of gross revenues, the number of impacted entities is not 

considered substantial if: 

 Fewer than 20 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 

than 30 percent of all small entities; 

 Between 20 and 200 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents 

less than 20 percent of all small entities; or 

 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 adverse impact, the annualized 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 for estimating the average cost per entity of the 

proposed rule. Section 5.7.2 estimates the per-entity 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 and calculate the impacts. In Section 5.7.3, we present the same 

information for small business employing commercial applicators. 

Based on this analysis, EPA certifies that there would not be a significant impact to a substantial 

number of small businesses. Agricultural establishments 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 certified applicators. Average impacts to small crop 

producing enterprises, those making less than $750,000 in annual sales of agricultural products, 

are estimated to be around 0.1 percent of annual sales. Even in the most heavily impacted 

regions, the estimated impacts on most small agricultural operations are less than one percent of 

average annual sales. Small entities with commercial applicators, including agricultural 

pesticide services, extermination services, and landscaping services, are estimated to face 

impacts of 0.2 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 the number of applicators (certified and noncertified applicators 

under the direct supervision) for representative entities, and the impacts are measured in terms of 

the incremental cost to small entities relative to their sales revenues. 

5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments 

Private applicators are largely employed by or operate establishments in agricultural production. 

EPA has identified a number of specific types of establishments. The SBA specifies a revenue 

threshold to distinguish small entities, as shown in Table 5.7-1. 

Table 5.7-1. Private Applicator Establishment NAICS Codes with Small Business 

Thresholds (Annual Revenue) 

Farming SectorSector1 NAICS Code Large Business 

Threshold 

Crop Farming 111 $750,000 

Animal Farming 112 $750,000 

Feedlots 112112 $7,500,000 

Source: SBA, 2014 

Impacts1See the first line of Table 5.7-3 for the magnitudes of impacts for these farm types. 

Certification needs could differ across these types given different pest problems and, therefore, 

different certification needs. Within crop farming, 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-specific certification. TheMoreover, 

the proposed rule would impose similar training or exam requirements for each category 

certification. Impacts on individuals and individual entities are more likely to be a function of 

the state or region, given the variability in current certification requirements, than to vary by 

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

33 

Profile of Private Applicator Establishments 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the Department of Agriculture conducts a 

census of agriculture every five years. A farm is defined as “any place from which $1,000 or 

more of agricultural product were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold, during 

the year of the census (NASS, 2014c).” According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 

2014c), there are over 2.1 million farms in the United States, including about 430,000 places 

with less than $1,000 in total sales of agricultural products. Excluding the latter places, which do 

not strictly meet the definition of ‘farm’ and, moreover, are extremely unlikely to utilize RUPs, 

there are between 1.5 and 1.6 million farms classified as small by the SBA criterion. The 

publicly available Census data reports that about 76,000 farms have annual revenue between 

$500,000 and $999,999, whereas the SBA criterion for a small farm is sales less than $750,000. 

We therefore have a range for farms and average revenue. Revenue includes sales of agricultural 

products and government payments, but does not include farm-related income, such as crop and 

livestock insurance payments, rental income, and income from agricultural services. 

To better understand the impacts and the distribution 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 distribution of small crop and animal farms across these various 

categories. The table also provides similar data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 

2008b), for which a special tabulation distinguished farms with annual revenue of $750,000 or 

less. The number of small farms and average revenues for each category are consistent over 

time. 

Table 5.7-2. Number and Average Revenue of Small Farms. 

All Small 

Farms 1

Small-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 less than $750,000 per year. The lower bound is for 

farms with sales less than $500,000 and the upper bound includes farms with sales less than 

$1,000,000. Does not include operations with less than $1,000 in total sales. 

Not all farms utilize pesticides every year, however; thus some farms may not need a private 

applicator. EPA obtained a special tabulation of data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture to 

identify those farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2008b). The likelihood that a farm will use 

pesticides is 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 pesticides. 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 proportion 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, therefore, obtain and maintain certification in order 

to have the capacity to use a RUP if needed. Thus, EPA assumes that most small farms would be 

affected by changes to the certification requirements at some point. 

Costs per Small Entity, Private Applicators 

In Section 5.6, EPA estimated the total incremental cost to private applicators of changes in the 

Certification requirements would average $38.50 per private applicator per year. This includes 

the costs associated with requirements for certification, recertification, and for noncertified 

applicators under the direct supervision of the certified applicator. This cost per private 

applicator is also a reasonable estimate of the cost per small entity, as it would represent the 

owner/operator of a small farm or animal operation who may, at least occasionally, employ or 

use a 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 need to use a RUP and therefore needs to employ a certified private 

applicator. A similar scenario could describe a small farm where the owner or operator is the 

certified applicator, but turnover in ownership is 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 conservative, given that a generation may be 20 to 30 years. For a 

farm that does not need certification in one of the new application-specific categories, the 

incremental costs are estimated to be about $102 per year. If an application-specific certification 

is needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumigating grain in storage, the cost of a certified 

applicator is estimated to be about $157 per year. If the farm also has someone noncertified, 

whether a family member or employee, who applies RUPs under the direct supervision of the 

owner/operator, the incremental cost for training and other supervisory requirements are 

expected to cost another $20 per year. Note that the overall average cost per private applicator in 

Kentucky was estimated to be $125 per 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 annual 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 noncertified applicator. A medium-small 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 the 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/yearyear1 0.04-0.07% 0.91% 0.11% 0.01-0.02% 

Kentucky, no application 

category or applicator UTS; 

$102/year 

0.12-0.19% 2.44% 0.29% 0.03-0.04% 

Kentucky, no application 

category, applicator UTS; 

$121/year 

0.14-0.23% n/a 0.35% 0.03-0.05% 

Kentucky, new application 

category, no applicator 

UTS; $157/year 

0.18-0.30% n/a n/a 0.04-0.06% 

Kentucky, new application 

category, applicator UTS; 

$178/year 

0.21-0.34% n/a n/a 0.05-0.07% 

Source: EPA calculations. 

1

These represent the magnitudes of impacts for the three farm types in Table 5.7-1 (crop farming, animal 

farming, and feedlots). 

As shown in Table 5.7-3, the impact on the average small crop farm would range from 0.04 to 

0.34 percent of average revenue, even for very high impacts. The average impact of $38 would 

exceed three percent of revenue for very small farms 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 using pesticides, based 

on farms with revenue up to $10,000 per year, would be 25 percent (NASS, 2008b), or fewer 

than 10,000 farms. Of those, perhaps 20 percent would use RUPs, based on the percent of acres 

treated, or about 2,000 farms. In the high-impact states of Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 

there are another 23,500 farms with annual revenue of $2,500 to $5,000, a range where impacts 

could be over two percent of annual revenue. Of those, an estimated 1,200 might use RUPs. In 

total, around 3,200 farms many face impacts of two percent or more of annual revenue. These 

farms comprise less than one-fourth of one percent of all small farms and about 0.4 percent of all 

small farms that use pesticides, which may be affected by the rule. 
*** 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 applicators in other states are currently 

obtaining certifications under requirements very similar to those proposed. 

An additional factor to consider is that EPA has proposed changes to the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS), which sets requirements that agricultural establishments hiring labor must meet 

when pesticides are used on the establishment. Hired labor are persons outside the immediate 

family who receive compensation for their work. The WPS imposes requirements include 

providing pesticide safety training for employees that will be entering treated fields and notifying 

employees when applications have been made so that they can take proper precautions. A subset 

of the farms using RUPs, who are impacted by revisions to the certification requirements, will 

also employ workers and will also be impacted by revisions to the WPS. 

EPA estimated that, on average, small farms would face costs of about $125 to $140 per year 

from proposed changes to the requirements of the WPS. These costs would essentially be 

additive to the estimated costs of changes to the certification requirements for farms that have a 

certified applicator and hire labor to work in the field. When considering the two proposals 

together, the focus remains on the small-small farms. Because smaller farms generally employ 

fewer workers, the impacts of changes in the WPS are also smaller. EPA estimates that the 

proposed changes to the WPS would cost small-small farms between $65 and $80 per year, 

implying that the average small-small farm affected by both proposals would face combined 

incremental costs of about $120 per year and our example establishment in Kentucky would have 

combined costs of around $180 per year with impacts of around three to four percent of gross 

revenues from farm products. 

The number of small-small farms affected by both rules is likely to be small. According to data 

from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were about 316,000 small-small 

farms that used any kind of pesticide. Of those, fewer than 60,000 farms also employed labor, or 

less than 20 percent, and might bear some impacts from proposed changes to the WPS. 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 the U.S. might face impacts from changes to 

both the WPS and to the certification requirements. This is around 0.8 percent of all small farms 

in the U.S. and less than four percent of small-small farms that use pesticides. 

5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments 

Commercial pesticide applicators are employed by businesses that service a broad array of 

activities, including agricultural sites, urban and residential sites, and industrial sites. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) uses a variety of criteria in sizing commercial applicator 

establishments depending on a firm’s primary industry (as classified by its NAICS code). The 

relevant criterion for small business designation may include revenue or the number of 

employees. 

Table 5.7-4 presents the SBA large-business thresholds, by NAICS code, used to determine the 

size of each firm in the commercial applicator establishment portion of the small business impact 

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 Description 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 cover different sites. In addition to agricultural certifications, 

there are categories, such as rights-of-way, which is relevant to power transmission industries; 

aquatic sites, which is relevant to water supply and irrigation systems and other activities; and 

ornamental/turf sites, which would be required for landscaping services. The new certification 

categories are more application focused and would be required by different 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 exterminators would likely need certification in structural 

fumigation. 

Profile of Commercial Applicator Establishments 

For this analysis, EPA focuses on entities providing pest control services, rather than the broader 

array of entities that may require pest control services. In particular, 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 financial and employee information, based on information 

obtained from the Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) database of U.S. commercial establishments. The 

small firms account for over 99 percent 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 shown 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 incremental cost of the proposed rule to commercial 

applicators to be $25.6 million annually. The rule would impact an estimated 414,000 

commercial applicators for a per-applicator cost of $61.73 per year. This includes the costs 

associated with requirements on noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of the 

certified applicator, assuming that most certified applicators supervise two or three others. 

Per-applicator incremental costs vary across the different states and jurisdictions of the country, 

depending on the baseline certification and recertification requirements of the jurisdiction, 

including category certifications. See Table 5.6-2 for estimates of the total incremental cost, 

number of commercial certified applicators, and average per-applicator cost, by region. Costs 

range from essentially zero in Iowa, where the current state requirements meet or exceed the 

proposed federal requirements and noncertified applicators are not allowed to apply RUPs, to 

$211 per year in Rhode Island, which does not currently have an aerial certification category and 

where EPA estimates that there are about five noncertified applicators for every certified 

applicator. As explained in Chapter 3, the number of noncertified applicators is subject to 

considerable uncertainty. In the case of Rhode Island, the number of noncertified applicators is 

estimated by taking BLS employment figures for those involved in ‘pest control’ 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 certified applicators, including the owner of the 

service, with two to three noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. Thus, 

EPA anticipates the cost to be $62 to $123 per year for the average small entity and from $98 to 

$188 for a small entity in a state such as Rhode Island. These estimates include the costs of 

supervision, but for two noncertified 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 annual revenue. Results are shown in Table 5.7-6. 

Table 5.7-6. Impact per Small Entity, Commercial Applicator. 

Entity Average Revenue Average Impact 

($62-123/year) 

High Impact 

($188/year)

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 application services are estimated to be less than one 

percent of average revenues for both the average and high cost scenarios. For impacts to exceed 

even one percent of annual revenue, the enterprise would have to make less than $12,000 to 

$18,000 per year. A firm of that size would likely consist of a single applicator, in which case 

the expected cost of the proposal would be around $30 per year, well under one percent of annual 

revenue. 

5.7.3 Conclusion 

On the basis of this analysis, EPA concludes that there would not be a significant impact to a 

substantial number of small entities. For private applicators, average impacts of the rule 

represent less than one percent of annual sales revenue for the average small farm and even to 

small-small farms with sales of less than $10,000. Impacts to the smallest farms, 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 number of small farms affected by the rule. 

For commercial applicators, average impacts of the rule represent less than 0.1 percent of annual 

revenue for the average small firm. The impacts are expected to be around 0.1 percent of annual 

revenue even for the high cost scenarios. This is well below the one percent threshold that EPA 

set for significant impact. 
*** 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 under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator; and reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment from the 

use of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Competent 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 changes would ensure that certified applicators are 

competent in the application of restricted use pesticides, and that noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of certified applicators are well supervised and protected. 

When used in accordance with label restrictions, RUPs can be safely applied; however, if the 

applicators are not competent, then RUPs have the potential to pose unreasonable risks of 

damage to humans, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, non-target animals, plants, and surface 

water. Ensuring that applicators are competent would prevent these unwarranted exposures. 

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to certified 

applicators, their families and employees, and the public at large. Chapter 2 provided a summary 

of the individual proposals considered 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 pesticide exposure can be quantified. This section 

provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced acute 

occupational exposures) and those that cannot. 

Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by: 

 avoiding RUP incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to certified applicators, 

noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, 

and others, such as farmworkers or bystanders who could be exposed to RUPs. 

 avoiding non-occupational incidents by reducing exposures to the public. 

 reducing chronic pesticide exposure to certified applicators and their families. 

Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 

have been reported to databases that count poisoning 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 exposures 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 exposures over time are unlikely to 

appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 

the benefit estimates in this chapter. 

Effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families are unlikely to be recorded. If they are 

reported, they may enter the database with uncertain causes, with little confidence that the 

incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify improvements 

in health from reduced pesticide exposure. These potential health benefits, which include those 

related to chronic pesticide exposure, and the effects of residues transported home, are described 

but cannot be quantified. 

In addition to the harm to human health, misuse of RUPs has the potential to harm the 

environment, causing damage to non-target animals and plants, including agricultural crops, and 

pollinating insects, such as bees. Although there is some information on incidents of this nature 

which are described in this chapter, the benefits of reducing incidents like these are difficult to 

quantify. 

The next section discusses who is at risk from RUP exposure, followed by a discussion of the 

possible effects of acute exposure and chronic exposures to certified applicators and to their 

families. Section 6.4 provides information on the benefits from reduced ecological damage from 

RUPs, Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 

benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 

from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 

surveillance databases, but are potentially important to human health, and may be reduced by the 

proposed rule. 

6.2. Who is at Risk? 

6.2.1. Occupational Exposure 

Certified pesticide applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators, agricultural workers, and pesticide handlers may be occupationally exposed 

to pesticides and pesticide residues. EPA estimates that there are about 900,000 certified 

applicators in the United States (See Chapter 3), and about 1 million noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. A small number of adolescents are 

certified applicators, and there are about 14,000 adolescents under 18 estimated to be working 

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (See Chapter 3). All of these people face 

harm from occupational exposure to RUPs. 

RUPs are commonly used in agriculture, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is 

potentially exposed. This includes the approximately 2.3 million farm workers that are hired by 

agricultural establishments, who are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects 

from pesticide exposure (EPA, 2014a) if they work on farms that use RUPs. Agricultural 

workers do not handle RUPs directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

either through contact with residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact 

from drift or misdirected application. The agricultural workforce occupationally exposed to 

restricted use pesticides and pesticide residues can potentially face significant long and short 

term health risks. However, as a result of an extensive review of the data from incident reporting 

systems and epidemiologic evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature, there is evidence, 

which EPA regards as strong, that pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health 

outcomes. This evidence is discussed and referenced in detail in the sections that follow. 

6.2.2. Children and Families 

Young and unborn children may be particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may 

experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the 

floor and putting objects into their mouths (EPA, 2008b), and they can be more sensitive to these 

exposures because their organ systems are still developing, and they have relatively low body 

weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the 

families of certified applicators may be incidentally exposed to pesticides and there is the 

potential for negative health effects from this pesticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (discussed 

below) may be particularly important for long-term development. 

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of vulnerability” for 

chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 

means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 

lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 

continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 

developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and chemicals differently than adults 

metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008b). The proposed changes to the 

certification rule include enhanced worker training to reduce incidental, take-home exposures by 

workers to their families. The proposed changes to the certification rule also cover direct 

exposures by including restrictions on allowing adolescents to work with RUPs. These changes 

are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, 

which is also discussed below. 

Non-occupational 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 noncertified 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 applicators, the pesticides for which they tested 

included RUPs. When compared with non-farm households, they found significantly higher 

levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in farm households. The 

distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in the agricultural 

worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported 

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 pesticide applicators, based on higher levels of 

atrazine contamination in the parts of homes where applicators entered the home and where they 

removed their clothing. Atrazine levels were three times higher for applicators that changed 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

shoes inside compared to those who removed shoes outside, and bedroom levels were six times 

higher for those who changed clothes in the bedroom compared to those who did not. Lu et al.

(2000) collected samples from steering wheels and boots of agricultural families, the floors of 

their houses, as well as wipe and urine samples from the family members. Farm families had 

higher exposure to the pesticides 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 exposure that identify take-home exposure as a 

problem (Thompson et al., 2014; Coronado et al., 2006; Curl et al., 2002; McCauley et al., 2003; 

Rao et al., 2006). 

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 

Adolescents face more risks from pesticide exposure than adults, a problem EPA addresses by 

proposing a minimum age for certified applicators and noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a certified applicator. There is evidence that adolescents and children 

do not make risk 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 (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 

context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 

risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 

risks while playing on the farm; the play often 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 job than their nonagricultural counterparts.” This 

statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and suggests that younger workers take 

more risks or behave in a more dangerous 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 equipment, 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 was required, the median self-reported frequency for use of 

respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 

was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less 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 suggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 

leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al., 2006). 

The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 

risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through 

these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 

risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al., 2010). In an international 

setting, Abdel-Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, 

neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 

applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 

in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high levels 

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

5 

According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance 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 sensitivity to pesticide 

toxicity. The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than 

adults. Therefore, it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 

decisions. It is not certain why higher risk taking behavior is more common among adolescents, 

but it is a consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between 

behaviors and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar 

to adults, but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al., 2010). 

The cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, 

which indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk 

taking process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies 

that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, would 

not protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk 

adolescents do not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, 

such as the establishment of minimum age for certain activities are warranted to ensure their 

safety. 

6.3.What are the Risks? 

This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 

exposure, including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. 

Some of these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of either acute (in the case 

of developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with 

chronic occupational pesticide exposure is provided in Section 6.6. 

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects 

The use of mostBecause pesticides, substances usually are specifically selected or designed to be 

toxic, is inherently riskyadversely affect biological systems, pesticides generally present risks to 

non-target organisms as well. Some pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or 

biological processes while others have effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including 

humans. Exposures to some pesticides 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 largely 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, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). Severe 

acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart 

and Roberts, 2013). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are 

just a few of the wide range of 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 professional could expect to see following an acute exposure to various 

pesticides (Reigart and Roberts, 2013). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute 

exposure, certified applicators also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

diseases, including several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 

6.6. 

Evidence that acute adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide-related illnesses 

can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure is underreported (see 

below), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance 

initiatives that show evidence of illnesses. Calvert, et al. (2008) for example, finds that acute 

pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem.” 

This study looked at pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, 

and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural 

workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers 

(except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness 

cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with 

mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al. found that about half of all occupational pesticide 

related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other 

industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying 

pesticides. The most common symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 

39%), and gastrointestinal (about 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 medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 

one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 

is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 

can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 

of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study (and 

which we use for the analysis in Section 6.5), at least two post-exposure symptoms must have 

been reported. Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, 

nausea, vomiting, and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to result in missing 

up to three days of work or hospitalization for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases6. 

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

This section discusses potential risks to families of certified applicators, as well as the families of 

others who may be exposed to RUPs. This is not a complete review of the epidemiological 

literature on the associations between RUP exposure and the health of children and families, but 

it provides an overview of the literature. These are just a subset of diseases that have been 

reported in the literature to have an association with pesticide exposure to families; many others, 

including some cancers, also have an associationbeen reported by some to be associated with 

pesticide exposure. The discussion of chronic 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 exposureoutcomes is drawn from epidemiological studies that recruit cases who use 

pesticides occupationally. 

Reproductive Risks 

Certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator, farmworkers and women with pest control activities near their homes face exposure 

to RUPs when they are pregnant. Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of 

pesticide exposure during pregnancy on reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al. (2007) found 59 

peer-reviewed studies that examined the relationship between pesticides and reproductive 

outcomes between 1992 and 2003. A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 

Table 6.3-1. Summary of Findings on the Association between Pesticide Exposure and 

Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al., 2007 

Outcome Examined 

Number of 

Papers Found 

Number of Papers Found that 

Display an Association Between 

the Outcome Examined and 

Pesticide Exposure* 

Birth Defect 15 14 (+) 

Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) 

Fertility** 14 7 (-) 

Altered Growth 10 7 (+) 

Fetal Death 11 9 (+) 

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+) 

*The direction of the association is shown in parentheses. 

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and 

infertility. 

As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 

between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 

defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 

nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 

studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death, which includes 

“spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 

preconception exposure was associated with early first-trimester abortions and post-conception 

exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al., 2007). For most 

effects, half or more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 

exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note severalthree limitations of 

each ofto this review: epidemiology studies cannot prove cause-effect relationships, the difficulty 

of accurate exposure assessment, and 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 these 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 exposureschildren who were exposed to pesticides while in 

utero (because their pregnant mother was exposed to pesticides in the home or pre-natal 

occupational exposureat 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 motherpesticides and future 

childhood leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated 

onTurner et al., (2009), in a meta-analysis of 15 studies, also reports positive associations 

between residential pesticide exposure and childhood leukemia. As part of the registration 

process, applicants provide data that allow EPA to assess the basis of developmental toxicity 

(i.e., structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss).) and other 

potential health effects of the particular pesticide active ingredient, as well as potential exposure 

through the use of the pesticide. These developmental effects can result from an acute 

overexposure toof the pregnant farmworker to agricultural pesticides during windows of 

susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. Possible effects from an acute 

overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain tissue outside the skull), 

hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes often resulting in 

blindness), or spina bifida. AnThrough the registration process, EPA establishes conditions of 

registration intended to prevent developmental and other adverse effects, such as restricted-entry 

intervals and personal protective equipment. If these mitigation measures are not observed, 

however, an overexposure to one of these pesticides could occur, for example, should(e.g. if a 

pregnant farmworker enterforgets about a warning received several days previously and 

subsequently enters the treated area too soon after an application or through drift of a pesticide 

applied to an adjacent field. 

Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 

exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 

the systems in adults. (Golub, 2000). Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed 

than those of younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until 

adulthood. In particular, brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral 

cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that 

reduces excess neuron connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating 

sheath, which increases the efficiency of information 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 pesticides, all of which can result in adverse health 

effects. In addition, adolescent workers 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 health effects that are debilitating 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 applicators. These studies show 

the effect ofepidemiological 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 organophosphate pesticides (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, 

Engel et al., 2007). Studies with rural and urban cohorts report associations between 

organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in children (Engel et al., 2007, 

Young et al., 2005), and increased developmental disorders were reported in both the 

CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, Lovasi, et al., 

2011, Engel et al., 2011). 

Several recent studies have shown an associationThere are reported associations between 

organophosphate pesticides and the development of behavior related to attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A 

study from a rural cohortMarks et al. (2010) concluded that in utero levels of organophosphate 

metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were associated with ADHD behaviors for 

five year old children (Marks et al., 2010).from a rural cohort. Similar associations are 

seenreported in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, 

chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention-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 behaviors. In this study, 

compared to children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the 

sample median had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. 

The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 

epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 

However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 

between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 

that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro-developmental and 

neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures. 

6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding RUP Incidents 

In Section 6.5, a quantified estimate of the benefits from reduced human health incidents due to 

the rule changes is provided, but these quantified estimates are based only on the value of 

reduced illness from acute occupational RUP exposure. The quantified estimates are limited to 

these effects because sufficient data on illness from acute RUP exposure exists to make a 

reasonable estimate. The estimates, however, do not quantify many real health benefits that may 

result from the rule, but for which sufficient data are not available to estimate the monetary value 

of these benefits. For that reason, non-quantified benefits, both to human health and the 

environment, are discussed here. The human health benefits that can be quantified are presented 

in 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 described in the prior section 

that are not easily observed and reported. Because of insufficient information on the rates of 

illness, the reduction in exposure that 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 challenging to quantify the benefits from the proposed 

rule changes that may reduce these effects. 

There are also non-quantifiable ecological benefits, from reduced RUP exposure to non-target 

plants and animals. These are discussed in Section 6.4.1. 

6.4.1. Non-Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents 

In addition to the benefits to human health, the proposed changes would also be expected to 

reduce environmental damage associated with RUP use by reducing the incidents of RUP misuse 

and other errors. This section will discuss the harm 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. Although 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 addition, the available information is generally insufficient to 

reliably estimate the cost of incidents, even when they have been reported. Because of these 

inadequacies, we will use the available data to provide a qualitative discussion of the kind of 

environmental incidents that are caused by misuse of RUPs, and whether the incidents can be 

prevented by the rule. 

Data 

Ecological incident data are used 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 Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), both 

databases that are maintained by EPA7

. 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 literature and media accounts. 

The IDS database includes all pesticide incidents involving humans, wildlife, pets, and other 

domestic animals of which OPP is aware. IDS is primarily used by OPP to track the total 

number of all incidents (human, wildlife, etc.) that may have been caused by a pesticide. The 

EIIS database contains information on pesticide incidents involving 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 plants 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’, ‘highly probable’– and the relatively new classification of ‘exposure only’ 

(residues detected but no effects noted)]. The certainty level indicates the likelihood that a 

particular pesticide caused the observed effects. In general, “highly probable” incidents require 

residues and/or clear circumstances linking the exposure to the effects. “Probable” incidents 

include those where residues are not available and/or circumstances are slightly less conclusive 

than for “highly probable.” “Possible” incidents are those where there was exposure to multiple 

chemicals, and it is not clear which one was the primary causal factor, although circumstances 

surrounding the incident and toxicological properties of the pesticide suggest a possible causal 

relationship. “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, “unrelated” incidents are those in which evidence 

clearly indicates that another stressor besides the given pesticide caused the effects. Each 

incident in the EIIS is also given a legality of use classification [‘registered use’ (the label 

directions were followed), ‘misuse’ [label directions were not followed; for example, the 

application involved (accidental or intentional) higher than labeled rates, non-labeled application 

sites, or the intentional targeting on non-labeled species], or ‘unknown’ (it is not known whether 

or not the label directions were followed)]. 

As with most reporting of pesticide incidents, ecological incidents are subject to under-reporting. 

Ecological incident data are not systematically collected, and, thus, they may not be 

representative of unreported incidents. The collection of incident data is largely opportunistic, 

and reported incidents represent a very small portion of the actual incidents that likely occur 

(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 immediately. 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 seen by someone before they are scavenged or they 

decompose. Carcass recovery efficiency rates, even for trained individuals searching for 

carcasses in a known, limited area, are often well below 100% (Madrigal et al., 1996 reported 

recovering only about two-thirds of bird carcasses placed in the study zone). Although plants do 

not move or disappear from the environment the same way that animals do, any damage to 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 unlikely to be reported to anyone. There are several 

reasons why incident reporting is unlikely. For example, the incident observer may not realize 

the importance of reporting the incident or they may not know to whom to report it. Motivation 

can be an important consideration for someone reporting an incident. People may be more likely 

to report an incident if the effects impact them economically (e.g., if the incident involves crop 

damage or a bee kill) or personally (e.g., it involves a pet or plants in their yard) than if it 

involves a wild animal. Additionally, if only one or two dead animals are found, it may be 

assumed that the animals simply died from natural causes. 

Step 3: Linking an Incident to a Pesticide: 

For an incident to be considered a pesticide incident, it must be linked to a pesticide exposure. 

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 pesticide 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 and sick animals may be preyed upon, hit by cars, 

die of disease, etc., and their deaths may not necessarily be attributed to a pesticide, even if it is a 

major factor in their deaths. Additionally, with the exception of honey bees and crayfish, effects 

to invertebrates are not typically reported. Because incident investigations can be very complex 

and resource intensive (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), even if a dead animal is reported, and the 

death is suspected to be caused by a pesticide, the incident may not be investigated due to limited 

resources. 

Step 4: Submitting an Incident Report to OPP: 

Incidents reported to local or municipal authorities or independent wildlife rescue organizations 

are unlikely to ever be forwarded to OPP. Some state agencies and some wildlife rescue 

organizations routinely report incidents to OPP (for example California and New York), but most 

do not. Therefore, even if a carcass is found and reported to local authorities, and an 

investigation concludes that the death was due to a pesticide, the incident report may not be 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

submitted to OPP. Reporting by non-registrants 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 private organizations (e.g., toxicology laboratories and wildlife 

rehabilitation centers). Not all of these agencies/organizations may know to submit information 

on ecological incidents to OPP; may not know how to submit the information to the OPP; or may 

simply choose not to submit the data to OPP (especially if it involves a case going through 

litigation or some enforcement action). 

Although pesticide registrants are required to report adverse effect incidents under FIFRA, a 

registrant cannot report incidents it is unaware of, or that do not appear related to its pesticides. 

Furthermore, the reporting requirements defined in FIFRA8

 allow registrants to aggregately 

report all ‘minor’ ecological incidents. 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, specific taxa involved, and descriptions of use; 

therefore, aggregate incident reports are not included in the EIIS, but they are included in the 

IDS. 

 

Overall, because of the many ways that reporting of an incident to OPP can fail, it is likely that 

only a small fraction of the pesticide ecological incidents that occur are ever recorded. Because 

the incident data in the EIIS are not systematically collected and likely represent a very small 

fraction of the incidents that actually occur, these data are likely an underestimate of damage 

from misuse and other errors by certified applicators. For these reasons, no attempt is made to 

quantify the benefits from reduced ecological damage caused by RUPs for the rule; the 

discussion here will be qualitative. Incident data, however, do provide evidence that exposure 

from misuse of RUPs can result in field-observable effects. 

Method 

To characterize the potential value of reduced RUP incidents, even qualitatively, requires 

classifying the EIIS data to retain only those incidents that the proposed rule changes would 

prevent. First, a team of OPP staff compiled a list of all RUP pesticides products and active 

ingredients. Many active ingredients have some pesticide products that are RUPs and others, 

with different use patterns or concentrations that are not. The EIIS database was searched for 

incidents in which one of the RUPs active ingredients was identified as the causal agent for the 

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 included 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 certified applicator. Once the 

incidents related to RUPs were identified and available information gathered, EPA staff 

reviewed the cause of the incidents 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 for 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 more carefully follow 

pesticide label instructions, take proper care to prevent harm, and generally have a higher level 

of competency. The team of OPP staff classified the RUP- and certified applicator-related 

incidents into the following categories: 

 Preventable incidents: Incidents where there was a clear link between the 

application/applicator and the effect and the information demonstrated an error by the 

applicator or applicator incompetency. 

 Possibly preventable incidents: Incidents where there was a clear link between the 

application/applicator and the effect and there was a significant impact so an applicator 

error seemed likely but the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 

 Incidents where there is not enough information: Incidents where there was a clear link 

between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but 

the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 

 Not preventable incidents: Incidents that did not meet any of the above criteria, such as 

incidents where there was no clear link between the application/applicator and the effect, 

incidents where there was no evidence of applicator error or if there just was not enough 

information. 

Only incidents that were definitely related to RUP use and considered preventable or possibly 

preventable are reported below. The incidents often do not have sufficient information to 

quantify the damage. For example, some of the incidents reported damage to a crop from misuse 

or misapplication, but the information is insufficient to determine the actual loss to growers. 

Even when damage to crop plants may result in total yield loss, the response by the grower to the 

problem has not been identified. They could choose to accept the yield loss, or replant the crop, 

or to plant another crop, which might reduce the losses below those of total yield loss. In the 

narrative about the incident, the crop damage is described (e.g. stunting, reduced yields, 

bleaching, leaf burn, etc.), but even when the information has been confirmed by agronomists or 

other experts, the actual yield loss has not been quantified. 

For the non-crop damage, such as the deaths of wild animals, in addition to the difficulty in 

identifying the numbers of animals affected, it is very difficult to provide a value for the 

potential losses. For example, if a substantial number of bald eagles are killed in a preventable 

incident (as we see in the data), to quantify the value of preventing that incident, we would need 

to know the value of those eagles to society, which is difficult to determine. 

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, such as visiting a beach, catching a fish, or observing wild birds. 

Another category is “non-use value,” because these environmental goods have value to society 

beyond their use to people. These non-use values for the preservation of environmental goods 

have several sources, including that people may want the option to have the goods available in 

the future, or the value that people place on maintaining the good for future generations, or value 

placed by society for the mere existence of environmental 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 species 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 misuse of RUPs, and these values are difficult to 

estimate. A standard approach would be to use a stated-preference method, like contingent 

valuation (EPA 2010a) to estimate the societal willingness to pay to preserve the animals or 

plants that were harmed in preventable RUP incidents. This is not done for this analysis because 

a high-quality contingent valuation study is very time consuming and expensive, and more 

importantly, the environmental damage here is very diffuse, involving different types of plants 

and animals in all parts of the country, whereas the most reliable contingent valuation work 

involves very concrete choices in a specific 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, consider the loss of a bald eagle. There are estimates 

of the societal value of preserving bald eagles. Two studies from the literature (Stevens et al., 

1991, or Boyle and Bishop 1987) report household estimates that range from $21.11 to $42.21 in 

2006 dollars. This indicates substantial societal value for eagles, and aggregated across 

households in a region or the United States would result in a very large number ($34 billion for 

the 115 million households in the US). However, the values that are reported, and which were 

estimated using the underlying contingent valuation studies was a willingness to pay to maintain 

the existence of eagles in a specific state; no attempt was made to estimate the value of 

protecting individual eagles, as we have here. 

 

However, we could use these estimates, after adjusting them to transform estimates for eagles as 

a whole into estimates for individual eagles. The non-use value for eagles could be defined as: 

Non-use value = ∆ܰ ∗ ∆௉

∆ே

௡௢௜௚௘௥ܪ ∗ ௑ܹܶܲ ∗

Where ∆N is the number of eagles saved per year, ∆P/∆N is the change in extinction probability 

for the population per the number of saved eagles per year, WTPX is the willingness to pay to 

prevent the (local) extinction of the species, and HRegion 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. WTPX for eagles and a 

handful of other species in the incident data may be gleaned from the literature, but estimates 

∆P/∆N would be at best speculative. 

Because of the challenge of providing reliable estimates of the value of preventing ecological 

damage from RUP incidents, we make no attempt to quantify them here. Below we provide 

information on the 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 sample if the incidents varied significantly from year 

to year. There were total of 245 incidents returned when the EIIS was queried for incidents that 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

were probably related to an RUP. The incidents that are described here are those that EPA staff 

determined were related to an RUP (some active ingredients have RUP and non-RUP products), 

and the incident was deemed “preventable” or “possibly preventable” by the rule changes using 

the above criteria. As shown in Table 6.4-1, there were a total of 68 RUP incidents recorded in 

EIIS deemed preventable or likely preventable. There were 16 preventable or possibly 

preventable incidents involving fish or other aquatic animals, such as crayfish, 5 involving birds, 

12 involving mammals (dogs, coyote, and fox), 7 incidents involving damage to bee colonies, 

and 28 involving crop damage. The table also shows the number of organisms affected by the 

incidents. There were more incidents related 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 that these are the incidents remaining after the 

screening process, and that there is likely significant under-reporting of ecological incidents. 

Table 6.4-1. Preventable Incidents 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 applicator error that more frequent training on the 

importance of following label requirements would be able to prevent. The type of errors found 

include applying pesticides when weather conditions are not appropriate for the pesticide, 

contamination or improper cleaning of application equipment, the wrong active ingredient is 

applied to the crop, incorrect rate or timing of the application. The crops involved were mostly 

corn, including sweet corn. Five of the incidents involve a popcorn crop, all in 2011, and four of 

them occurred in two adjacent counties in Indiana. 

Although we are unable to estimate the damage caused by these preventable incidents, it is 

possible to put an upper bound on some of them, as an example. If we were to assume the crops 

were a total loss, then in some cases we could multiply the expected yield by the price growers 

received that year to find an estimate of the total revenue lost to the grower. For example, a 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 area), which would be the lost 

revenue in Indiana. Of course, if the crop were lost, there would be some 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 incidents involving RUPs 

that killed colonies of bees. In two of the incidents, there was insufficient information to 

determine how many colonies were harmed, although the beekeeper reported mortality (reported 

as 50% mortality in one case). These two incidents are included in the count of 7, but not the 

count of colonies harmed. In all cases, the bees were killed by misapplication of RUPs, when the 

applicator applied the pesticide to the area where bees were actively foraging or allowed the 

pesticide to drift into areas where significant numbers of bees were present. It is difficult to 

know the value of the colonies destroyed in the preventable incidents that show up in the EIIS 

data. The value of a bee colony can be thought of in several 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 concerned about past contamination. According to 

Rucker and Thurman (2012), the cost of a new packet of bees which includes a queen is about 

$50. This could be considered the rough cost of replacing a colony, but it ignores the lost value 

of ecosystem services. The first of these is the loss of honey production for the beekeeper. 

Depending on how late in the year the new colony is established, there may be a substantial 

reduction in the honey produced by the bees. Average 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 pollination services, critical 

to U.S. agriculture. Beekeepers are contracted to provide bees for pollination for some crops, 

and the price they are paid for this service varies by the crop. Among the more valuable crops 

that depend on pollination services are almonds, which in recent years paid beekeepers about 

$140 per colony (Rucker et al., 2012). This represents a revenue source for beekeepers, but it 

may not reflect the losses to growers if pollination is not available during the essential time when 

plants are flowering. At a very conservative estimate of $100 per hive, the reported loss of hives 

would have a value of over $39,000. 

The remainder of the preventable incidents from the EIIS data are animals, generally counted 

after they have died. The mammal incidents include the killing of 14 dogs, at least six coyotes 

and two fox. Five of the coyotes were killed in one incident, due to improper disposal of RUP 

containers, but it is possible that they were killed intentionally, which would be a misuse of an 

RUP. The other coyote incident involved a farmer baiting for raccoons to protect a corn crop in 

Connecticut. The farmer used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the deaths of the 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 noncertified 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 distribution to other noncertified applicators. 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 insecticide, which resulted in the death of three 

crows, a red-tailed hawk, three dogs, a gray fox, a skunk and “several” coyotes. 

The remainder of the mammal incidents were the killing of dogs and one fox. In all cases, they 

were killed by predacides. In most cases, these incidents were caused by applicators not 

following the label instructions, which have clear use restrictions to protect dogs. One of the 

cases involves a landowner lacing deer meat with predacides to protect deer from coyote, but 

where a dog actually consumed the poison. In this case, the RUP compound was distributed 

illegally, and applied by someone without 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 was. The final case with aquatic impacts involves non-aquatic 

applications of RUPs that ended up killing aquatic animals. The disposal ran into an adjacent 

creek, resulting in the deaths of approximately 6,000 fish, 600 crayfish, and four aquatic snakes. 

There are some estimates in the literature that provide a starting place for valuation for fish, but 

these typically provide estimated values for maintaining populations of well-known fish, like 

salmon, rather than individual aquatic animals from these RUP incidents. A 2006 meta-analysis 

of willingness to pay per fish based on recreational fishing reported a mean value of about $17 

per fish protected, but the range of estimates in the underlying studies, even after outliers were 

removed was from under five cents to over $300 per fish (Johnston et al., 2006), which 

highlights the amount of uncertainty in estimates of aquatic valuation. 

For birds, there are five incidents involving bird fatalities, one of which was already described 

above that resulted in the death of three crows and one hawk in addition to several mammals. 

Two of the remaining incidents, both in 2009, stem from a rodenticide being applied in a faulty 

and careless manner which resulted in the deaths of a total of 30 dead geese in Oregon. Fifty 

Brewer’s blackbirds and grackles were killed in an urban area of Sacramento, California in 2010. 

Although the pesticide was targeting these types of birds, it is designed to frighten rather than 

kill most of the birds, and the application was in an inappropriate area. The final bird kill was 

substantial, and very well documented. An RUP was used for a rat eradication project on an 

island in Alaska, and misuse resulted in the deaths of 420 birds, of which 219 were identified. 

The birds were killed because, although the label requires picking up spilled bait and any animal 

carcasses to prevent killing of non-target animals, this 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 recreational bird observers and the general public. There 

are available estimates for protecting populations of birds, and they confirm the substantial value 

for protecting these animals. Kotchen and Reiling (2000) report a mean annual willingness to 

pay per household (in Maine) of about $26 (1997 dollars) to protect the population of peregrine 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 

falcon. Richardson and Loomis (2009) report annual mean willingness to pay per household in 

their meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies. These include bald eagles, which were one 

of the species in the above incidents, for which they reported the mean values for maintaining the 

population of bald eagles: studies that report an average value of $39 (2006 dollars) per 

household per year, and studies that report a lump sum, or an average value of $297 (2006 

dollars) per household per year. These estimates are based on protecting populations of birds at 

a regional level, so it is difficult to translate losses of individual birds into extinction probabilities 

that these estimates reflect. 

In all the cases involving wildlife, EPA is unable to estimate the value of these preventable 

losses described above, although they could be substantial. The provisions to the proposed rule 

could help to prevent incidents like these. 

These incidents likely represent a small percentage of the actual ecological incidents caused by 

certified applicator errors. In addition to the reasons for under-reporting mentioned earlier, the 

approach used to search the EIIS database only captured the incidents that occurred from 2009 

through 2013. An example of under-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 Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 

discussed investigations of ten goose mortality events in Oregon from 2004 to 2008. The 

number of birds impacted in these incidents ranged from 5 to over 300 birds (Bildfell, et al., 

2013). 

6.5. Quantified Human Health 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 applicators, their families and the public. EPA estimates that the 

benefits from reduced acute RUP exposure to be up to $77 million annually, although important 

non-quantifiable human health benefits are discussed later in the chapter, and important 

ecological but unquantified benefits were discussed in the previous section. This section 

quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects associated with acute pesticide 

exposure. 

6.5.1. Methodology and Data 

We use a two-step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through 

avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents 

that will be avoided through provisions in the proposed rule. This is done by evaluating a sample 

of pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then 

determines whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the 

proportion of pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total 

number of reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided 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, which will lead to a downward bias in the 

estimated benefits. This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of under-reporting 

was known. A discussion of under-reporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at 

the end of Section 6.5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event 

Notification System for Occupational Risks – Pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides), administered by 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance 

program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA also reviewed 

its own Incident Data System and annual reports from the Poison Control Centers to document 

unintentional deaths from RUPs over time. 

The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. 

The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will 

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 avoided 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 products 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 associations, private data 

organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patientlevel health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 

the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 

costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 

services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals10. 

Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity 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 general are underreported. At least four steps are 

necessary before a pesticide-related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) the 

exposed person must perceive that they have treatable symptoms; (2) the person must seek 

medical attention; (3) the 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 pesticide related. A breakdown at any of the steps 

would prevent a pesticide poisoning 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 Healthcare 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 they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 

uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 

rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 

common pesticides results in flu-like or cold-like 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 dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 

exposure to poison ivy. When farmworkers or bystanders are exposed, they may not perceive 

that their symptoms are related to pesticide exposures because they are not working directly with 

pesticides and may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues. 

(2) The person must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, many 

pesticide-related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical intervention. For 

example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited 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, severity, and repetition of exposure) recover without 

treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will gradually disappear when 

exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many people with treatable symptoms 

may not seek physician care. A survey of California 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 specifically diagnose the illness or 

injury as being caused by an occupational exposure 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 mistake pesticide poisonings for other causes, but 

physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide poisonings. The person seeking 

care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a pesticide. In addition, there may 

not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide exposure, and physicians may be more 

concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming the causes. 

(4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 

recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be underreported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 

Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 

compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 

difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington State 

Department of Labor and Industries, 1991) 

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 

requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 

bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on 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 healthcare professionals fear 

becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they might have to defend 

an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 

statement" (Arizona, 1990). 

If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 

not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 

literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, 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 summarized 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-reportingUnderreporting Studies 

Date Title Goal of Study

UnderreportingUnderreporting

Estimate

1990

Treated vs. Reported Toxic 

Exposures: Discrepancies 

Between a Poison Control 

Center and a Member 

Hospital (Harchelroad et al., 

1990)

Compare poison control 

center reports to actual toxic 

exposures presented to an 

urban area hospital

74%a

1983

Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of 

a Regional Poison 

Information Center (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: UnderreportingUnderreporting 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 underreportingunderreporting for 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

and how they can be 

corrected.

20-70%c

2008 

Acute Pesticide Poisoning 

Among Agricultural 

Workers in the United 

States, 1998–2005 (Calvert, 

et al., 2008) 

Identifying agricultural 

pesticide exposure incidents 

and estimate incident rates 

88% to 95%, when 

compared to the 

Department of Labor 

National Agricultural 

Workers Surveyd

Notes: 

a

 The EMDEmergency Medical Dispatcher evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCCPoison 

Control Center; resulting in underreport of 74% b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the 

hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy. c

 Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS d Based on calculation in Calvert et al., 2008, comparing SENSOR-Pesticides to the National Agricultural Workers Survey

The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 

(SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser (2008) 
*** 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 injuries 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 realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many 

conditions, notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to 

the workplace. 

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 

injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 

According to experts, a major cause of under-reporting may be due to the fact that employers 

may have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries 

and illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. 

There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each 

focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control centers with those 

poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a 

substantial under-reporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the 

under-reporting by physicians (i.e., Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – 

poisoned people not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be 

counted in these studies. 

Harchelroad et al. (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 

toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 

470 exposures that were observed by the emergency 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 potential callers are probably the major 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 identification 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 centers were identified as being less likely to call 

poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases. 

The third study, by Veltri et al. (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 

illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only under-reporting but misreporting may 

occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center could 

be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and injuries 

are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 

poisonings may be consistently low. 

Calvert et al., (2008), estimated incidence rates of agricultural pesticide poisoning, finding that, 

among agricultural workers annual pesticide poisonings occurred at a rate of 51 per 100,000 

farmworkers. Calvert compares these to results from the Department of Labor’s National 

Agricultural Worker’s Survey (NAWS), which in 1999 survey farmworkers about pesticide 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 

exposure, illness and medical treatment. Calvert et al. report, based on the SENSOR-Pesticides 

data, that 0.07% of farmworkers suffer acute occupational pesticide poisonings annually. They 

compare that to the NAWS, which reports that 1.4% of agricultural workers suffered 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 farmworkers received medical treatment 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 underreporting: if 0.53% of the 0.6% were not recorded, that is an 

underreporting rate of 88%. If we were to think about incidents including those where medical 

treatment is not sought, then 1.4% of farmworkers had illness from pesticide exposure, but 

1.33% were not recorded, which is an underreporting rate of 95%. 

There are several reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 

OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 

incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 

above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents; 

 No central reporting point for all incidents; 

 Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings 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 poisonings by RUPs are consistent with the conclusion 

that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely 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 provided at the end of Section 6.5.4 

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided 

For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use a database from the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) called the Sentinel Event Notification 

System for Occupational Exposure (SENSOR-Pesticides). This database contains detail on the 

exposures that led to the incident report, their severity and their causes, although the data are not 

national in scope. SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance program that monitors occupational 

illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a two-year period, 2009 to 2010, 

during which time nine states (California, Florida, 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. These data are used to estimate the proportion of 

incidents that would be avoided under the proposed 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 are 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 focused this query on cases with prevention codes to 

draw upon the training and expertise of NIOSH and the SENSOR-Pesticides state surveillance 

coordinators who investigate and code these cases. However, while investigating deaths and 

high severity cases over time in SENSOR, EPA realized that some relevant incidents were not 

captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or “unknown.” 

To ensure that all relevant cases were considered, EPA took a second step while querying the 

SENSOR-Pesticides data to identify cases to support the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). 

The WPS-relevant cases involve the use of agricultural pesticides used in the production of 

crops. For the WPS-cases, EPA identified whether the incident involved a RUP and compared 

the list to the initial query for 2009 – 2010 certification 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 reported to SENSOR-Pesticides from 2009-2010 that 

involved a pesticide ingredient commonly associated with RUPs. There were initially 197 cases, 

but 55 were removed from consideration. Fifteen were removed because they were either 

intentional exposures, because state follow-up investigation concluded that the 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 workers and handlers under the agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard. EPA is finalizing changes to the Worker Protection Standard, which will 

also prevent acute pesticide poisoning incidents, and these incidents were removed to eliminate 

potential double-counting under both rules. Finally, ten incidents were eliminated because they 

were related to soil fumigant exposures. Recent changes to soil fumigant labeling requiring 

increased training and safety equipment would probably have prevented those incidents. The 

proposed new soil fumigant category in the changes to the certification standards codifies the 

current label requirements, so we do not include those incidents (which occurred before the label 

changes) here. 

Using the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR-Pesticides along with the NIOSH assigned 

prevention codes, EPA was able to identify the proximate causes of the exposure causing the 

incident. EPA reviewed the narrative description of these cases, the information identified in the 

SENSOR-Pesticide database and, additional information from the state if it was available for the 

cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 

the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “preventable” or “possibly 

preventable” by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following guidelines: 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 

 Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the 

application/applicator and the 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 error was possible but the available 

information did not identify any specific applicator errors. 

 Incidents where the proposed changes would not have prevented the incident, or where 

there is not enough information to make a determination: incidents with a clear link 

between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but 

the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 

The review of the SENSOR-Pesticides data identified 100 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 low-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 

unintentional pesticide incidents. Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSORPesticides data. EPA concludes that 70 to 85 percent of RUP incidents would be preventable or 

at least possibly avoidable through the proposed changes. The lower estimate is based on 

avoiding 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 Cases 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 annual avoided cases per 1,000 certified applicators, 

and the national estimate of annual avoided cases. To estimate the annual national number of 

pesticide incidents avoided by this rule, we need to scale the data from the SENSOR-Pesticides 

states that reported RUP incidents to the national level. If we let PIs,l be the number of 

preventable incidents in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and APPs be the number of certified 

applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, then we can define RPs,l = PIs,l/APPs, which will be 

an estimate of the number of preventable incidents 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 per applicator nationally, RPn,l, is equal to RPs,l. Therefore, we can 

estimate the national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RPn,l by the number of 

certified applicators nationally. 

The SENSOR-Pesticides data that we are using is from the years 2009 – 2010. Over those two 

years, the CPARD data on the number of certified applicators show the average number of 

certified applicators as 282,323.5. This number includes existing certified private and 

commercial applicators plus the number of new certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides 

states, averaged for 2009 and 2010. RPs, the rate of preventable incidents per applicator, is 

estimated by taking the number of avoided incidents annually, and dividing it by the average 

number of certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and then scaling the result into 

preventable incidents per 1,000 certified applicators. 

The number of incidents avoided 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 possibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the 

table. For every 1,000 certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, there are an 

estimated 0.213 RUP incidents that are preventable or possibly preventable by the rule. The 

final column in Table 6.5-2 shows the national estimate of avoided RUP incidents. The 

estimates in this column were calculated by multiplying the annual preventable incident rate per 

applicator (RPn,l = RPs,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. These 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 avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 

These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are 

discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the 

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 likely to result in a longer 

period of recovery during which the victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. 

Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to 

estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality. 

Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 

given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by 

ܸ௜

௜ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௩஺
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 

where Vi

Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti] is the expected medical cost for the case, 

and VPLi 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: Low Severity, Moderate 

Severity, High Severity, and Death. 

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 

ሿ௜ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ሻ݅|ܨܥܪሺܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯEሾ

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 

severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 

InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any selftreatments. 

The value of lost productivity is 

VPLi= (ωw·work + ωH·housekeeping + ωL·leisure)·DURi

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 estimates are derived from aggregated estimates 

of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For example, if 10,000 individuals are 

each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, then the value of saving one 

statistical life equals $500 times 10,000 – or $5 million. Note that this does not mean that any 

identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate value of reducing a 

collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this 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 published 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 contains 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 “moderate severity illness or injury,” 5% in “high severity illness 

or injury,” and under 2% in death. The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of low 

or moderate severity. 

Table 6.5-3: Severity of Symptoms from Preventable SENSOR-Pesticides Cases 
*** 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 severity illness or injury 39 32.50% 

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 6 5.00% 

Category S-1: Death 2 1.67% 

Total 120 100.00% 

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 - 2010 

The four severity categories in the SENSOR-Pesticides data are 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 also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically 

the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (<3 days) from 

work or normal activities 

 

 S-3 Moderate severity illness or injury 

This category includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving systemic 

manifestations. Generally, treatment was provided. The individual is able to return to 

normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from work or 

normal activities (3-5 days), compared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual 

impairment is present (although effects may be persistent) 

 S-2 High severity illness 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 depression. The individual sustains substantial loss of time (> 5 

days) from regular work (this can include assignment to limited/light work duties) or 

normal activities (if not employed). This level of severity might include the need for 

continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and 

limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 

permanent functional impairment 

 S-1 Death 

This category describes a human fatality resulting from exposure to one or more 

pesticides. 

Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 

the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5-2, EPA estimates the distribution of 

preventable RUP incidents across the four severity levels. Table 6.5-4 shows the estimated 

number of national incidents that may be prevented by the rule for each severity level, based 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 Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity 

 

Estimate of Number of 

Cases Prevented 

Annually 

Clinical Effect Share of Total

Low End 

Estimate 

(70%) 

High End 

Estimate 

(85%) 

Category S-4: 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 illness or injury 5.0% 8 10 

Category S-1: Death 1.7% 2.65 3.18 

 

Total 100.0% 158.77 190.53 

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3. 

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers, except for “Death” and the total. Death estimates are later revised based 

on further investigation, as shown in Table 6.5-10 and 6.5-11. 

6.5.4.1 Additional Sources for Counting Preventable Deaths 

Because deaths from pesticide exposure are such infrequent events, there is concern that only 

using two 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 unintentional fatalities over time. 

In addition to the SENSOR-Pesticides data, there were two other sources with information on 

deaths from pesticide exposure: Annual reports prepared by the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers (AAPCC) and the EPA’s Incident Data 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-certified poison centers11. There are 

currently 57 certified poison centers. Poison center staff are health care professionals and are 

 

11 More information about the data available from the NPDS 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 charge, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In addition 

to responding to calls from the general public, staff also field calls from health care professionals 

and the public health agencies. The poison centers collectively receive over 3.6 million call 

encounters annually. These are primarily consumer oriented incident calls rather than 

occupational “work related” incident calls (Bronstein et al., 2011). EPA does not have access to 

the raw data from the NPDS, and only summary information on pesticide events is available for 

incidents that did not result in deaths. However, for poisoning incidents that did result in deaths, 

including pesticide incidents, the AAPCC annual reports include an appendix of case abstracts 

that provide more information on deaths, with a description of the scenario in which the 

poisoning occurred and the treatment received (American Association of Poison Control Centers, 

1999 – 2012). These descriptions in the annual reports are not a full list of deaths reported to the 

AAPCC, because only a subset of fatal cases are chosen for reporting. Case abstracts presented 

in the annual reports meet a number of criteria by AAPCC report authors (e.g., completeness of 

therapy details, educational value of the incident, etc.). 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 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, reports from other federal and state health and 

environmental agencies and individual consumers. Case reports or “narratives” may be provided 

for the reported incidents, with varying levels of detail; however, there is no effort at validating 

or assessing how likely it is that the reported exposure is causally related to the reported 

outcome. This system receives information pertaining to occupational and consumer oriented 

incidents. OPP focused on incidents categorized at the highest severity level (death). 

These two sources were investigated to determine if there was information that would shed 

additional light on the frequency of preventable deaths from RUPs. The data from the AAPCC 

annual reports was available from 1999 – 2012, and there were 13 deaths that EPA staff 

determined were a result of a preventable exposure to an RUP. The EPA IDS was queried from 

2008 – 2014, and showed a total of six deaths that EPA staff classified as preventable. A 

summary of the information about deaths from these different databases is provided in Table 6.5-

5. EPA considered several methods for combining the additional information from AAPCC and 

IDS to better estimate the number of deaths prevented by the rule annually, without any potential 

double counting of the information already available from SENSOR-Pesticides, or from earlier 

years of SENSOR-Pesticides data. 

When using the SENSOR-Pesticides data set from 2009 – 2010 to create Table 6.5-4, we 

extrapolated from the SENSOR-Pesticides states to the national level by creating an index of 

incidents per certified applicator, which yielded an estimate of 2.65 to 3.18 preventable deaths 

per year. The simplest way to estimate the number of deaths prevented by the rule is to look at 

the total number of preventable deaths across all the data sets for the years in which all are 

available, without any scaling to the national level for SENSOR-Pesticides data. By using three 

different data sets and only using unique incidents, a reasonable estimate can be obtained without 

double counting. There are only three years for which all three data 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 preventable 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 three preventable deaths reported in IDS for 2010 (none for other 

years), one of which was a duplicate to a report in SENSOR-Pesticides, leaving two unique 

deaths. This suggests that our extrapolation from the SENSOR-Pesticides data in 2009 – 2010 

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 SENSOR-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 three years available for all three data sets. 

Another possible approach is using the maximum years available, from 1999 – 2014, over which 

time there were 21 unique preventable deaths, or 1.31 per year. The problem with this approach 

is that the correct number of years is not obvious, because none of the data sets spans the entire 

range. That would not be of concern if most of the 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 counting the incidents, one option is to combine the 

initial SENSOR-Pesticides estimate for deaths with new estimates from AAPCC and the IDS. 

The estimated rate for the nation estimated from SENSOR-Pesticides is between 2.65 and 3.18 

preventable deaths per year. We exclude any deaths that were reported in AAPCC that were also 

reported in the SENSOR-Pesticides data from 2009 – 2010; there were two, leaving 11 unique 

preventable deaths reported by AAPCC between 1999 and 2012, or 0.786 per year. Finally, we 

consider the IDS cases reported from 2008 – 2014. There were five unique preventable deaths 

from IDS, or an estimated 0.714 per year, although data for 2014 are incomplete. Because these 

estimates from the three different data sources only consider unique preventable deaths, they can 

be added together, which would yield between 4.15 and 4.68 estimated preventable deaths per 

year. 

However, the estimate based on SENSOR-Pesticides data from 2009 – 2010 was extrapolated to 

the national level, and hypothetically, one of the cases from AAPCC or IDS could have been one 

of the cases accounted for by the extrapolation. For that reason, instead of using the estimate of 

preventable deaths from Table 6.5-4 as our starting point, we use only the reported estimates 

from SENSOR-Pesticides, not the extrapolated figures. Two preventable deaths from RUP 

exposure were reported in SENSOR-Pesticides from 2009 – 2010, or one per year. This is a 

conservative estimate because SENSOR-Pesticides only covers a few states, but we use it here. 

Combining that number with estimates from the unique incidents from AAPCC and IDS yields 

an estimate of 2.50 preventable deaths per year. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 

Table 6.5-5: Summary of Pesticide Deaths 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 transferred to a beverage container, 

misuse of RUPs in or around homes, faulty equipment 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 presented below (in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11). The 

estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated 

number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is 

likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 6.5.2. 

Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost 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 particular, these estimates do not: (1) address the value 

of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness (i.e., 

defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 

consider person’s anticipated value of preventing illness values (they are based on ex post costs); 

and (5) consider whether treatment returns individuals to their original health state (i.e., is 

equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely). 

In Table 6.5-4, 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 avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 

hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except 

“death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 

sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost 

productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 

illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 
*** 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 

ሿ௜ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ሻ݅|ܨܥܪሺܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯEሾ

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 

treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 

In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 

used the SENSOR-Pesticides information for those cases which deemed preventable or possibly 

preventable for 2009 - 2010. The SENSOR-Pesticides data has a variable which indicates 

whether medical care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a physician’s 

office, an emergency room, or admitted to a hospital. Table 6.5-6 presents the number of cases 

that were seen at a health care facility, the total number of cases over these years, as well as the 

each category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure 

of the probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we use the share of cases 

from that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-6. It is not 

surprising that the share receiving medical care is so high, because to be included in the 

SENSOR-Pesticides database requires at least two reportable symptoms of pesticide exposure, 

and because the cases treated by medical professionals 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 illness or injury 5 6 83% 

 

Source: SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 – 2010. Incidents from Category S-1, death, are not included, so the total 

number of preventable cases is 118. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare 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 Group 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 data from physician visit benchmark fees for 

evaluation and management costs 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 health care professionals)12. 

Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 

established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 

describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 

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 exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, 

the average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $72.17. That cost seems low, but the 

data reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those 

services. This may be an underestimate, which would imply that the outpatient cost is 

underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 

Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 

treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-7. 

Table 6.5-7 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect 

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF|i) Outpatient 

Cost 

Inpatient 

Cost 

Expected 

Medical 

Cost 1

Category S-4: 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

 

12The 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 the 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 

Eሾܸܲܮ௜ሿ ൌ ሺ߱௪ݎ݋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 adult. 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 weighted average wage rate for adult private and 

commercial certified pesticide applicators, weighted using the number of certified applicators of 

each type in 2014 (see Section 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $38.41 per hour. This is an 

assumption made for simplicity, but the affected person may not be a certified applicator, and 

wages vary by occupation. This analysis assumes 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 representative, given the 

occupations available, for the value of housekeeping 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-tax 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, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 

Table 6.5-8 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day 

week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 

estimated to be $467.87 per day. 
*** 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 $38.41c $211.80 

Housekeeping 1.78 a $11.23d $18.07 

Leisure 8.71 b $27.12e $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 work13. 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 level of severity might 

include the need for continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of 

work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 

permanent functional impairment.” This description indicates that the damage from an RUP 

incident could last substantially 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 category, 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 average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 

with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 

days, is multiplied by the value of a full day 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 Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by 

Clinical Effect 

Clinical Effect Scenario 

Duration of 

Clinical 

Effect (Days) E[VPLi] a

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury Low-End 1.5 $701.79 

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury High-end 3 $1,403.58 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or 

injury Low-End 3 $1,403.58 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or 

injury High-end 5 $2,339.31 

Category S-2: High severity illness or injury Low-End 5 $2,339.31 

Category S-2: High severity illness or injury High-end 30 $14,035.83 

Sources: EPA calculations 

a

The unit cost for lost productivity day by severity category was calculated by multiplying the average 

duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($467.86). 

The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 

The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA 

(2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The 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 medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 

productivity is included in the VSL. 

Annual Average Benefits, Avoided 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 productivity costs, and the 

value of premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all 

severity levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-10 shows the low end 

estimates, which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the 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 Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the 

Certification Rule 

Clinical Effect 

Avoided 

Cases per 

Year 

Medical 

Costs per 

Case 

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case 

Premature 

Mortality 

per Case 

Average Annual 

Total Cost 

Avoided 

Category S-4: 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 average annual costs are rounded. 

Table 6.5-11: “High-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the 

Certification Rule 

Clinical Effect 

Avoided 

Cases per 

Year 

Medical 

Costs per 

Case 

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case 

Premature 

Mortality 

per Case 

Average 

Annual Total 

Cost Avoided 

Category S-4: 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 average 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 analysis, the present value of these benefits is 

between $172 million and $175 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between 

$141 million and $144 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied. Note that these 

estimates are based on the number of deaths using additional sources of information to the 

SENSOR-Pesticides data, as described in Section 6.5.4.1. Therefore, the estimated number of 

preventable deaths per year, 2.50, is lower than either the low- or high-end estimates (2.65 or 

3.18 preventable deaths per year) based on SENSOR-Pesticides alone, which were shown in 

Table 6.5-4. The overall estimates of the benefits for the rule are lower than they would be if 

only the SENSOR-Pesticides 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. Because of the substantial value associated with 

preventing a death from RUPs, the estimates are very sensitive to the estimate of deaths 

prevented, although we use the most conservative estimate available here. Also, as discussed 

above, we expect that a large proportion of accidental (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 the poisoning surveillance databases 

and, hence, not included in this analysis. This under-reporting will bias estimates of acute 

benefits downward. 

In Table 6.5-12, we show the effect of under-reporting at different rates on our monetized 

estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% under-reporting), 

the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-12 shows a range of 

benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 10%), 

which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and under-reporting is equally 

likely in all poisoning cases across all severity levels, then the high-end estimate of the value of 

prevented poisoning due to the rule would be over $204 million per year, substantially higher 

than those reported above, which assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects 

associated with these unreported acute exposures are also not known. If reporting rates vary by 

severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, 

then the effects of under-reporting would be correspondingly 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 betweenapproximately $47.2 million per year, based on a 3% 

discount rate (see Chapter 5). If we assume that there is no under-reporting of RUP incidents, 

then the annual estimated benefits from the rule do not reach that level. Annual benefits of $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 and lost productivity to 

workers. 

Table 6.5-12. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions 

about Under-reporting 

Share of 

Cases 

Reported 

Low-End 

Estimate of 

Prevented 

Cases 

Low-End 

Estimate of 

Benefits 

High-End 

Estimate of 

Prevented 

Cases 

High-End 

Estimate of 

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 under-reporting is equal across all severity levels. 

It is plausible that deaths, for example, are less likely to be underreported than less severe events, 

although the lack of duplication in the available databases discussed above suggests this may not 

be the case. Because such a large portion of the overall value is from prevented deaths, different 

assumptions about reporting rates are important. For example, if 100% of deaths were reported, 

even if we assumed that that only 10% of less severe incidents were reported would not yield 

annual benefits that exceeded the annual costs – the estimated benefits would be about $27 

million annually at the high-end. For the estimated acute benefits of 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 include only the effects of reduced 

illness from acute exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section, 

which will discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 

families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 

6.6. Risks to Human Health from Chronic RUP Exposure 

In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 

presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 

reflected in the estimates, e.g., potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 

are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. 

EPA anticipates that benefits from reduced chronic health effects would accrue primarily to 

commercial pesticide applicators, since they are most likely to face long-term minor exposures, 

but there may also be benefits from reduced exposure to applicators’ families and those working 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

43 

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. This section will describe the potential 

chronic health effects to commercial pesticide applicators from pesticide exposure. 

It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 

outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. Available data do not establish a causal link 

between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information finding correlations 

between pesticide exposure and illness is compelling enough to suggest some of the observed 

statistical associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. 

Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through changes to the certification rule may 

have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time. 

While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 

pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 

evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically, several 

epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within 

different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before 

researchers can move from a statistical association to a causal determination. The environmental 

epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in terms of both quantity and quality of pesticide 

epidemiology studies, and EPA expects additional causal links between pesticide exposure and 

adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time. However, at this 

time, EPA is not making definitive causal connections between any one specific pesticide 

exposure and a specific adverse health outcome. 

Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real 

world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposurechronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 

the scientific peer- reviewed literature, 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 (such as cancer, neurological, 

respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result from 

pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to 

specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. 

There are several ongoing studies with large agricultural cohorts funded by federal governments 

in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within these populations suggest several plausible hypotheses 

to link pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The most notable of these is the Agricultural 

Health Study14 funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and 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 their spouses. The nature of this powerful 

epidemiologic study design allows investigators to examine many different adverse health 

outcomes within the study population, i.e., pesticide exposure is ascertained 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 Norway 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 underway 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 collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 

as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 

(Yoo et al., 2002). These investigators have initiated a collaborative effort, AGRICOH, which is 

designed to encourage international collaboration. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine countries 

pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from 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 times the cancellation of pesticide 

products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 

contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 

necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g., if the pesticide was already cancelled or 

withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 

pesticide product formulation changes and other factors may have resulted in significant changes 

in the use of pesticides over the last several decades, which is the relevant period for 

investigating chronic effects with typically long latency periods such as cancer. As a result, 

studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with caution when applied to 

current use patterns. 

Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 

linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early life exposures may occur from 

pesticides that are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pesticide applicators and brought into 

the applicator home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take 

home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or an agricultural worker may bring pesticide 

residues home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). 

These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information are evaluated to 

determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health effects in the 

applicator population and their families. EPA takes action to mitigate the estimated risks of 

individual pesticides to human health. However, there are also instances in which there is cause 

for concern over generalized pesticide exposure (beyond those that can be modeled using 

aggregate and/or cumulative risk assessment practices). The proposed rule changes are also 

designed to protect against commercial pesticide applicator exposures from all RUPs even when 

the causal link between individual pesticides and specific health outcomes is not demonstrated. 

In this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic health effects that result from 

pesticide exposure. These case study examples are selected for discussion here because they 

meet EPA data quality standards, and due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the 

hypothesized link, the number of studies 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, estimates 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, there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 

associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical cancer sites, with biological 

plausibility illustrated in experimental toxicology studies. Many studies have evaluated other 

possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. While it is premature to state there is a 

causal association between the studied pesticides and cancer in the applicator population, EPA 

presents this information to demonstrate the growing body of knowledge as to possible chronic 

health effects of pesticide exposure. 

Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 

articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide 

exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 

specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 

cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 

exposure (Bassil et al.; 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele 

et al.; 2011; Wigle et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2009; Alavanja and Bonner, 2012; and Alavanja et 

al., 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 

pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 

agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses 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 importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 

pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 

engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009). 

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 

example, since the 1980s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 

exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al., 1997). 

Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973 -1990, a time period 

coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (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 translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 

as a result of pesticide exposure; however, this is not known with certainty at this time. 

Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative 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; however, additional research is necessary to 

understand whether the link is causal in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and 

other farm related exposures may contribute 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 the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed 

while pregnant (Bassil et al., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies 

included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether publication bias 

was a factor in the results of this review. 

In the Bassil et al. (2007) review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 

examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 

the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 

associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 

pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 

pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 

postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 

risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al., 2007). 

Wigle et al. (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 

exposure to pesticides and leukemia in farmworkers’ children. They found no evidence of a 

direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report 

an association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides 

and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other 

related exposures. 

Prostate Cancer 

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 

are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 

disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al., 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 

prostate cancer, which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 

non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 

members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 

increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al., 2010a). Case-control analysis within the AHS 

suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 

only among men with a family history 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 corroborates this initial finding (Mahajan et al., 2006 and 2007; 

Christensen et al., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure 

varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 

that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 

not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic 

variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 

and prostate cancer (Koutros et al., 2010b). Since these genetic variations do not fully explain 

the cancer relationships within a family, other shared environmental exposures may play an 

important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, possibly 

due to differing study designs used. 

Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 

this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al. 2012). For the 

purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 

outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 

a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 

among those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. 

This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 

and prostate cancer. It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the 

aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 

slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 

to distinguish clear causal pathways. However, the study is supportive of previous work 

concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 

the AHS. 

Lung Cancer 

There have been studies on thereporting a link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. 

Alavanja et al. (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide 

exposure among the AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with 

lung cancer risk in the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort 

is lower than the population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between 

pesticides and lung cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004). 

6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects 

Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide 

exposure; however, none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 

investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are 

preliminary investigations, other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 

However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 

and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general 

neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the proposed changes to the 

certification rule reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, 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 pesticide 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. Study participants included licensed 

private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 

contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of 

PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those 

who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a doseresponse relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no 

association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has 

recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant selfreporting of PD, and authors reported statistically 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 association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. 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 effects of pesticides in a review, and found 

most (39/41) studies displayed an increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 

association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 

preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 

depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al., 2007). Kamel et al. (2007), 

using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide 

exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. 

Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies (Rauh 

et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2011; and Bouchard et al., 2011) have investigated the relationship 

between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 

neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 

al., 2011) reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides 

and adverse neurological symptoms. The authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data 

at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of 

action, among other study characteristics. 

Respiratory Function 

Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 

effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 

trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 

asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 

several studies have shown an association between 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 between exposure to a range of pesticides and asthma in farm 

women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of asthma attacks. This 

study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an important effect from 

generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families, rather than exposure as a pesticide 

applicator. An association has been reported for children, as well. Salam et al. (2004) describe a 

range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and 

other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with early onset asthma. An 

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 between 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 obstructive pulmonary disease that makes 

it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 

Hoppin et al. (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and 

chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an association that was stronger among those with a 

high pesticide exposure event. 

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 

Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause-effect relation 

between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes. However, the totality 

of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with 

plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic 

adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 

and standards. 

The proposed changes to the certification rule are designed to reduce occupational exposure to 

all RUPs, as well as reduce non-occupational exposure to the families of 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 health through reduced chronic 

illness (Section 6.6 above). In general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations 

between exposure and illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health 

effects of specific pesticides for use in a benefits 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 occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 

effects on the health and welfare of those who suffer from these diseases. These illnesses do not 

only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by family 

members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those stricken with 

illness. 

Because of the uncertainties in the number of chronic illnesses that may be caused by, and 

therefore prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

50 

of pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. 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 for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for 

slower-growing NHL (Kutikova, et al., 2006). For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment 

over 5 and half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al., 2006). These costs are only 

treatment costs, which is an under-estimate of the true cost of illness. 

EPA’s preferred approach for valuation of reduced risk is to use an estimate of “willingness to 

pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (EPA, 2010). As described in Freeman 

(2003), this measure consists of four components: 

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 

activities; and 

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected. 

As with the estimated value of prevented acute illness in Section 6.5, we are unable to use the 

WTP to value prevented chronic illnesses, but the WTP for these serious chronic illnesses is 

surely much higher than the cost of illness estimates provided above. This indicates that 

prevention of these illnesses would have substantial value. 
*** 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 addressed 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 activities that must be approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in accordance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. 

Therefore, EPA prepared a rule-related ICR document (EPA ICR number 2499.01; OMB 

Control No. 2070-NEW) to address the information collection requirements contained in the 

proposed rule and the related total incremental burden related. 

The rule-related ICR addresses various the paperwork requirements contained in the propose 

rule, including: 

 Annual reports required from States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies with EPA 

approved certification programs. 

 Pesticide dealer record keeping. 

 Commercial applicator records for both federal and state agencies. 

 Certified applicator training for both private and commercial applicators including 

records and exams. 

 Noncertified commercial and private applicator training record keeping 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 products which are ancillary to the Certification 

ICR and have not been changed. The burden estimates for anthrax products is due to the 

requirement for anthrax product registrants to develop trainings, exams, and keep records of 

purchases of anthrax products. This annual burden is estimated to include 87 hours and $5,050 

in costs both of which are included respectively in the total estimates below. 

Because of the changes to existing requirements as well as new requirements under the proposed 

rule, there will be an estimated increased burden for information collection related 

activities. The total annual hours for the information collection related activities associated with 

this action is estimated to be 1,853,117 hours for all respondents. This represents a 140 percent 

increase in the number of hours estimated in the currently-approved ICR, bringing the total 

burden of activities under this ICR to 3,173,371 hours. The total annual cost burden annualized 

at 3% for the information collection related activities associated with this action are estimated to 

be $57,363,250 for all respondents, an increase of 134 percent in paperwork costs over the 

currently-approved ICR. The total annual paperwork cost of activities 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 Lubin, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP 

Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the 

agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85. 

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A 

Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 

Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide 

applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 

January 15, 2013. 

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, 

Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and 

prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 

1;157(9):800-14. 

Anger WK, Patterson L, Fuchs M, Will LL, Rohlman, DS, Learning and Recall of Worker 

Protection Standard (WPS) Training in Vineyard Workers, Journal of Agromedicine, 

14:336–344, 2009. 

American Association of Poison Control Centers. 2000 – 2013. Annual Reports from 1999 – 

2012, available here: http://www.aapcc.org/annual-reports/ 

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit 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. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in 

the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health 

Policy, Summer:9(2). 

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of 

pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11. 

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential 

Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Time Series." Environmental 

International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209. 

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al. 2005. 

Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study 

cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079. 
*** 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 study. Annals of epidemiology, 

15(4), 279-285. 

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural 

Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125–131. 

Bildfell RJ, Rumbeiha WK, Schuler KL, Meteyer CU, Wolff PL, and Gillin CM. A review of 

episodes of zinc phosphide toxicosis in wild geese (Branta spp.) in Oregon (2004-2011). 

Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 2013 25: 162. 

Blondel, Jerome and Monica Spann. Review of the methyl parathion incident reports DP 

Barcode D242333, Chemical #053501, Reregistration Case #0153. 

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-053501_5-Feb98_039.pdf 

BLS. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age, including median age. 

Demographics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013). 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm, accessed June 2014 

BLS. 2014b. OES Research Estimates by State and Industry, various Sectors, May 2013. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes_research_estimates_2012.htm, accessed June 2014

BLS. 2014c. Occupational 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. Occupational 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 Labor 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 weekly 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 Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analyses: A Case Study 

Involving Endangered Species. Water Resources Research 23(5): 943-950. 

Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta, D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S 

Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G 

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 environment and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE 

PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect. 117, 117–121 

Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum, C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M 

Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pesticide-related illnesses among working youths, 

1988-1999. Am J Public Health, 93:605-610. 

Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L 

Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga-McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide 

poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. 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 Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, 

and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male 

participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives, 

118(1):92-6. 

Coronado, G D, et al. “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Work in Pome Fruit: Evidence 

for the Take-home Pesticide Pathway.” Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 999-

1006. 

CPARD. 2014. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State 

University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/. 

Curl, CL, et al. “Evaluation of Take-home Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure Among 

Agricultural Workers and their Children.” Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 12 (2002): 

A787-A792. 

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja. 

2005. Pesticide contamination inside 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 Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and 

MC 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 21st Century: The Findings and Proposals of the 

Certification & Training Assessment Group. January 1999. 

http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag/pdf/1999_21stCentRpt.pdf 

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among 

migrant farm 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 Survey (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 Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

Dun and Bradstreet. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and 

Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS 

Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and 

performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic 

pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 165(12):1397-404. 

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to 

organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ 

Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8. 

EPA. 2014a. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Agricultural Worker Standard Revisions. 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA. 

Available at regulations.gov, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184. 

EPA. 2014b. Personal communication with North Carolina, California, Indiana, Wyoming and 

Florida on the subject of communication between certified applicators and noncertified 

applicators under their direct supervision. 

EPA. 2014c. National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program. Web page: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm

EPA. 2014d. Proprietary data on pesticide use. 

EPA. 2012. Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting 

held April 10 – 12, 2012 on Chlorpyrifos Health Effects. Memorandum, July 11, 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2012/april/041012minutes.pdf 

EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) 

Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.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/pages/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 Exposure Factors Handbook. September 2008. 

http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=484738 

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf. 

EPA. 2006. EPA Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s 

Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (40 CFR Part 171). July 2006. 

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 

non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological 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 Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 

2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in 

young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect. 115:792–798. 

Fortenberry GZ and Calvert GM, Identifying contributing factors associated with restricted use 

pesticides (RUPs), unpublished document, April 22, 2014. 

Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and 

Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives, 

Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362. 

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic 

exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet 

Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April. 

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin 

Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?" 

Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706. 

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP 

Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the 

Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376. 

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al. 2007. 

Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am 

J Ind Med 50:969–979. 
*** 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/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html, accessed February, 24, 

2011. 

Johnston, R. Ranson, M.Besedin, E.Helm, E. “What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A 

Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Values” Marine Resource Economics Vol 21:1-

32, 2006 

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M 

Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self-reported 

Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol, 165:364-74. 

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report No. 

60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June. 

Karpf, Elissa. Results of Assessments of Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl 

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

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/900K1G00.PDF?Dockey=900K1G00.PDF 

Kotchen, Matthew J. and Reiling, Stephen D., Environmental attitudes, motivations, and 

contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species, 

Ecological Economics 32(1): 93-107. 

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE 

Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098-105. 

Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, 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 Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, 

JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and 

Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American 

Journal of Epidemiology, 177(1):59-74. Epub 2012 Nov 21, 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882. 

Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors 

of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ 

Health. 22(1):14-26, Feb. 

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs 

associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years 

of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544. 

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the 

Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural 

Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov. 
*** 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 chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J 

Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791. 

Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M 

Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Baldi, 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, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, 

Rundle A. Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as 

determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment Am J Public Health. 2011 

Jan;101(1):63-70 

Lozier MJ, Curwin B, Nishioka MG, Sanderson W. Determinants of atrazine contamination in 

the homes of commercial pesticide applicators across time. J Occup Environ Hyg. 

2012;9(5):289-97 

Lu C, Fenske R, Simcox N, Kalman D. Pesticide exposure of children in an agricultural 

community: evidence of household proximity to farmland and take home exposure 

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, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl 

exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 

15;121(8):1799-805. 

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 

2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American 

children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect. 118(12):1768-74, Dec. 

McCauley, LA, et al. “Work Characteristics and Pesticide Exposures Among Migrant 

Agricultural Families: a Community-based Research Approach.” Environ Health 

Perspect 109, no. 5 (2001): 533-538. 

NASS. 2014a. Crop Production: 2013 Summary. January, 2014. 

http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-10-2014.pdf 

NASS. 2014b. Crop Values: 2013 Summary. February, 2014. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-14-2014.pdf 

NASS. 2014c. 2012 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics 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/Statistics_by_State/Indiana/Publications/Ag_Report/2012/agrS

pecCrop.pdf 

NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012a. National 

Pesticide Applicator Certification Core 

Manual. http://nasda.org/9381/Foundation/11379/11383/6684.aspx 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012b. 

Framework for the National Soil Fumigation Manual and Exam Item 

Bank. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=4185 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2011a. Aerial 

Applicator's Manual. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3786

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research 

Foundation. 2011b. National Right-of-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/cancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

NIOSH. 2001. Severity Index for Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-Related 

Illness and Injury. Web page revised 11/27/01. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sevindexv6.pdf 

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 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/omb/circulars_a004_a-4. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2013. Bumblebee incidents result in pesticide violations, 

Press Release, December 19, 2013. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/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 Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201. 

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use 

and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of 

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314–320. 

Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Sixth Edition, 

available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/recognition-andmanagement-pesticide-poisonings

Richardson, Leslie and John Loomis. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered 

and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548. 

Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral 

Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, 

Neurotoxicology. 2011 March; 32(2): 268–276. 

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 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 Benefits,” 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-life 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 Bassil, 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 Standards. U.S. Small Business Administration. At 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_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 affective 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 wildlife poisoning cases. 

International Game Warden, Winter 2005: 8 – 13. 

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok 

GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez 

HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and 

Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72. 

Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is April 18, Five Days Later Than Last Year. 

April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/article/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 Environmental Epidemiology (2014) 24, 522–531. 

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential 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 Lison. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides 

and childhood leukaemia: a systematic 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 Exposure 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 occupational pesticide 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 Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer 

Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21. 

WHO IARC. 1999. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 

Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides: 

Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation. Available here: 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf 

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking 

Carbofuran Tolerances. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. EPA. 

Vyas, Nimish (1999). Factors influencing estimation of pesticide-related wildlife mortality. 

Toxicology and Industrial Health, 15: 186 – 191. 

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center 

Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of 

Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92. 

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, 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 Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes 

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33. 

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 

Suppl 3:893-908, June.