Economic Analysis of the 

Bulk Pesticide Container 

Design and Residue 

Removal Standards 

June 1, 2006 
Executive Summary of the Economic Analysis of the Final Pesticide Container Design and 

Residue Removal Standards 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the standards for pesticide container 

design and residue removal as required under Section 19 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The final standards include design and labeling requirements for 

non-refillable and refillable pesticide containers to ensure that 

1. containers are strong and durable; 

2. minimize human and environmental exposure during container handling; 

3. facilitate container disposal and recycling; 

4. minimize cross-contamination of pesticides distributed in refillable containers; 

5. codify safe refilling management practices; 

6. encourage the us e of refillable containers to reduce container disposal problems; and 

7. provide instructions for proper cleaning of pesticide containers. 

The improvements made in the design of pesticide containers and the removal of residues from 

containers prior to disposal as a result of the final pesticide container standards are expected to 

benefit pesticide users, non-users and the environment through a reduction in exposure to 

pesticides from unintended pesticide container spills and leaks. 

The total annual cost of compliance with the final standards to the regulated industries (i.e., 

pesticide registrants, agricultural pesticide refillers, and swimming pool applicators) is estimated 

at $8.4 million. This estimate is based on an examination of the current level of compliance of 

pesticide containers with the final standards, and the cost of moving from the current level of 

compliance to the final standards. The cost to pesticide registrants is estimated at $5.6 million 

per year. None of the more than 1,800 pesticide registrant companies (including 1,658 small 

businesses as defined by SBA) subject to the final standards are estimated to be significantly 

impacted by compliance with the final standards (the ratio of the cost of compliance to current 

industry average revenues for all businesses is estimated to be less than 0.02 percent). Pesticide 

registrants are responsible for ensuring that pesticide containers are designed in accordance with 

the final container design and labeling standards, and for following the pesticide container 

refilling requirements for pesticide containers in the agricultural and 

industrial/commercial/government pesticide markets. 

Agricultural pesticide refillers and swimming pool applicators are responsible for following the 

pesticide container refilling requirements for containers in the agricultural pesticide market and 

pool chemicals market, respectively. The estimated annual cost of compliance with the final 

pesticide container standards for pesticide refillers is $2.6 million. For swimming pool 

applicators, the estimated annual cost of compliance is $0.2 million. As is the case with 

pesticide registrants, none of the estimated 16,795 agricultural pesticide refilling businesses (of 

which16,642 are small businesses as defined by SBA) and 322 swimming pool supply 

companies (of which 305 are small businesses as defined by SBA) are estimated to be 

significantly impacted by compliance with the final standards (the ratio of the cost of compliance 

to current industry average revenues for all businesses in each industry is estimated to be less 

than 0.01 percent) 
The human health-related benefits expected as a result of the final pesticide container standards 

include a reduction in the estimated number of unintentional container-related pesticide human 

exposures of an estimated 610 to 768 incidents per year. This amounts to an estimated $264,051 

to $332,311 in avoided costs of illness per year. The non-human health-related benefits expected 

as a result of the final rule include a cost savings of $4.5 million from the disposal of 

nonrefillable containers as nonhazardous rather than hazardous material, because of compliance 

with the container standards. We are unable to quantify other non-health related benefits of the 

final rule, but they include a reduction in the number of unintentional pesticide exposures to 

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, and avoided costs of property damage/spill cleanup costs from 

pesticide container-related spills. 

The pesticide container design and residue removal standards were proposed in 1994. In 

response to public comments submitted on the proposed standards, a number of changes were 

made to the proposed pesticide container design and residue removal standards, and these 

changes are reflected in the final rule. The changes result in a reduction in the total estimated 

cost of compliance with the pesticide container standards by as much as 80 percent from the 

proposed rule (which was originally estimated at $40.1 million to $55.5 million per year for 

compliance with the proposed standards (EPA preferred option), compared to $8.4 million for 

the current final standards). The lower estimated costs are due in part to the exemption in the 

final rule of household pesticide product labels from containing language requiring triple rinsing 

of nonrefillable pesticide containers prior to disposal. As a result of this change, no end user 

impacts are estimated in the final rule, which were estimated at more than $8 million in the 

proposed rule impact analysis. Other significant changes in the regulations for the final rule, 

which led to decreased costs for the industries impacted by the rule include reference to and the 

adoption of existing Department of Transportation (DOT) standards in the regulations, and the 

relaxation of the residue removal standard for nonrefillable containers from 99.9999 percent to 

99.99 percent. 

In general, the expected benefits of the pesticide container standards are similar between the 

proposed and final rule. Due to the availability of more detailed data on pesticide containerrelated human exposures, the estimated number of pesticide container-related human exposure 

incidents avoided as a result of the pesticide container standards declined from an estimated 

1,650 to 2,250 incidents avoided per year as a result of the proposed standards, to an estimated 

610 to 768 incidents avoided per year as a result of the final standards. And, due to the change in 

the scope of the pesticide container standards, which resulted in fewer nonrefillable containers 

affected by the final rule, the nonrefillable container disposal benefits (from reduced hazardous 

waste) declined by more than 30 percent from the proposed to the final rule.
Page i 

Contents 

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Need for Regulation........................................................................................................ 2 

1.2 Regulatory Background of the Final Rule...................................................................... 3 

1.3 Scope of the Economic Analysis for the Final Pesticide Rule ....................................... 5 

1.4 Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Final Rule ............................................................. 5 

1.4.1 Costs Summary................................................................................................... 6 

1.4.2 Benefits Summary ............................................................................................ 11 

1.5 Limitations of the Final Rule Economic Analysis........................................................ 11 

2.0 Final Rule Standards and Comparison of the Costs and Benefits of the Final and the 

Proposed Rule Standards ....................................................................................................... 13 

2.1 Final Rule Standards..................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Changes in Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal Standards from the 

Proposed to the Final Rule............................................................................................ 16 

2.3 Response to Comments to the Proposed Standards...................................................... 18 

2.4 Comparison of the Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Final and Proposed Standards

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

3.0 Pesticide Container Compliance Profile................................................................................ 23 

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 23 

3.2 Pesticide Container Universe........................................................................................ 28 

3.3 The Implications of the Scope of the Regulations on the Container Estimates ........... 33 

3.3.1 Manufacturing Use Products and Plant-Incorporated Protectants.................... 35 

3.3.2 Antimicrobial Pesticide Products ..................................................................... 35 

3.3.3 Non-Exempt Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers: 

Toxicity Categories I and II.............................................................................. 37 

3.3.4 Non-Exempt Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers: 

Restricted Use Products.................................................................................... 38 

3.3.5 Non-Exempt Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers: 

Toxicity Categories III and IV That Are Not Restricted Use Products............ 39 

3.3.6 Summary of Pesticide Container Scope Criteria .............................................. 39 

3.4 Regulatory Compliance Baseline ................................................................................. 44 

3.4.1 Regulatory Compliance Rates for Non-Refillable Containers ......................... 44 

3.4.2 Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refillable Containers ................................. 50 

3.4.3 Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refilling Activities..................................... 55 

4.0 Pesticide Container Standards Cost Analysis........................................................................ 58 

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 58 

4.2 The Basic Framework of the Cost Analysis ................................................................. 59 

4.3 Characteristics of the Regulated Entities That Are Inputs to the Cost Analysis .......... 62 

4.4 Estimating the Costs of Complying with the Final Regulations .................................. 64 

4.4.1 Estimate the Number of Pesticide Containers in Each Market Sector ............. 65 

4.4.2 Estimate the Number of Pesticide Containers in Each Market Sector That Fall 

Within the Scope of the Container Rule........................................................... 65 

4.4.3 Allocate Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule in Each Market 

Sector to Each of the Size Classes.................................................................... 66 
Page ii 

4.4.4 For Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule, Estimate the Number 

of Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule That Are Out of 

Compliance with That Regulation.................................................................... 67 

4.4.5 For Each Regulation Under the Container Rule, Estimate the Number of 

Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule That Are Out of Compliance 

with That Regulation – for the Average Registrant in Each Combination of 

Market Sector and Size Class ........................................................................... 70 

4.4.6 Estimate the Cost, in Each Year of a 20-Year Period, of Bringing Containers 

into Compliance................................................................................................ 70 

4.4.7 Calculate the Present Discounted Value of the 20-Year Stream of Costs........ 74 

4.4.8 Calculate the Annualized Cost of Complying with Each Regulation .............. 75 

4.4.9 Estimate the Annualized Cost of Complying with All Regulations per Average 

Regulated Entity in Each Combination of Market Sector and Size Class – 

Assuming No Waivers...................................................................................... 81 

4.4.10 Estimate the Annual Cost of Complying with All Regulations per Average 

Regulated Entity in Each Combination of Market Sector and Size Class – 

Allowing for Waivers ....................................................................................... 83 

4.5 Estimating the Costs of Compliance with Refilling-Related Regulations ................... 86 

4.5.1 Allocate Refillable Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule in Each 

of the Relevant Market Sectors to Each of the Regulated Refilling Entity 

Categories Within the Market Sector ............................................................... 87 

4.5.2 Estimate the Number of Refillings per Year That Fall Within the Scope of the 

Rule for Each Category of Regulated Entity for Each Refillable Container Type

 88 

4.5.3 Estimate the Number of Refillings per Year That Fall Within the Scope of the 

Rule for Pesticide Refillers in Each Size Class Within Each Refiller Category

 88 

4.5.4 For Each Refilling-Related Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule, 

Estimate the Number of Refillings per Year That Fall Within the Scope of the 

Rule That Are Out of Compliance with That Regulation................................. 89 

4.5.5 For Each Refilling-Related Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule, 

Estimate the Number of Refillings That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule That 

Are Out of Compliance with That Regulation – for the Average Regulated 

Entity in Each Combination of Refiller and Size Class.................................... 90 

4.5.6 Estimate the Cost, in Each Year of a 20-Year Period, of Bringing Refillings 

into Compliance................................................................................................ 91 

4.5.7 Calculate the Present Discounted Value of the 20-Year Stream of Costs........ 93 

4.5.8 Calculate the Annualized Cost of Complying with the Refilling Regulations. 94 

4.6 The Total Annual Costs of the Rule ............................................................................. 95 

4.7 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................... 102 

4.8 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 105

5.0 The Human and Non-Human Health Benefits of the Final Standards ................................ 116 

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 116 

5.2 Human Health-Related Benefits: Estimated Annual National Cases and Valuation of 

Pesticide Product-Related Illnesses and Injuries Potentially Avoided by the Standards

.................................................................................................................................... 117 
Page iii 

5.2.1 Summary of Approach.................................................................................... 118 

5.2.2 Derivation of the Annual Percentage of Pesticide Illnesses Potentially Avoided 

as a Result of the Container Design and Residue Removal Regulations ....... 118 

5.2.3 Profile of Annual National Pesticide Exposure Cases.................................... 123 

5.2.4 Extrapolation to Estimate of Nationwide Cases Potentially Avoided from the 

Container Design and Residue Removal Standards ....................................... 128 

5.2.5 Valuing Avoided Pesticide Product-Related Illnesses as a Result of the 

Container Regulations .................................................................................... 131 

5.3 Non-Human Health-Related Benefits of the Pesticide Container Regulations .......... 143 

5.3.1 Non-Refillable Container Disposal Benefits .................................................. 143 

5.3.2 Environmental Effects Avoided Due to Container-Related Pesticide Exposures

 153 

5.3.3 Property Damage/Spill Cleanup Costs Avoided ............................................ 154 

5.4 Summary of the Benefits of the Final Standards........................................................ 157 

References................................................................................................................................... 158 

Appendixes 

Appendix A. Compliance Costs for the Pesticide Container Standards .................................... 162 

A.1 Non-Refillable Container Costs.................................................................................. 164 

A.1.1 Residue Removal Standard............................................................................. 164 

A.1.2 Administrative Requirements - Recordkeeping ............................................. 171 

A.2 Refillable Container Costs.......................................................................................... 174 

A.2.1 Administrative Requirements......................................................................... 174 

A.2.2 Standard for Container Marking..................................................................... 177 

A.2.3 Standards for Openings .................................................................................. 181 

A.2.4 Bulk Container Standards............................................................................... 184 

A.3 Refilling Compliance Costs........................................................................................ 185 

A.4 Cost of Label Requirements ....................................................................................... 188 

A.5 Waiver Costs............................................................................................................... 192 

Appendix B. Compliance Profile Estimation Details ................................................................ 193 

B.1 Assumptions and Procedure for Converting Pesticide Volume and Weight into 

Number of Refillable Containers in Use .................................................................... 193 

B.2 Number of Refillables in Use by the Pool Industry: A Separate Discussion and 

Consideration.............................................................................................................. 195 

Appendix C. Regulation-Specific Cost Schedules..................................................................... 196 

Appendix D. Profile of Industries Regulated by the Pesticide Container Regulations ............. 210 

D.1 Pesticide Registrants................................................................................................... 211

D.1.1 Pesticide Registrants’ NAICS Codes ............................................................. 212 

D.1.2 Analysis of Large Pesticide Registrants ......................................................... 213 

D.1.3 Analysis of Small Pesticide Registrants ......................................................... 214 

D.1.4 Container Profile for Registrants by Market Sector and Size Category......... 216 

D.2 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers .................................................................................. 218 

D.3 Swimming Pool Market.............................................................................................. 220 
Page iv 

Appendix E. 1994 Proposed Rule Container Standards Costs and Benefits ............................. 223 

E.1 Estimated Cost of Proposed Rule Container Standards.............................................. 223 

E.2 Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule Container Standards.................................. 226 

Appendix F. Nationwide and State Regulations and Standards for Pesticide Containers......... 228 

F.1 Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations .............................. 228 

F.2 United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods................ 229 

F.3 Mid America CropLife Association (MACPA): MACA-75 Manufacturer Specification 

and User Guidelines for Portable Agrichemical Tanks.............................................. 231 

F.4 Container Population Affected by the container regulations and the Three Major 

National Regulations/Standards ................................................................................. 232 

F.5 Detailed Comparison of the Pesticide Container Regulations and the Three Major 

Regulations/Standards ................................................................................................ 236 

F.5.1 Design Standards ............................................................................................ 236 

F.5.2 Permanent Markings....................................................................................... 236 

F.5.3 Dispensing Capability..................................................................................... 237 

F.5.4 Closures .......................................................................................................... 237 

F.5.5 Residue Removal Design Standard ................................................................ 237 

F.5.6 Production Testing.......................................................................................... 237 

F.5.7 Production Retesting....................................................................................... 238 

F.5.8 Reconditioning................................................................................................ 238 

F.5.9 Waiver ............................................................................................................ 238 

F.5.10 Recordkeeping................................................................................................ 239 

F.5.11 Refilling.......................................................................................................... 239 

F.5.12 Labeling.......................................................................................................... 240 

F.6 Existing EPA Policy Applicable to Pesticide Containers........................................... 260 

F.6.1 Child-Resistant Packaging (40 CFR Part 157)............................................... 260 

F.6.2 Consumer Labeling Initiative ......................................................................... 260 

F.6.3 Bulk Pesticide Enforcement Policy ................................................................ 261 

F.7 State Regulations and Standards................................................................................. 265 

F.7.1 Container Design and Performance Standards ............................................... 265 

F.7.2 Refilling Requirements................................................................................... 265 

F.7.3 Transfer of Pesticides Between Containers.................................................... 266 

F.7.4 Residue Removal Procedures ......................................................................... 266 

F.7.5 Container Collection and Disposal Procedures .............................................. 266 

F.7.6 Pesticide Storage Guidelines .......................................................................... 267 

Appendix G. Comparison of the Final Container Regulations with the 1994 Proposed Container 

Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 273 

G.1 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 273 

G.2 Design Standards ........................................................................................................ 274

G.3 Permanent Markings................................................................................................... 275 

G.4 Dispensing Capability................................................................................................. 275 

G.5 Closures ...................................................................................................................... 275 

G.6 Residue Removal Design Standard ............................................................................ 275 

G.7 Design Qualification Testing...................................................................................... 276 

G.8 Production Testing and Periodic Retesting ................................................................ 276 

G.9 Reconditioning............................................................................................................ 277 
Page v 

G.10 Waiver ........................................................................................................................ 277 

G.11 Certification................................................................................................................ 277 

G.12 Recordkeeping............................................................................................................ 277 

G.13 Refilling...................................................................................................................... 278 

G.14 Labeling...................................................................................................................... 278 

Appendix H. Characterization of Unintentional Human Pesticide and Antimicrobial Exposures 

and Health Effects in the TESS Database............................................................................ 287 

H.1 General Characterization of Unintentional Human Pesticide and Antimicrobial 

Exposures.................................................................................................................... 287 

H.2 Characterization of Health Effects Associated with Unintentional Human Pesticide and 

Antimicrobial Exposure Cases ................................................................................... 288 

Appendix I. Benchmark Costs for Physician Office Visits by Current Procedural Terminology, 

Fourth Edition (CPT-4) Code .............................................................................................. 293 

Appendix J. Case Summaries of 1999 California Incidents That Would Have Been Prevented by 

the Container Regulations.................................................................................................... 294 

Appendix K. Pesticide Container and Refilling Requirements Cost Analysis Tables ............... 307 
Page vi 

Tables and Figures 

Table 1.1. The Types of Expected Benefits from the Container Design and Residue Removal 

Regulations and Their Sources ................................................................................................ 3 

Table 1.2. Overview of the Rule Requirements............................................................................. 6 

Table 1.3. Quantified Costs and Benefits of the Rule Requirements (2005$)............................... 7 

Table 1.4. Estimated Annual Cost of Compliance a with the Final Container Design and Residue 

Removal Standards for the Average Regulated Entity (2005$) .............................................. 9 

Table 1.5. Estimated Annual Cost of Compliance with the Pesticide Container Design and 

Residue Removal Standards by Standard a ............................................................................ 10 

Table 1.6. Estimated Benefits Associated with the Final Pesticide Container Design and Residue 

Removal Regulations (2005$) a ............................................................................................. 11 

Table 2.1. Annual Compliance Cost Comparison Between the Final and Proposed 

Pesticide Container Standards (2005$).................................................................................. 19 

Table 2.2. Comparison of Human Health-Related and Non-Human Health-Related Benefits for 

the Proposed and Final Container Standards (2005$) ........................................................... 20 

Table 3.1. Market Sector Equivalent Between the Current Analysis and the 

1993 EPA Proposed Container Rule RIA.............................................................................. 25 

Table 3.2. Generalization of Impacts of Pesticide Container Regulations on Regulated Entities26 

Table 3.3. SBA and EPA Alternative Definitions of Small and Large Businesses Affected by the 

Pesticide Container Regulations............................................................................................ 27 

Table 3.4. Estimated Number of Non-Refillable Pesticide Containers in Use by Major Market 

Sectors.................................................................................................................................... 30 

Table 3.5. Estimated Number of Refillable Pesticide Containers in Use by Major Market Sectors

 32 

Table 3.6. Estimated Number of Swimming Pool Chemical Refillable Containers Affected by 

the Pesticide Container Regulations ...................................................................................... 33 

Table 3.7. Summary of Regulatory Scope................................................................................... 34 

Table 3.8. Percentage of Pesticide Containers Affected by the Final Rule Scope Criteria ......... 38 

Table 3.9. Estimated Number of Non-Refillable Pesticide Containers Affected by the Pesticide 

Container Regulations a.......................................................................................................... 41 

Table 3.10. Estimated Number of Refillable Pesticide Containers Affected by the 

Pesticide Container Regulations a

.......................................................................................... 43 

Table 3.11. Overview of the Container Regulations.................................................................... 44 

Table 3.12. Regulatory Compliance Rates for Non-Refillable Containers a ............................... 45 

Table 3.13. Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refillable Containers.......................................... 53 

Table 3.14. Repackaging/Refilling Requirements and Responsibility ........................................ 56 

Table 4.1. Types of Regulated Entities by Market Sector ........................................................... 59 

Table 4.2. Overview of Regulated Entities and Types of Regulations with Which They Must 

Comply .................................................................................................................................. 60 

Table 4.3. Intersection of the Pesticide Container Regulations and Regulated Entities.............. 61 
Page vii 

Table 4.4. Types of Containers Considered in the Analysis........................................................ 62 

Table 4.5. Estimated Numbers of Regulated Entities by Market Sector and Size Class............. 64 

Table 4.6. Percentages of Total Revenue in Each Size Class...................................................... 64 

Table 4.7. Number of Containers by Market Sector, and Number and Percentages that Fall 

Within the Scope of the Container-Related Regulations Under the Container Rule............. 66 

Table 4.8a. Estimated Numbers of Non-Refillable Containers Out of Compliance with the 

Container-Related Regulations a

............................................................................................ 68 

Table 4.8b. Estimated Numbers of Refillable Containers Out of Compliance with the ContainerRelated Regulations a

............................................................................................................. 69 

Table 4.9a. Total (Undiscounted) Costs a of Complying with All Regulations for Non-Refillables 

Under the Container Rule (2005$)b ....................................................................................... 73 

Table 4.9b. Total (Undiscounted) Costs a of Complying with All Regulations for Refillables 

Under the Container Rule (2005$)b ....................................................................................... 74 

Table 4.10a. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for NonRefillable Containers for the Average Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest 

Rate = 3 percent) (2005$)a

..................................................................................................... 77 

Table 4.10b. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for 

Refillable Containers for the Average Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest 

Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) a .................................................................................................... 78 

Table 4.10c. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for NonRefillable Containers for the Average Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest 

Rate = 7 percent) (2005$)a..................................................................................................... 79 

Table 4.10d. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for 

Refillable Containers for the Average Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest 

Rate = 7 percent) (2005$)a..................................................................................................... 80 

Table 4.11a. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20-Year Period of the Pesticide Container Rule for 

the Average Registrant: Total Without a Waiver (Interest =3 percent)................................. 82 

Table 4.11b. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20-Year Period of the Pesticide Container Rule for 

the Average Registrant: Total Without a Waiver (Interest =7 percent)................................. 82 

Table 4.11c. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20 Year Period of the Pesticide Container Rule for 

the Average Registrant: Total With a Waiver (Interest Rate = 3 percent) ............................ 84 

Table 4.11d. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20 Year Period of the Pesticide Container Rule for 

the Average Registrant: Total With a Waiver (Interest Rate = 7 percent) ............................ 84 

Table 4.12. Container-Related Standards and Waivers ............................................................... 85 

Table 4.13. Estimated Annual Pesticide Container Refilling Rates ............................................ 89 

Table 4.14. Estimated Numbers of Refilling Steps (or Requirements) per Year Out of 

Compliance with Refilling-Related Requirements (2005$) .................................................. 90 

Table 4.15. Total Compliance Costs a

 Related to Refilling Requirements for 

Refillable Containers (2005$)b .............................................................................................. 93 

Table 4.16a. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with the Refilling-Related Container 

Regulations for the Average Refiller by Refiller Category and Size Class

(Interest = 3 percent) (2005$)a............................................................................................... 94 
Page viii 

Table 4.16b. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with the Refilling-Related Container 

Regulations for the Average Refiller by Refiller Category and Size Class

(Interest = 7 percent) (2005$)a............................................................................................... 95 

Table 4.17a. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities (Interest 

Rate = 3 percent) (2005$)...................................................................................................... 97 

Table 4.17b. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities (Interest 

Rate = 7 percent) (2005$)...................................................................................................... 99 

Table 4.18a. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule 

(Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$)...................................................................................... 101 

Table 4.18b. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule 

(Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$)...................................................................................... 102 

Table 4.19a. Ratio of Annual Compliance Cost to Annual Revenue for the Average Regulated 

Entity (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$)........................................................................... 103 

Table 4.19b. Ratio of Annual Compliance Cost to Annual Revenue for the Average Regulated 

Entity (Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$)........................................................................... 104 

Table 4.20. Annual National Cost of Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule (2005$) 106 

Table 4.21. “Low-End” and “High-End” Assumptions for Sensitivity Analysis...................... 108 

Table 4.22. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities: Using 

“Low End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) ............................................ 110 

Table 4.23. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule: 

Using “Low End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$).................................. 112 

Table 4.24. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities: Using 

“High End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$)............................................ 113 

Table 4.25. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule: 

Using “High End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) ................................. 115 

Table 5.1. The Types of Expected Benefits from the Container Design and Residue Removal 

Regulations and Their Sources ............................................................................................ 117 

Table 5.2. Number of Reported Total, Intentional, and Pine Oil-Related Illnesses a in 

California’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program in 1999 .............................................. 120 

Figure 5.1. Flow Chart of 1999 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) 

Pesticide-Related Incidents.................................................................................................. 122 

Table 5.3. Profile of Unintentional Pesticide Exposures by Reason of Exposure..................... 125 

Table 5.4. Guidelines for Field Definition of Clinical Effect Relationships to Exposure......... 126 

Table 5.5. Frequency of Clinical Effects “Related” to Unintentional Pesticide Product Exposures

 127 

Table 5.6. Detailed Distribution of Clinical Effects “Related” to Unintentional Pesticide Product 

Exposures Among Patients Experiencing With Concomitant” Pesticide Exposures .......... 127 

Table 5.7. Percent Distribution of Clinical Effects Among Patients Experiencing Effects 

“Related” to Unintentional Pesticide Product Exposures.................................................... 128 

Table 5.8. Estimated Frequency of Clinical Effects for Avoidable Cases as a Result of the 

Container Regulations ......................................................................................................... 130 
Page ix 

Table 5.9. Estimated National Number of Avoidable Clinical Effects as a Result of the 

Container Regulations ......................................................................................................... 131 

Table 5.10. Expected Number of Avoidable Illnesses as a Result of Container Regulation by 

Severity of Clinical Effect ................................................................................................... 132 

Figure 5.2. Components of the Health Benefits Valuation for the Container Design and Residue 

Removal Regulations........................................................................................................... 134 

Table 5.11. Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide Product-Related Unintentional 

Exposures, TESS, 2001 a

..................................................................................................... 135 

Table 5.12. Duration of Clinical Effect by Medical Outcome for Pesticide Product-Related 

Unintentional Exposures, TESS, 2001 a.............................................................................. 136 

Table 5.13. Benchmark Evaluation and Management Costs for Physician Office Visit for an 

Established Patient Requiring an Expanded, Problem-Focused Evaluation, Adjusted to 2005 

Dollars a................................................................................................................................ 137 

Table 5.14. Outpatient Physician Unit Costs by Medical Outcome .......................................... 137 

Table 5.15. Mean Hospitalization Charges and Length of Stay for Injuries/Poisonings from 

HCUP 1994, Adjusted to 2005 Dollars a ............................................................................. 138 

Table 5.16. Inpatient Hospitalization Unit Costs....................................................................... 138 

Table 5.17. Socioeconomic Data Used to Calculate Indirect Cost of Illness ............................ 139 

Table 5.18. Value of a Day of Full Productivity........................................................................ 140 

Table 5.19. Average Clinical Effect Duration and Indirect Cost of Illness by Medical Outcome

 141 

Table 5.20. Value of Annual Avoided Pesticide-Related Cases as a Result of the Container 

Regulations (2005 dollars) a ................................................................................................. 142 

Table 5.21. Non-Refillable Containers Subject to the Labeling Requirements and Their 

Associated Weights ............................................................................................................. 145 

Table 5.22. Non-Refillable Containers Included in the Scope of the Non-Health Benefits 

Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 147 

Table 5.23. Number of Non-Refillable Containers Diverted from the Hazardous Waste Stream 

to the Non-Hazardous Waste Stream After the Promulgation of the Labeling Requirements

 150 

Table 5.24. Non-Discounted Benefits Associated with the Diversion of Non-Refillable 

Containers from the Hazardous Waste Stream to the Non-Hazardous Waste Stream (2005$)

 152 

Table 5.25. Characteristics of Potential Pesticide-Related Chemical Spills Recorded in the ARIP

 156 

Table K-2b. Number of Containers Out of Compliance for the Average Registrant, by 

Requirement, Market Sector, and Entity Size (Refillable Containers)................................ 313 

Appendix Tables 

Table A-1. Compliance Costs Associated with the Container Standards.................................. 164 
Page x 

Table A-2. Estimated Number of Active Registrations (Formulations) per Registrant by Size 

Category: Current Versus Proposed Rule............................................................................ 165 

Table A-3. Estimated Number of Active Registrations per Registrant Size Category.............. 166 

Table A-4. Estimated Number of Active Products Subject to the Residue Removal Standard. 167 

Table A-5. Estimated Number of Active Products Subject to the Residue Removal Standard by 

Registrant Size Category ..................................................................................................... 168 

Table A-6. Comparison of the Estimated Number of Active Registrations (Formulations) per 

Average Registrant by Size Category.................................................................................. 168 

Table A-7. Non-Refillable Container Residue Removal Compliance Cost Inputs 

and Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 169 

Table A-8. Non-Refillable Container Residue Removal Compliance Costs (2005$) ............... 171 

Table A-9. Non-Refillable Container Recordkeeping Cost Inputs and Assumptions ............... 173 

Table A-10. Non-Refillable Container Recordkeeping Costs ................................................... 174 

Table A-11. Refillable Container Administrative Cost Inputs and Assumptions...................... 176 

Table A-12. Refillable Container Administrative Costs (2005$) .............................................. 177 

Table A-13. Refillable Container Marking Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$) .................. 179 

Table A-14. Refillable Container Marking Costs (2005$) ........................................................ 180 

Table A-15. Cost Inputs and Assumptions for Refillable Container Openings (2005$)........... 183 

Table A-16. Refillable Container Openings Costs (2005$)....................................................... 184 

Table A-17. Bulk Container Standards Compliance Costs........................................................ 185 

Table A-18. Refilling Requirement Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$).............................. 187 

Table A-19. Refilling Requirement Costs (2005$).................................................................... 188 

Table A-20. Labeling Requirement Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$).............................. 191 

Table A-21. Labeling Requirement Costs (2005$).................................................................... 192 

Table C-1. Undiscounted Cost of Complying with the Residue Removal Standards for 

Nonrefillable Containers Under the Current Rule ............................................................... 196 

Table C-2. Undiscounted Costs of Complying with Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Nonrefillable Containers Under the Container Rule ........................................................... 198 

Table C-3. Undiscounted Costs of Complying with the Container Marking Standards for 

Refillable Containers Under the Container Rule................................................................. 200 

Table C-4. Undiscounted Costs of Complying with the Standards of Openings (for LiquidMinibulk Containers Only) for Refillable Containers Under the Container Rule............... 202 

Table C-5. Undiscounted Costs of Complying with the Bulk Container Standards for Refillable 

Containers Under the Container Rule.................................................................................. 204 

Table C-6. Undiscounted Costs of Complying with Administrative Requirements for Refillable 

Containers Under the Containment Rule............................................................................. 206 

Table C-7. Undiscounted Costs of Complying with the Labeling Requirements for All 

Containers Under the Container Rule.................................................................................. 208 

Table D-1. Estimated Number of Pesticide Registrants Affected by the Pesticide Container 

Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 212 
Page xi 

Table D-2. Most Common NAICS Codes Associated with Sample of 804 Pesticide Registrants

 213 

Table D-3. Economic Profile of Pesticide Registrants by Entity Size....................................... 215 

Table D-4. Procedure Used to Establish Market-Specific Regulated Entities........................... 217 

Table D-5. Economic Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by Entity Size ...................... 219 

Table D-6. Economic Profile of Swimming Pool Supply Companies by Entity Size ............... 222 

Table E-1. Summary of Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and ARRs as a Percentage of 

Sales for Representative Formulating Facilities in Each Market Sector Under Regulatory 

Options 1, 2, and 3 and Scenarios 1 and 2 for the Proposed Pesticide Container Standards 

(2005$)................................................................................................................................. 224 

Table E-2. Summary of Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and ARRs as a Percentage of 

Sales for Representative Agricultural Refilling Facilities in Regulatory Options 1, 2, and 3

for the Proposed Pesticide Container Standards (2005$) .................................................... 225 

Table E-3. Total Cost (Annual Revenue Requirement or ARR) of the Proposed Pesticide 

Container and Labeling Standards....................................................................................... 226 

Table E-4. Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Container and Labeling Standards.................. 227 

Table F-1. Grouping Criteria for Administration Through Oral Ingestion, Dermal Contact, and 

Inhalation of Dusts and Mists.............................................................................................. 230 

Table F-2. Scope of Container Regulations Versus Scope of Other National Regulations and 

Standards.............................................................................................................................. 233 

Table F-3. Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations and 

Standards.............................................................................................................................. 242 

Table F-4. Comparison of Container Regulations with Other EPA Policies.............................. 263 

Table F-5. Eight-State Analysis of Pesticide Container Guidelines.......................................... 268 

Table G-1. Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container Regulations

 280 

Table H-1. Percent Distribution of Age of Exposure Case by Reason of Exposure ................. 287 

Table H-2. Percent Distribution of Exposure Chronicity to Reason of Exposure..................... 288 

Table H-3. Profile of Unintentional Pesticide and Antimicrobial Exposures by Medical Outcome

 289 

Table H-4. Percent Distribution of Age of Exposure Patient by Symptom Severity of Medical 

Outcome Among “With Concomitants” Exposure Cases ................................................... 290 

Table H-5. Duration of Clinical Effects by Symptom Severity Among Those “With 

Concomitant” Cases Exhibiting Minor, Moderate or Major Medical Outcomes................ 291 

Table H-6. Percent Distribution of Symptom Severity of Medical Outcome by Management Site 

Among “With Concomitant” Exposure Cases..................................................................... 291 

Table H-7. Percent Distribution of Management Site by Age of “With Concomitant” Exposure 

Patient .................................................................................................................................. 292 

Table I-1. Benchmark Costs for Physician Office Visits by Current Procedural Terminology, 

Fourth Edition (CPT-4) Code .............................................................................................. 293 
Page xii 

Table J-1. Number of Cases in California in 1999 Considered by EPA as “Very Likely” or 

“Possibly” Preventable by the Container Regulations......................................................... 294 

Table J-2. Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been 

“Very Likely” or “Possibly” Prevented by the Container Regulations ............................... 296 

Table K-1a. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, 

and Market Sector: Nonrefillable Liquid Pesticide Containers........................................... 307 

Table K-1b. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, 

and Market Sector: Nonrefillable Solid Pesticide Containers ............................................. 308 

Table K-1c. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, 

and Market Sector: Refillable Liquid Pesticide Containers ................................................ 310 

Table K-1d. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, 

and Market Sector: Refillable Solid Pesticide Containers................................................... 311 

Table K-2. Number of Containers Out of Compliance for the Average Registrant, by 

Requirement, Market Sector, and Entity Size ..................................................................... 312 

Table K-3. Number of Refillable Containers by Type of Refilling Entity ................................. 314 

Table K-4a. Annual Refillings per Refiller Currently Not in Compliance with Inspection 

Requirement by Container Type, Entity Size, and Market Sector ...................................... 315 

Table K-4b. Annual Refillings per Refiller Currently Not in Compliance with Container 

Cleaning Requirement by Container Type, Entity Size, and Market Sector....................... 316 

Table K-4c. Annual Refillings per Refiller Currently Not in Compliance with Container 

Tracking (Recordkeeping) Requirement by Container Type, Entity Size, and Market Sector

 317 

Table K-5a. Present Discounted Value of Container Rule Compliance Costs, 3% Discount Rate

 318 

Table K-5b. Present Discounted Value of Container Rule Compliance Costs, 7% Discount Rate

 319 
Page 1 

Economic Analysis of the Final Container Rule 

1.0 Introduction 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imposing requirements under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for pesticide container design. EPA is also 

establishing procedures, standards, and label language to facilitate removal of pesticides from 

containers prior to disposal. Additionally, EPA is imposing requirements for bulk pesticide 

containment and procedures for container refilling operations. These regulations are necessary 

to implement statutory authority requiring EPA to develop regulations for the safe storage and 

disposal of pesticides as a means of protecting human health and the environment. 

Sections 19(e) and (f) of FIFRA grant EPA broad authority to establish standards and procedures 

to assure the safe use, reuse, storage, and disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA Section 19(e) 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations for “the design of pesticide containers that will promote 

the safe storage and disposal of pesticides.” The regulations must ensure, to the fullest extent 

practicable, that the containers: 

(1) Accommodate procedures used for removal of pesticides from the containers and rinsing of 

the containers. 

(2) Facilitate safe use of the containers, including elimination of splash and leakage. 

(3) Facilitate safe disposal of the containers. 

(4) Facilitate safe refill and reuse of the containers. 

FIFRA Section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations “prescribing procedures and 

standards for the removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal.” The statute states that 

the regulations may: 

(1) Specify, for each major type of pesticide container, procedures and standards for, at a 

minimum, triple rinsing or the equivalent degree of pesticide removal. 

(2) Specify procedures that can be implemented promptly and easily in various circumstances 

and conditions. 

(3) Provide for reuse, whenever practicable, or disposal of rinse water and residue. 

(4) Be coordinated with requirements imposed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) for rinsing containers. 

Section 19(f) also provides that EPA, in its discretion, may exempt products intended solely for 

household use. 

Section 19(h), titled “Relationship to Solid Waste Disposal Act,” specifies that nothing in 

Section 19 shall diminish the authorities or requirements of RCRA. Also, the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended Section 19(h) of FIFRA to add an exemption for 

certain antimicrobial pesticides. 

The following economic analysis (EA) is one of two economic analyses that estimate the costs 

and benefits of compliance with the regulations for the safe storage and disposal of pesticides. It 

estimates the costs and benefits of compliance with the pesticide container design and residue 

removal requirements of the final rule, including the container refilling requirements and the 
Page 2 

label language requirements for pesticide container residue removal. The second EA provides 

estimates of the costs and benefits of compliance with the bulk pesticide containment 

requirements of the final rule.1

The EA for pesticide container design and residue removal is organized into five chapters. The 

first two chapters present the regulatory background of the final rule, a description of the final 

pesticide container standards, and a summary of the results of the EA. Chapter 3 presents an 

analysis of pesticide container compliance with the final container standards. Chapter 4 presents 

the analysis of the estimated costs of compliance with the final container standards. And 

Chapter 5 presents the estimated benefits of compliance with the final container standards. A 

detailed description of the scope of the EA is presented in Section 1.2. 

1.1 Need for Regulation 

The container design and residue removal standards are largely pollution prevention regulations 

that will safeguard workers, such as loaders, mixers, and applicators, and the environment by 

reducing the risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides. The improvements in pesticide 

container designs will enhance the safe handling, dispensing, use, and residue removal efficiency 

of pesticide containers. The improvement in procedures and/or container designs will also help 

facilitate the “clean rinsing” of emptied containers either prior to disposal or recycling, or prior 

to reuse. There are numerous types of human health-related benefits and non-human healthrelated (environment-related) benefits that will stem from such improvements because of 

relatively fewer expected spills, leaks, and other risks associated with exposure (e.g., handling by 

workers during disposal, discharges to the environment, and potential public exposures). 

Table 1.1 summarizes the various types of expected benefits (i.e., improved worker safety, 

improved public health, reduced environmental risk, and other effects) resulting from the 

proposed container design/residue removal regulations. It also characterizes the sources of the 

expected benefits. Other than human health-related and environment-related benefits, the 

regulation will have other effects such as property damage, personal liability effects, and 

insurance costs. In addition, there are likely to be cost savings from the disposal of rigid nonrefillable containers as non-hazardous rather than hazardous waste as a result of the regulations, 

and a reduction in the number of environmental effects and property damage/spill cleanup costs 

as a result of the container regulations. 

 

1

 Two separate economic analyses are conducted for the rule primarily because the standards for pesticide containers 

and the standards for containment of bulk pesticides are different, and, as a result, require two distinct economic 

analyses. That is, because the standards regulate different structures (containers versus bulk containment), and 

different industries (registrants, agricultural refillers, and swimming pool supply companies for the container 

standards; agricultural refillers and commercial pesticide applicators for the bulk containment standards), different 

assumptions and inputs will be used in the EA for each set of standards. Rather than creating a single, lengthy 

document containing two different economic analyses, the Agency chose to write a separate document for each EA. 
Page 3 

Table 1.1. The Types of Expected Benefits from the Container Design and Residue 

Removal Regulations and Their Sources 

Expected Benefit Source of Expected Benefit 

Human Health-Related Benefits 

Improved Worker Safety • Reduced accidental spills 

• Fewer leaks 

• Less dripping 

• Less frequent container stress failure (durability, 

formulation/container degradation) 

• Reduced personal sickness and injury 

• Improved worker productivity 

Improved Public Health • Less risk of exposure to spills and leaking/dripping 

• Less contamination of surface water and groundwater sources 

• Less personal injury from accidental spills and chronic contamination 

sources 

Non-Human Health-Related Benefits 

Reduced Environmental Risk • Reduced accidental spills 

• Fewer chronic accumulations of chemicals in 

loading/mixing/cleaning areas 

• Reduced risk of harm from pesticide residues to terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife including sensitive and critical habitats 

• Less disposal of hazardous containers in landfills 

Other Effects • Reduced property damage 

• Reduced risk of personal injury and liability 

• Lower costs for personal liability insurance 

• Reduced disposal costs for cleaner containers 

• Reduced loss of product from spills and leaks 

1.2 Regulatory Background of the Final Rule 

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on February 11, 1994 (59 FR 6712), EPA 

proposed standards for pesticide containers and containment structures. The proposal included 

requirements for non-refillable and refillable containers that would ensure the safe use, refill, 

reuse, and disposal of the containers. The proposal also included standards for containment 

structures, which would promote safe storage of pesticides in bulk containers. Additionally, the 

proposed rule contained amendments to the labeling regulations in 40 CFR Part 156 to ensure 

adequate levels of residue removal from containers. 

The public comment period for the NPRM closed on July 11, 1994. EPA received about 1,900 

pages of comments from more than 200 commenters, including many trade associations and 

individual companies from the pesticide manufacturing, pesticide retail, and container 

manufacturing industries as well as many state regulatory agencies. 

EPA received many comments during the public comment period on a few issues. In particular, 

comments addressed the scope of the container standards and the relationship between the 1994 

proposed rule and the Department of Transportation (DOT) standards for hazardous materials 

packaging. A third issue arose from the 1996 passage of the FQPA, which amended Section 

19(h) of FIFRA to add an exemption for certain antimicrobial pesticides. To solicit comment on 
Page 4 

EPA’s interpretation of the new statutory language on exempting antimicrobial pesticides and to 

reopen comment on the scope of the container regulations and an approach for incorporating 

DOT’s standards, EPA published a supplemental notice in the Federal Register on October 21, 

1999 (64 FR 56917, EPA 1999). The notice also provided an alternative definition of small 

business for certain sectors of the pesticide industry. The purpose of the alternative definition 

was for use in analyzing the potential impacts to small businesses that were presented as part of 

the economic analysis.2

The public comment period for the supplemental notice closed on March 20, 2000. EPA 

received comments from about 70 respondents, including many trade associations and individual 

companies from the pesticide manufacturing, pesticide retail, and container manufacturing 

industries as well as many state regulatory agencies. 

On June 30, 2004, EPA reopened the comment period for 45 days to solicit public input on any 

policies, market practices, technology, or other issues relating to this rule’s requirements that 

would not have been available, or could not have been addressed at the time of either the 

proposed rule in 1994 or the supplemental notice in 1999. While EPA has attempted to stay 

current on developments in pesticide container and containment structure policies, regulations, 

technology, and practices, the Agency believed that it was appropriate to solicit input from the 

regulated community, state regulators, and others to ensure that we are fully aware of the current 

state of the pesticide container and containment universe before finalizing the pesticide container 

and containment regulations. The comment period generated 50 comments mainly from 

pesticide manufacturers, state regulatory agencies, and agricultural pesticide dealers. (See the 

preamble to the proposed rule and Section 2.3 of this document for a more complete discussion 

of comments received by EPA.) 

Prior to 1995, recommendations regarding procedures for storage and disposal of pesticides and 

pesticide containers were listed under 40 CFR Part 165. On June 19, 1995, as part of the federal 

government’s initiative to streamline regulations, Part 165 was deleted as unnecessary (60 FR 

32094) because it contained recommendations rather than requirements. Subpart A of Part 165 

covered the scope and definitions in the recommendations. Subpart B dealt with EPA’s disposal 

of suspended and canceled pesticides, and EPA has completed disposal of all pesticides for 

which it was responsible under those regulations. Subparts C and D contained recommended 

procedures for storage and disposal of pesticide containers. Subparts A, B, C, and D were 

superseded by the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. FIFRA 

Section 19, as revised in 1988 and 1996, contains authority for EPA in the area of pesticide 

storage and disposal, and the final pesticide container and containment regulations promulgated 

are being inserted into a newly established Part 165. 

 

2

 As discussed by EPA in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment 

(EPA, 1999b), the alternative definition disaggregates small businesses as defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) into three size categories: small-small, medium-small, and large-small businesses. EPA is 

concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the regulations may 

result in significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information 

about potential impacts on facilities that meet the SBA size standard for small business but are not typical of a small 

business in that industry sector. (See Chapter 3 for industry-specific small business definitions.) 
Page 5 

1.3 Scope of the Economic Analysis for the Final Pesticide Rule 

The EA conducted for the final pesticide container standards estimates the costs and benefits of 

compliance with four sets of standards, including: (1) container design standards for nonrefillable containers; (2) container design standards for refillable containers; (3) repackaging 

(refilling) standards for refillable containers; and (4) standards for container labeling for all 

containers. The components of the final pesticide container standards EA include: 

(1) A profile of the regulated community. This includes specific economic characteristics of 

each industry regulated under the container regulations—such as North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes, the average company size, revenues for the average 

company, total industry revenues, the distribution of firms between small and large—to be 

used to estimate the costs and impacts of the container standards. (See Chapter 3.) 

(2) A profile of the containers not in compliance with the final pesticide container design and 

residue removal requirements. The profile contains the estimates and analysis of the baseline 

estimated number of containers, the number of containers covered under the scope of the 

regulations, and the number of containers not in compliance with the regulations. (See 

Chapter 3.) 

(3) An analysis of the cost of compliance with the final pesticide container design and residue 

removal requirements. The analysis includes the methodology for calculating the costs of 

compliance and the estimates of the costs for standards related to: 

(a) refillable and non-refillable containers—how containers must be constructed, 

permanently marked, and labeled to ensure safety; 

(b) refilling—what activities (i.e., container inspection, rinsing, and recordkeeping) are 

required to ensure that the act of refilling containers does not pose safety or health problems. 

The estimated costs are presented at different levels of aggregation for all regulated 

industries, each industry, a representative facility in each industry, and for each standard. 

(See Chapter 4.) 

(4) An analysis of the small business impacts of compliance with the final pesticide container 

standards for each regulated industry. These impacts are presented using both the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small business, and the alternative definition 

of a small business adopted specifically for this rule.3

 Impacts are estimated as the 

proportion of increased facility costs to current facility revenues. (See Chapter 4.) 

(5) An analysis of the human and non-human health-related benefits of compliance with the final 

pesticide container standards. The quantified human health-related benefits are estimated as 

the cost savings from eliminating container-related human exposure incidents. The 

quantified non-human health-related benefits are estimated as the cost savings from 

disposing of non-refillable containers as non-hazardous rather than hazardous material. (See 

Chapter 5.) 

1.4 Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Final Rule 

The pesticide container regulations specify a number of standards that create costs to the 

regulated community of bringing containers into compliance with the container standards, as 

well as benefits to humans and the environment. Improvements in the design and removal of 

 

3

 See footnote 2. 
Page 6 

residues from containers will benefit humans and the environment by reducing exposures to 

pesticides from pesticide containers. Table 1.2 provides a summary of the final pesticide 

container design and residue removal standards, which will be described in more detail in 

Chapter 2. 

As is evident from the table, there are a number of requirements common to both non-refillable 

and refillable containers (i.e., DOT standards and some labeling), and a number of requirements 

specific to non-refillable containers (i.e., container dispensing capability, standardized closures, 

residue removal, and some labeling) and refillable containers (i.e., serial number marking, oneway valves/tamper-evident devices, bulk container requirements, refilling requirements, and 

some labeling). The EA addresses each standard separately in regards to pesticide container 

compliance and the estimated cost of compliance. 

Table 1.2. Overview of the Rule Requirements 

Non-Refillable 

Containers Refillable Containers 

Refilling Pesticide 

Products Labels 

1. DOT container design, 

construction, and marking 

standards 

2. Container dispensing 

capability 

3. Standardized closures 

4. Residue removal 

5. Recordkeeping 

1. DOT container design, 

construction, and marking 

standards 

2. Serial number marking 

3. One-way valves or 

tamper-evident devices 

4. Bulk container 

requirements 

1. Pesticide registrants (see 

Section 3.1) develop 

information 

2. Registrants and others 

comply with specified 

conditions 

3. Refillers (registrants and 

others) obtain and follow 

registrant information, and 

clean, inspect, and label 

containers before refilling 

them 

1. Identify container as nonrefillable or refillable (all 

labels) 

2. Statements to prohibit 

reuse and offer for 

recycling; batch code (all 

non-refillable containers) 

3. Cleaning instructions 

(some non-refillable 

containers) 

4. Cleaning instructions 

before final disposal (all 

refillable containers) 

5. Leave blank spaces for 

net contents and 

establishment number 

(some refillable containers) 

Source: Final Container Rule. 

The following two subsections summarize the estimated costs (including small business impacts) 

and benefits, respectively, of compliance with the final pesticide container standards. Chapters 4 

and 5 present the analysis of the estimated costs and benefits of compliance with the final 

pesticide container standards. 

1.4.1 Costs Summary 

The total annualized costs of the pesticide container design and residue removal requirements are 

estimated to be approximately $8.4 million and $8.5 million at 3 percent and 7 percent discount 

rate respectively,4 while the total estimated annualized benefits range from $4.7 million to $4.8 

 

4

 The total estimated costs are nearly the same at both 3 percent and 7 percent because the majority of the costs of 

compliance (as discussed in Chapter 4) are attributed to the container-related standards (i.e., standards for residue 

removal, recordkeeping, container markings, closures, bulk containers, certification, and labeling), which incur most 
Page 7 

million (depending on the discount rate used)5 (see Table 1.3). The estimated non-human healthrelated benefits account for more than 90 percent of the quantified total benefits of compliance 

with the requirements of the rule. 

Assuming 610–768 human health-related illness and injuries potentially avoided as a result of 

the container regulations (see Chapter 5), the total cost per avoided case ranges from $10,896 to 

$13,718 (Table 1.3). 

Table 1.3. Quantified Costs and Benefits of the Rule Requirements (2005$) 

Cost/Benefit Category 

Annualized Cost/Benefit at a 

3% Discount Rate 

Annualized Cost/Benefit at a 

7% Discount Rate 

Total Cost $8,367,385 $8,449,929 

Total Benefits $4,735,981–$4,804,240 $4,235,280–$4,296,452 

 Human Health-Related Benefits $264,051–$332,311 $236,635–$297,807 

 Non-Human Health-Related Benefits $4,471,929 $3,998,645 

Total Cost Per Avoided Human Health-Related Case

Number of Cases Avoided 610–768 Cases 610–768 Cases 

Total Cost Per Avoided Case $10,896–$13,718 $11,003–$13,852 

Table 1.4 provides a summary of the estimated annualized cost of compliance with the final 

container design and residue removal standards (at a 3 percent discount rate) for the average 

entity and totaled for each of the regulated industries (i.e., pesticide registrants, agricultural 

pesticide refillers, and swimming pool supply companies), across all market sectors6 for each 

entity size category (i.e., large, large-small, medium-small, and small-small). The costs include 

the estimated cost of compliance with the standards for residue removal, recordkeeping, 

container markings, container openings, bulk containers, labeling, and repackaging. The other 

standards (i.e., DOT packaging, container closures, and container dispensing) do not have any 

costs associated with them due to the availability of containers compliant with these standards as 

discussed in Chapter 3. 

The estimated costs are highest for pesticide registrants, accounting for more than 70 percent of 

the total cost of compliance. Pesticide registrants are primarily responsible for the pesticide 

container-related standards (i.e., residue removal, recordkeeping, container markings, container 

openings, bulk containers, and labeling), although they do have some repackaging 

responsibilities (i.e., inspection, cleaning, and recordkeeping) in both the agricultural and 

industrial/commercial/ government markets. The estimated costs for agricultural pesticide 

refillers and swimming pool supply companies, which are responsible for the pesticide container 

refilling requirements in their associated markets, are significantly less (Table 1.4). 

 of their costs in the first year of compliance. The refilling-related requirements (container inspection, cleaning, and 

recordkeeping before each refill), which represent a smaller proportion of total costs, are estimated to be nearly the 

same each year. 

5

 For ease of presentation, the estimates using only the 3 percent discount rate will be presented in the text of the 

document. Chapters 4 and 5 present in tabular format the estimated costs and benefits of compliance with the final 

container standards, respectively, at both the 3 percent and 7 percent rates. 

6

 The market sectors analyzed include the agricultural, industrial/commercial/government (I/C/G), and home and 

garden (H&G) market sectors. See Chapter 3 for a description of each market sector. 
Page 8 

Table 1.5 provides a summary of the total estimated annual cost of compliance by final pesticide 

container standard. As a result of assumed pesticide container compliance, no costs of 

compliance are estimated for meeting the DOT packaging standards, closure standards, and 

standards for container dispensing capability for non-refillable containers, and the DOT 

packaging standards for refillable containers. Approximately 16 percent of the cost of 

compliance is attributed to compliance with the residue removal standards. The refilling-related 

standards and labeling standards account for 38 percent and 27 percent of the total cost of 

compliance, respectively. 
Page 9 

Table 1.4. Estimated Annual Cost of Compliance a with the Final Container Design and 

Residue Removal Standards for the Average Regulated Entity (2005$) 

Cost for the Average Regulated 

Entity b

Cost over All Regulated 

Entities b, c

Regulated Entity 

Number of 

Entities 

Interest Rate = 

3% 

Interest Rate = 

7% 

Interest Rate = 

3% 

Interest Rate = 

7% 

Pesticide Registrants 

Small $1,806 $1,936 $2,993,825 $3,209,477

Large-Small 166 $5,434 $5,975 $903,024 $992,891

Medium-Small 495 $2,613 $2,854 $1,293,158 $1,412,186

Small-Small 997 $800 $807 $797,642 $804,400

Large 146 $17,967 $19,078 $2,623,114 $2,785,386

Total d $5,616,939 $5,994,863

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Small $88 $80 $1,464,350 $1,330,876

Large-Small 251 $871 $764 $218,684 $191,692

Medium-Small 2395 $267 $237 $640,191 $566,418

Small-Small 13996 $43 $41 $605,474 $572,767

Large 153 $7,255 $6,336 $1,110,296 $969,709

Total d $2,574,646 $2,300,585

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 

Small $19 $20 $5,808 $6,034

Large-Small 14 $34 $33 $474 $458

Medium-Small 117 $23 $24 $2,732 $2,755

Small-Small 174 $15 $16 $2,602 $2,821

Large 17 $10,000 $8,732 $169,993 $148,448

Total d $175,800 $154,481

Total Cost Across All Regulated Industries e $8,367,385 $8,449,929

a

 See Chapter 4 for information on calculations and estimated costs. 

b

 For pesticide registrants, average entity costs and costs for all entities by entity size are averaged across all market 

sectors (see Chapter 4). 

c

 For each industry, costs across all entities are found by multiplying the average entity cost by the number of 

entities of that size. May not be equal to the multiplication of the numbers in the table due to rounding. 

d

 Total equals the sum of the cost over all regulated entities for each industry. 

e

 Total Cost Across All Regulated Industries equals the sum of Total for each industry. 
Page 10 

Table 1.5. Estimated Annual Cost of Compliance with the Pesticide Container Design and 

Residue Removal Standards by Standard a 

Annual National Cost 

(3% Interest Rate) 

Standard Interest Rate = 3 percent Interest Rate = 7 percent 

For Non-Refillable Containers

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material $0 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous 

material $0 $0

Closure Standards $0 $0

Standards for Container Dispensing Capability $0 $0

Residue Removal Standards $1,465,967 $1,343,068

Other Administrative Requirements - 

recordkeeping $202,617 $210,575

For Refillable Containers

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material $0 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous 

material $0 $0

Standards for Container Markings $241,402 $227,685

Standards for Openings (for liquid minibulks7

only) $261,018 $291,648

Bulk Container Standards $574,504 $641,923

Other Administrative requirements - recordkeeping $138,849 $136,753

For Refilling $3,198,256 $2,849,969

For Labeling $2,252,148 $2,715,685

Cost of Waivers $32,624 $32,624

Total National Annual Cost $8,367,385 $8,449,929 a

 See Chapter 4 for information on calculations and estimated costs. 

As discussed later in Chapter 4, small businesses are not estimated to be significantly impacted 

by compliance with the final container design and residue removal requirements. The estimated 

costs of compliance for small businesses in each of the regulated industries, as a proportion of 

their current revenues, are estimated to be less than 1 percent. Using the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) definition of small businesses, the costs of compliance for small 

businesses are estimated to be less than 0.02 percent of the current average entity revenues. 

According to the alternative small business definition used in this analysis (which further divides 

small businesses into large-small, medium-small, and small-small business),8

 no small business 

is estimated to incur costs that account for more than 0.04 percent of current average entity 

revenues. 

 

7

 Minibulks are bulk containers of liquid pesticide greater than 55 gallons but less than 500 gallons and dry pesticide 

containers greater than 100 pounds and less than 400 pounds in capacity. 

8

 See footnote 2. 
Page 11 

1.4.2 Benefits Summary 

Table 1.6 presents the human and non-human health-related benefits of the final pesticide 

container standards as discussed in Chapter 5. The estimated annual human health-related 

benefits of compliance with the final container standards are estimated to range from $264,051 to 

$332,311 due to the cost savings from avoiding 610–768 container-related incidents as a result of 

the final container standards. The estimated annual non-human health-related benefits of 

compliance with the final container standards are estimated to range from $4.0 million to $4.5 

million. These benefits are estimated as the cost savings from disposal of non-refillable pesticide 

containers as non-hazardous material, rather than hazardous material, as a result of the final 

pesticide container regulations. Additional, non-quantified benefits include the reduction in the 

number of environment-related incidents of exposure, and avoided property damage/spill 

cleanup costs, which suggest that the social value of the benefits is higher than the quantified 

amount (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion). 

Table 1.6. Estimated Benefits Associated with the Final Pesticide Container Design and 

Residue Removal Regulations (2005$) a

Benefit 

Category Type of Benefit Estimated Benefits 

Avoided cases • 610–768 cases annually (= $264,051–$332,311 in annualized 

health benefits) 

• Additional 1,945 to 2,449 cases annually with “possible” 

cases (= an additional $841,644 million to $1,059,240 in 

annualized health benefits) 

Improved worker safety • Possible health benefit; lost productivity valued as part of 

health benefits from avoided cases 

Human HealthRelated 

Benefits 

Improved public health • Possible health benefit; continued benefit of avoided cases 

throughout the compliance schedule 

Tipping fee cost savings for 

non-refillable containers 

• $4,471,929 (3% discount rate)–$3,998,645 (7% discount rate) 

in annualized cost savings 

Environment-related effects • Damage reduction from fewer exposures of terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife, including those in sensitive and critical 

habitats, to pesticides and residues 

Non-Human 

Health-Related 

Benefits 

Avoided property 

damage/spill cleanup costs 

• Pesticide container rules will prevent property damage and/or 

reduce the costs associated with unintended, container-related 

pesticide releases a See Chapter 5 for the discussion of human health-related and non-human health-related benefits. 

1.5 Limitations of the Final Rule Economic Analysis 

Conducting the EA for the final pesticide container standards required extensive information. 

For example, in determining the baseline level of pesticide container compliance with the final 

standards, information had to be obtained on: (1) the number of existing refillable and nonrefillable containers, by container type, size, and end-use market; (2) the number of existing 

refillable and non-refillable containers that fall under the scope of the container rule; and (3) the 

number of refillable and non-refillable containers that fall under the scope of the container rule 

and that are in compliance with each container design and residue removal standard. To obtain 

the information necessary to complete the analysis, EPA relied on the regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) conducted for the proposed container design and residue removal standards (EPA, 1993). 
Page 12 

Contacts with industry experts and various state and federal agency personnel (including EPA 

personnel), as well as a review of the literature, were used to estimate, verify, and update the data 

throughout the report to the extent possible.9

 We make every attempt to clearly state the 

assumptions throughout the analysis, and we present a sensitivity analysis in Chapter 4. The 

sensitivity analysis presents the costs of compliance with the container standards using lower and 

upper bounds on the assumptions used in the EA. 

In summary, Chapter 1 has presented the statutory basis for the promulgation of the pesticide 

container standards final rule, a summary of the regulatory history of the standards, and a 

summary of the results of the EA. The next chapter continues with the introduction to the final 

pesticide container standards; presenting the final pesticide container design and residue removal 

standards, the changes in the standards from the proposed to the final standards, the response to 

comments to the proposed standards, and the economic impacts (i.e., the change in the costs and 

benefits of compliance) of the changes from the proposed to the final standards. The final three 

chapters (Chapters 3, 4, and 5) present the analysis of the costs and benefits of compliance with 

the final pesticide container standards. 

 

9

 The RIA for the proposed standards for pesticide container design and residue removal was a major source of the 

data used in the EA for the final standards. EPA verified and updated the majority of the data used. However, it 

was infeasible to reconstruct some of the data, and EPA therefore used the data as presented in the RIA for the 

proposed container standards. 
Page 13 

2.0 Final Rule Standards and Comparison of the Costs and Benefits of the 

Final and the Proposed Rule Standards 

Chapter 1 presented the regulatory history of the pesticide container and bulk containment rule, 

an analysis of the scope of the EA, and a summary of the results of the EA. In Chapter 2, the 

final pesticide container design and residue removal standards are presented. These are the 

standards for which pesticide container compliance is determined in Chapter 3, and for which we 

estimate the costs and benefits of compliance in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Chapter 2 also 

presents a description of the changes made in the pesticide container standards from proposed to 

final, and presents a comparison of the costs and benefits of compliance estimated for the final 

and proposed container standards. 

2.1 Final Rule Standards 

Until now, the design of containers holding pesticides has been guided only by an interrelated 

combination of nationwide recommendations,10 federal regulations,11 and state regulations and 

standards. (See Appendix F for complete discussion of these standards.) These 

recommendations, regulations, and standards form the basis for the final rule for pesticide 

container design and residue removal. Given the large set of standards already in existence, this 

rule is primarily a harmonizing and consolidation exercise, and EPA estimates that most 

containers are in compliance with many aspects of the rule because containers are already 

meeting a variety of other standards, as discussed in more detail in the pesticide container 

compliance profile presented in Chapter 3. 

The pesticide container standards as described below are the end result of revisions made to the 

1994 proposed standards for pesticide containers, based on the public comments submitted and 

discussions with a number of interested parties, including other EPA offices, government 

agencies, and the regulated community (see Section 2.2 for a discussion of the changes in the 

standards from proposed to final and Appendix G for a comparison of the proposed and final 

pesticide container standards.) The first seven standards presented apply to certain non-refillable 

and refillable containers (as specified for each standard), while the eighth standard (the 

repackaging standard) applies only to refillable containers, and the final labeling standard applies 

to all containers. The final pesticide container design and residue removal standards are as 

follows: 

(1) Pesticide Container Design Standards 

The final container standards adopt a subset of the Department of Transportation Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (DOT HMR) packaging standards at the Packing Group III level for 

pesticides not classified as DOT hazardous materials. Pesticides that are classified as DOT 

hazardous materials must comply with all applicable DOT regulations. For the purpose of 

enforcing the pesticide container regulations, the final rule identifies the DOT requirements for 

all three packing groups that are “equivalent” to the Packing Group III requirements applicable 

to products that are not DOT hazardous materials. Under the regulations, sale or distribution of 

 

10 United Nations (1999); Mid America Crop Protection Association (MACA, 1999 and 1986). 

11 Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (DOT HMR) (49 CFR Parts 107-179). 
Page 14 

pesticides in containers not meeting all of the standards (the specifically listed ones in the 

pesticide regulations and the adopted DOT packaging standards) is prohibited. Both nonrefillable and refillable pesticide containers must meet these standards. 

(2) Pesticide Container Permanent Markings 

The regulations for non-refillable pesticide containers and refillable pesticide containers refer to 

and adopt the DOT standards, which include marking requirements. Additionally, the 

regulations require a serial number or other identifying code for each refillable container. 

(3) Pesticide Container Dispensing Capability 

The regulations stipulate that liquid pesticide non-refillable containers with a capacity greater 

than 20 liters (5.3 gallons) be designed to eliminate splash and leakage during normal pouring of 

the contents. No dispensing capability requirements are specified for refillable pesticide 

containers. 

(4) Pesticide Container Closures 

Four closures are specified for non-refillable rigid containers having a capacity greater than 

3.0 liters for liquid agricultural pesticides, and the final standard should not overlap with the 

Child-Resistant Packaging requirements. Liquid minibulk refillable containers (refillables) 

require a one-way valve, tamper-evident device, or both on each opening. Liquid bulk refillables 

must be equipped with a pressure-relieving device and locking shutoff valve, and cannot have 

external sight gauges. 

(5) Pesticide Container Residue Removal Design Standard and Procedures 

With regard to non-refillable containers, the regulations specify that every registrant test three 

containers from each rigid container/dilutable formulation combination to determine that the 

containers are capable of achieving a “four-9s” laboratory performance standard (a reduction of 

the original active ingredient concentrate to 0.01 percent in a fourth rinse, equivalent to 

99.99 percent removal). Percent removal represents the percentage of the original concentration 

of the active ingredient in the pesticide product when compared to the concentration of that 

active ingredient in the fourth rinse according to a formula. 

(6) Pesticide Container Standards Waiver 

The regulations include procedures for allowing a compliance waiver from adopting the 

specified DOT requirements for both non-refillable and refillable containers. In addition, for 

non-refillable containers, the regulations provide for waivers from the standard closure, container 

dispensing, and residue removal standards. 

(7) Pesticide Container Recordkeeping 

The regulations require several types of recordkeeping. The first addresses the documentation 

that the container used meets each aspect of the non-refillable container design standards. For 

non-refillables, the period extends for as long as the container design type is used with the 

registered pesticide product, plus 3 years. 
Page 15 

The second type of recordkeeping requirement involves records kept by the registrants regarding 

repackaging. The registrants are required to keep copies of the contracts or authorizations, 

residue removal procedures for refilling, and list of acceptable containers for the current 

operating year and for 3 years thereafter. 

The third type of recordkeeping involves refillers keeping copies of the documents identified in 

the previous paragraph for the registrants for the current operating year and for 3 years thereafter 

(as with the registrant recordkeeping). 

The fourth type of recordkeeping involves information the refillers have to record when they 

repackage and when they receive refillable containers. Refillers must record three pieces of 

information when a pesticide is repackaged. No recordkeeping is required when a refillable 

container is received. These records must be kept for 3 years. 

(8) Pesticide Container Refilling 

Registrants who directly sell or distribute pesticide products in refillables or sell or distribute 

pesticide products to refillers for repackaging are held responsible for providing instructions and 

documentation for refilling. Refillers who repackage pesticide products into refillable containers 

for distribution or sale must comply with the refilling residue removal procedure developed by 

registrants and can repackage any quantity of a pesticide product into a refillable container up to 

the rated capacity of the container. In addition, refillers must inspect the exteriors and interiors 

of the containers to ensure that the containers meet the necessary criteria for container integrity, 

required markings, and openings. Refillers must also clean each refillable container according to 

the residue removal procedure for pesticide product refilling (supplied by the registrant) before 

repackaging the product, unless certain criteria are met. 

(9) Pesticide Container Labeling 

The scope of the labeling requirement includes all labels for all pesticide products, not just those 

that fall within the scope of the non-refillable container, refillable container, and repackaging 

(refilling) regulations. However, the final regulations exempt household products from the 

residue removal instructions. Labels may include blank areas to allow a refiller to put any 

amount of product into a refillable and designate on the label the amount and to add its EPAdesignated number for the refilling establishment. Other information to be included on the label 

is a description of the container type giving its intended purpose (such as a refillable or nonrefillable statement) and detailed residue removal instructions. The regulations state that 

household products are exempt from requiring residue removal instructions on their labels and 

that durable permanent marking (versus permanent marking) is acceptable. 

The level of required compliance for a pesticide product to these standards is not the same for all 

products. While the labeling standards apply to all pesticide products, there is a subset of 

pesticide products that are not subject to the pesticide non-refillable and refillable container 

design standards and refilling standards. The level of compliance with these requirements 

depends on a number of factors, such as the type of product (e.g., end-use, manufacturing, 

antimicrobial), toxicity of the product, and use of the product. Chapter 3 provides a complete 

description of the scope of the pesticide container requirements. 
Page 16 

2.2 Changes in Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal Standards from the 

Proposed to the Final Rule 

The final pesticide container design and residue removal standards differ significantly from the 

1994 proposed standards. The final standards are narrower in scope than the proposed 

regulations, exempt certain antimicrobial pesticides, require less stringent container design and 

residue removal requirements, and adopt some of the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

hazardous materials regulations. As a result, the estimated economic impacts on the regulated 

community under the final standards are different from the estimated economic impacts under 

the proposed standards. 

EPA received approximately 1,900 pages of comments from more than 200 commenters (e.g., 

trade associations, pesticide manufacturers, pesticide retailers, and many state regulatory 

agencies) on the proposed rule. In response, two significant issues were readdressed, and the 

comment period was reopened in 1999. The two issues were: (1) the scope of the container 

standards; and (2) the relationship between the 1994 proposed rule and the DOT standards for 

hazardous materials packaging. In the final rule (as discussed below), EPA has revised the scope 

of the container standards to be risk-based with exemptions, and has adopted many of the design 

and construction standards that would apply to DOT Packing Group III materials. These and 

other changes made to each standard are as follows. (See Appendix G for additional information 

on the changes from the proposed to the final rule.) 

(1) Scope of the Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal Standards 

Regarding the scope of the pesticide container design and residue removal regulations, the 

proposed regulations generally affected all containers used to package pesticide products, 

without regard to industry, use, risk, or container type and size. Only manufacturing use 

products were exempt from the proposed regulations. The final rule exempts manufacturing use 

products, plant-incorporated protectants, and certain antimicrobial products from the nonrefillable container, refillable container, and repackaging (refilling) regulations. All other 

products are subject to the container-related regulations, although the number of non-refillable 

container standards is greatly reduced for some products. As proposed, all pesticide products 

(except household products) are subject to the container labeling requirements in the final rule. 

(2) Pesticide Container Design Standards 

The proposed regulations included some very general design standards, but also included some 

specific tests, such as a drop test for minibulk containers. The final standards specify some DOT 

HMR packaging standards for pesticides classified as DOT hazardous materials. Pesticides that 

are not classified as DOT hazardous materials are required to be packaged in accordance with the 

specified design and construction standards that would apply to a DOT Packing Group III 

material. 

(3) Pesticide Container Permanent Markings 

The proposed standards required many more specific permanent markings for non-refillable and 

refillable containers. For example, non-refillables required the EPA registration number and 

name and a symbol or code of materials used to make the container, and refillables required the 

statement, “Meets EPA standards for refillable containers.” The final regulations, as described 
Page 17 

above, refer to and adopt the DOT standards for non-refillables and refillables (which specify 

certain markings), and require a serial number or other identifying code for each refillable 

container. 

(4) Pesticide Container Dispensing Capability 

The proposed regulations stipulated that liquid containers be designed to eliminate the splash and 

leakage during normal pouring of the contents, closing or resealing the container, and during 

storage and cleaning of the container. The final regulations regarding pouring are the same 

except that they apply only to non-refillables liquid containers with a capacity greater than 20 

liters (5.3 gallons). The proposed requirement to reseal completely was not finalized because an 

equivalent requirement is included in the adopted DOT standards. 

(5) Pesticide Container Closures 

The proposed and final standards for container closures are the same. 

(6) Pesticide Container Residue Removal Design Standard 

With regard to non-refillable containers, the proposed regulations specified that registrants must 

demonstrate that each rigid/dilutable container/formulation combination achieved a “six-9s” 

laboratory performance standard (a reduction of the original active ingredient concentrate to 

0.0001 percent in a fourth rinse, equivalent to 99.9999 percent removal). The final regulations 

require that every registrant test three containers from each rigid container/dilutable formulation 

combination to determine that the containers are capable of attaining at least 99.99 percent 

removal of each active ingredient in the fourth rinsate after a triple rinse. 

(7) Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal Standard Waiver 

The proposed regulations permitted a waiver for standard closures and the residue removal 

standard only (non-refillable containers), while the final regulations include provisions for both 

non-refillable and refillable containers to waive adoption of the subset of DOT standards, and, 

for non-refillables, the standard closure, container dispensing, and residue removal requirements. 

(8) Pesticide Container Certification 

The proposed rule required registrants to certify that the non-refillable and refillable containers 

used for the distribution or sale of pesticides meet the container design standards. The final rule 

does not require certification. 

(9) Pesticide Container Recordkeeping 

The proposed and final regulations require similar types of recordkeeping, although the final rule 

requires fewer records and decreases the length of time that many of the records must be kept. 

(10) Pesticide Container Refilling 

The proposed and final regulations contain nearly the same requirements for the refilling of 

pesticide containers, including specific guidelines for registrants and refillers. However, the 

final rule changes two of the conditions to: (1) require a contract between the parties (rather than 
Page 18 

a contract or an authorization as proposed); and (2) allow repackaging at an end user location 

under certain circumstances (rather than requiring the repackaging to be conducted at a 

registered establishment as proposed). 

(11) Pesticide Container Labeling 

The proposed and final regulations for container labeling are similar, but the final regulations are 

generally more flexible because they provide a range of specific statements. While the proposed 

regulations required the residue removal instructions on all rigid non-refillable containers with 

dilutable products, the final regulations exempt household containers and allow for durable 

container markings (rather than only permanent as proposed). 

2.3 Response to Comments to the Proposed Standards 

As previously mentioned, EPA received approximately 1,900 pages of comments from more 

than 200 commenters in response to the proposed pesticide container standards. The majority of 

the comments received were directed toward the proposed container standards and their effect on 

the regulated industries, resulting, in part, in the changes to the proposed standards as described 

in the previous section. Only a relatively small portion of the comments submitted in response to 

the proposed container standards were directed toward the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 

conducted for the proposed container standards. As a result, there were few changes made in the 

assumptions used to calculate the costs of compliance from the proposed to the final container 

standards based on the comments submitted. Rather, the differences between the proposed and 

final rule economic analyses (EAs) primarily reflect changes made in the scope and requirements 

of the container standards. 

There are two exceptions. The first is the consideration of the swimming pool industry in the 

final EA. This industry was not considered separately in the RIA for the proposed container 

standards. As a result of comments submitted by the swimming pool industry, which provided a 

reasonable justification for being considered separately,12 the EA for the final standards 

considers swimming pool supply companies relative to the refilling standards. The other 

exception is the calculation of the indirect, non-health benefits in the RIA associated with the 

movement from non-refillable to refillable containers. In the proposed rule, these indirect 

benefits (see Section 2.4) were estimated, and, in response, a number of comments were 

submitted by the regulated industry questioning the magnitude of these benefits. Although EPA 

still maintains that there could be a shift from non-refillables to refillable containers as a result of 

the final pesticide container standards, EPA acknowledges that there is more uncertainty in the 

assumptions made in the analysis of indirect benefits and the magnitude of these benefits than is 

made evident in the proposed rule RIA. As a result, the EA for the final pesticide container 

standards does not attempt to quantify these indirect benefits. 

 

12 The swimming pool industry, which includes pool, spas, hot tubs, and whirlpools, successfully argued that it is 

unique because it uses and refills a large number of small refillables (an estimated 1 million 1- or 2.5-gallon 

containers). 
Page 19 

2.4 Comparison of the Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Final and Proposed 

Standards 

As described in Section 2.2, EPA made a number of significant changes to the pesticide 

container standards from the proposed to the final standards. As a result, there are differences in 

the level of compliance with these standards for existing containers, leading to differences in the 

estimated costs and benefits of compliance with the pesticide container standards between the 

proposed and final rule. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 present the estimated costs and benefits of 

compliance for the final and proposed pesticide container standards. 

Table 2.1. Annual Compliance Cost Comparison Between the Final and Proposed 

Pesticide Container Standards (2005$) 

Cost Item 

Compliance Cost for Final 

Container Standards a

Compliance Cost for Proposed 

Container Standards b

Total Cost of Compliance $8.4 million $40.1 to $55.5 million 

Total Cost of Compliance by Regulated Industry 

Pesticide Registrants $5.6 million $27.3 to $37.3 million 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers $2.6 million $4.7 million 

End Users No Analysis Completed $8.2 to $13.6 million 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies $0.2 million No Analysis Completed 

Total Cost of Compliance by Standard 

Container-Related Standards c $2.9 million $22.2 to $32.2 million 

Refilling-Related Standards d $3.2 million $4.7 million 

Labeling Standards $2.3 million $13.3 to 18.7 million 

a

 See Chapter 4 for the cost analysis of the pesticide container regulations. Figures presented here are calculated 

using a 3% discount rate. Figures for both 3% and 7% discount rates are presented in Chapter 4. 

b

 Based on the costs estimated for Regulatory Option 2 in the proposed rule RIA for pesticide containers, which was 

EPA’s preferred option in the proposed rule. The range of cost estimates results from the consideration of two 

scenarios under each regulatory option (see Appendix E). 

c

 The container-related standards include DOT packaging standards and recordkeeping standards for refillable and 

non-refillable containers; closure standards, standards for container dispensing, and residue removal standards for 

non-refillables; and standards for container marking, openings, and bulk containers for refillable containers. 

d

 The refilling-related standards include the inspection, cleaning, and recordkeeping of refillable containers. 
Page 20 

Table 2.2. Comparison of Human Health-Related and Non-Human Health-Related 

Benefits for the Proposed and Final Container Standards (2005$) 

Benefit Category Final Container Standards a Proposed Container Standards b 

Human Health-Related Benefits 

Avoided Cases • 610 to 768 cases annually (= 

$264,051 to $332,311 in annualized 

health benefits per year) 

• Additional 1,945 to 2,449 cases 

annually with “possible” cases (= an 

additional $841,644 to $1,059,240 

in annualized health benefits) 

• 1,650 to 2,250 acute illnesses 

annually 

Improved Worker Safety • Possible health benefit; lost 

productivity valued as part of health 

benefits from avoided cases 

• Reduced personal sickness and 

injury 

• Improved worker productivity 

Improved Public Health • Possible health benefit; continued 

benefit of avoided cases throughout 

the compliance schedule 

• Less personal injury from 

accidental spills and chronic 

contamination sources 

Non-Human Health-Related Benefits 

Non-Refillable Container 

Disposal Benefit (2005$) 

• $4.5 million per year • $5.6 to $6.9 million per year 

Non-Refillable to Refillable 

Container Benefit 

• Not quantified • $36 to $109 million per year 

a See Chapter 5 for the pesticide container regulations human health related and non-human health related benefits 

analysis. Figures presented here are calculated using a 3% discount rate. Figures for both 3% and 7% discount rates 

are presented in Chapter 5. 

b Proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pg. XIV-3). See Appendix E. 

The total cost of compliance with the final standards is estimated to be significantly lower than 

the estimated total cost of compliance with the proposed standards (see Table 2.1). This is 

primarily the result of the changes in the container standards from the proposed to final rule. 

One of the significant changes between the proposed and final pesticide container rule is the 

elimination of the labeling standard requiring household users to triple rinse non-refillable 

containers prior to disposal. The estimated cost of this requirement accounts for a significant 

portion of the difference between the final and proposed container standards in terms of 

estimated total cost and estimated labeling standards cost, and all of the difference between the 

end user costs (which are not expected in the final rule without the labeling requirement for 

household users to triple rinse containers prior to disposal). 

The difference in costs between the final and proposed rule for pesticide registrants (and the 

container-related standards, for which the pesticide registrants are responsible) is attributed 

primarily to the changes in the container standards from the proposed to final rule. Change in 

residue removal standards, which are now applicable to only flowable concentrate products, has 

significantly reduced the total cost of the rule. In addition, reduction in the estimated time to 

inspect, clean, and record information for refillable containers and the elimination of certification 

requirements also account for the difference between the total estimated costs for pesticide 

refillers (and the refilling-related standards) to comply with the final container standards versus 

the proposed container standards. Swimming pool supply companies face similar costs for 

refilling; however, this industry was not addressed in the proposed rule RIA. The proposed rule 

RIA for pesticide containers estimated costs to refill containers for agricultural refillers only, 

ignoring not only the swimming pool industry, but also some agricultural and 
Page 21 

industrial/commercial/government product refilling responsibilities (and therefore increased 

costs of compliance) for pesticide registrants. 

Table 2.2 presents the estimated human health-related and non-human health-related benefits of 

compliance with the final and proposed container standards. Both analyses estimate the number 

of potentially avoided illnesses. In addition, there were other human health-related benefits 

discussed qualitatively in the proposed regulations, such as improved worker safety and 

improved public health, which remain relevant to the final regulations. In the RIA for the 

proposed container standards, the avoided cases were estimated by extrapolating 1988–1989 

California incident data to the national level. For that analysis, the number of cases per year 

found to be attributable to container-related problems in California was assumed to represent 

approximately 10 percent of the nation’s total, resulting in a total annual estimate of 1,650 to 

2,250 potentially avoided cases. In the EA for the final standards, it is similarly assumed that the 

percentage of illnesses related to pesticide products occurring in California in 1999 would not 

differ significantly from the United States as a whole. However, unlike the proposed regulations, 

this ratio is applied to national data on pesticide exposures, rather than extrapolating it to a 

national estimate. The EA for the final container standards also estimates dollar benefits for the 

potentially avoided cases as a result of the final container standards, which was not done in the 

RIA for the proposed container standards. The total human health-related benefits calculated in 

the final rule EA ($264,051 to $332,311 per year) are estimates of the costs avoided as a result of 

estimated avoided cases of pesticide illness. The analysis considers costs including outpatient 

costs, inpatient costs, the value of lost productivity, and the value of premature mortality. 

The only quantified non-human health-related benefits calculated in the EA for the final 

pesticide container standards is the annual cost-saving benefit associated with the diversion of 

non-refillable containers from the hazardous waste management stream to the solid (nonhazardous) waste stream. This annual benefit was also calculated in the RIA for the proposed 

pesticide container standards. The differences between the results of the two analyses stems 

from the changes in the scope criteria in the final rule, leading to a smaller number of containers 

estimated to be diverted from the hazardous to non-hazardous waste stream in the final rule EA, 

and, as a result, lower estimated dollar benefits. 

In addition to the non-refillable container disposal benefits, the RIA for the proposed container 

standards estimated indirect benefits associated with the switch from use of non-refillable 

containers to refillable containers, which was expected (not required) as a result of the container 

standards. The types of indirect cost savings estimated as a result of the switch to refillable 

containers include: (1) container cost savings, (2) container disposal cost savings, and 

(3) substantial labor savings associated with triple rinsing of used non-refillable pesticide 

containers. The sum of indirect benefits was estimated to range from $36 million to $109 

million. These benefits are not quantified in the final container standards EA. 

In summary, this chapter presented (1) the final standards for pesticide containers and the 

changes that have been made to the standards from the proposed to the final rule, and (2) a 

summary of the estimated costs and benefits of compliance with the final and with the proposed 

pesticide container standards. The remaining three chapters present the analysis of the costs and 

benefits of compliance with the final pesticide container standards. The first step in this analysis 
Page 22 

(Chapter 3) involves determining the level of compliance of pesticide containers with the final 

container standards. This information feeds into the second step of the analysis (Chapter 4), 

which estimates the cost of compliance with the final standards. The final step (Chapter 5) 

estimates the benefits to humans and the environment expected to result from compliance with 

the final pesticide container standards. 
Page 23 

3.0 Pesticide Container Compliance Profile 

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a baseline regulatory compliance profile of pesticide containers that will be 

affected by the container regulations. In general, the container regulations address four 

categories, which include: 

• Non-refillable container standards; 

• Refillable container standards; 

• Repackaging of pesticide products; and 

• Container labeling. 

The container regulations compliance affects several types of entities across multiple pesticide 

market sectors. The three entities that are potentially affected by the container regulations are 

pesticide registrants, agricultural pesticide refillers, and swimming pool supply companies. The 

following is a description of each of these entities as well as a description of how these entities 

are affected by the container rule. For a more detailed description of each entity type see 

Appendix D. 

• Pesticide registrants include all establishments engaged in the formulation and preparation 

of all types of pesticides (e.g., insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides). This regulated entity 

includes both pesticide manufacturers and independent formulators who hold one or more 

pesticide registrations. Registrants include those who distribute or sell pesticides in nonrefillable containers or refillable containers directly, those who distribute or sell pesticides to 

independent formulators or refillers, and in some cases direct refiller establishments. 

Pesticide registrants are basically required to ensure that all non-refillable and refillable 

containers meet the container rule construction and design standards, develop and provide 

information to refillers, and ensure that labels include the specified information. Pesticide 

registrants are responsible for procedural and handling activities for approximately 10 

percent of the refillables in the agricultural market (Paulson, 2002) and all of the refillables in 

the industrial/commercial/government (I/C/G) market.13 The primary NAICS code 

designation for pesticide registrants is 325320 – Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing.14 The Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) database of company information and 

financial data provides NAICS codes with company information where available. 

Registrants may serve one or more of the pesticide use market sectors (i.e., agricultural, 

 

13 Don Paulson recently retired from Ciba/Novartis and is currently a consultant to Syngenta and CropLife America, 

formerly the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA). Mr. Paulson was very active in the ACPA packaging 

task force in the 1990s and co-surveyed the number of agricultural pesticide containers for ACPA with Tom Gilding 

between 1989 and 1996. 

14 Other NAICS codes associated with pesticide registrants include: (1) 422690 – 1997 NAICS - Otr Chem & Allyd 

Prdct Whlslrs, (2) 422910 1997 NAICS – Farm Supplies Wholesalers, (3) 325612 – Polish and Other Sanitation 

Good Manufacturing, (4) 325998 – All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing, 

(5) 325188 – All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, (6) 453998 – All Other Miscellaneous Store 

Retailers (except Tobacco Stores), and (7) 325412 – Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing. (See Appendix D.) 
Page 24 

industrial/commercial/government, and/or home and garden). (See below for a discussion of 

each market sector.) 

• Agricultural pesticide refillers include only independent agricultural market sector refillers. 

The agricultural pesticide refiller entity is generally an agricultural chemical dealer (or 

retailer) who supplies pesticide products to farmers or other end users in refillable containers 

for large-scale application, although it could also be a distributor. Agricultural pesticide 

refillers are subject to container refilling requirements each time a refillable container is 

repackaged. Generally, this regulated entity is responsible for inspecting, rinsing, relabeling 

containers prior to reuse, and maintaining appropriate records. It is estimated that 90 percent 

of agricultural pesticide product is distributed or sold by agricultural pesticide refillers, and 

the remaining 10 percent is distributed or sold directly by registrants (Paulson, 2002). 

Agricultural pesticide refillers are generally represented under NAICS 422910 – Farm 

Supplies and Wholesale Sector, which consists of “establishments primarily engaged in 

wholesaling farm supplies, such as animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, 

pesticides, plant seeds and plant bulbs” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997). 

• Swimming pool supply companies include registrants and other companies that repackage 

sodium hypochlorite, an antimicrobial used in pools and spas. Swimming pool supply 

companies are affected by certain requirements in the final rule for repackaging (refilling) 

sodium hypochlorite. These companies must meet certain refilling requirements, but not all. 

Refillables are required to be inspected, cleaned, and properly labeled. Swimming pool 

repackagers must maintain certain records, but not all. Copies of the residue removal 

procedures for refilling and description of acceptable containers must be on file, but a record 

of certain information recorded each time a container is refilled (e.g., product, amount) is not 

required. A primary NAICS code for swimming pool supply companies is 453998 – All 

Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores). 

Other entities handle pesticide containers but are not regulated under the final rule. For example, 

agricultural commercial applicators and self-applicators (farmers) routinely use combinations of 

non-refillable and refillable containers. These entities typically do not redistribute or resell 

refillable containers or provide refilling services other than for self-application or self-use; 

therefore, these entities will not be subject to the final refilling requirements. As a result, these 

entities are not included in this industry profile. 

It is difficult to estimate the impact of the container regulations on end users or consumers of 

pesticide containers. The container regulations do not include specific requirements for end 

users or consumers. However, the labeling requirements for pesticide registrants require that 

certain information, including proper residue removal procedures prior to disposal, be included 

on pesticide labels. The impact of these labeling requirements on end users and consumers is 

uncertain. Information on the current residue removal practices of end users and consumers is 

not readily available; thus, estimating the change in behavior associated with the container rule 

labeling requirements is also unavailable. We assume the labeling requirement impact on end 

users or consumers is indirect and negligible. 
Page 25 

The container regulations are associated with three major market sectors of pesticide use: 

agricultural, I/C/G, and home and garden (H&G). The market sectors used in the compliance 

profile are consistent with EPA’s Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2000-2001 Market 

Estimates report (EPA, 2002b) and the Economic Profile of the U.S. Pesticide Industry (EPA, 

2000a). The agricultural sector forms the largest market for conventional pesticides, with 

herbicides used most commonly, followed by insecticides and fungicides. The I/C/G sector 

includes use of pesticide products by professional applicators at I/C/G facilities, on military 

bases, in hospitals, for janitorial use, and in homes and gardens. The H&G sector represents 

pesticide products formulated for household use in and around the home. 

The market sectors considered in this analysis differ slightly from the market sectors considered 

in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993). Table 3.1 illustrates how the market sectors 

considered in this analysis compare with the market sectors used previously. 

Table 3.1. Market Sector Equivalent Between the Current Analysis and the 

1993 EPA Proposed Container Rule RIA 

Current Analysis Proposed Container Rule RIA 

Agricultural Agricultural 

Industrial/Commercial/Government Industrial 

Institutional 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies a Not considered separately 

Home & Garden Household 

a

 Swimming pool supply companies are subject to a subset of the refilling requirements. Swimming pool supply 

companies must meet certain refilling requirements, but not all. Refillables are required to be inspected, cleaned 

(unless specified conditions in §165.170 are met), and properly labeled. Swimming pool supply companies must 

maintain certain records, but not all. Copies of the residue removal procedures for refilling and description of 

acceptable containers must be on file (§165.218(a)), but a record of certain information recorded each time a 

container is refilled (e.g., product, amount) is not required (§165.218(b)). Swimming pool supply companies could 

be considered part of both the I/C/G and H&G markets. For the purposes of this analysis, however, swimming pool 

supply companies were considered separately for the refillable container and repackaging requirements. For nonrefillable containers, the containers holding sodium hypochlorite for swimming pool use are included with the 

estimates of containers in the I/C/G and H&G markets. 

Table 3.2 illustrates which regulated entities are responsible for which container regulations. 

Table 3.2 is not intended to be comprehensive; rather, it is designed to provide a brief overview 

showing how each of the regulated entities identified and characterized in this chapter will be 

affected by the container rule. 

Table 3.3 illustrates the SBA and EPA alternative small business definitions for entities affected 

by the container regulations. A small entity is defined as: 

• A small business according to the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201. The SBA defines small businesses by category of business using NAICS 

codes. Not all companies within a given regulated entity have registered under the same 

NAICS code. The SBA definition is based on the primary NAICS code or codes that best 

represent(s) the regulated entity. 
Page 26 

Table 3.2. Generalization of Impacts of Pesticide Container Regulations on Regulated En

Container Rule Activities 

Pesticide 

Registrants 

Agricultu

Pesticid

Refiller

Non-Refillable Containers Ensure that all containers meet a subset of DOT packaging standards 9Ensure that liquid product containers dispense properly and have standard closures 9Ensure that containers meet the residue removal standard for dilutable pesticides in rigid containers 9Refillable Containers Ensure that containers meet a subset of DOT packaging standards 9Mark containers with a serial number 9Ensure that a one-way valve and/or tamper-evident device is in place for liquid minibulks 9Ensure that a vent, gauge, and shutoff valve are in place for liquid bulk containers 9Meet repackaging conditions 9 a 9 Develop cleaning procedures for repackaging 9 aInspect, clean, and ensure proper labeling of containers 9 a 9 Maintain records 9 a 9 Labeling Standards Ensure that labels include specified information 9a Refilling requirements affect pesticide registrants for 10 percent of the total refillable containers in the agricultural market sector and 

the I/C/G market sector. Available data are insufficient to differentiate pesticide registrants that also repackage I/C/G market pesticide 

do not. Therefore, pesticide registrants are held accountable. 

b Swimming pool supply companies must meet certain refilling requirements, but not all. Refillables are required to be inspected, clea

conditions in §165.170 are met), and properly labeled. 

c Swimming pool supply companies must maintain certain records, but not all. Copies of the residue removal procedures for refilling 

acceptable containers must be on file (§165.218(a)), but a record of certain information recorded each time a container is refilled (e.g., 

required (§165.218(b)). 
Page 27 

Table 3.3. SBA and EPA Alternative Definitions of Small and Large Businesses Affected b

Pesticide Container Regulations 

Regulated Entity SBA Definitions EPA Alternative De

Primary NAICS Code(s) Size 

Definition 

(13 CFR Part 121) Size 

Small-Small 1 to 19 em

Medium-Small 20 to 99 e

Small 500 or fewer employees 

Large-Small 100 to 50

Pesticide Registrants 325320 – Pesticide and Other 

Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 

Large 501 or more employees Large 501 or mo

Small-Small 1 to 9 em

Medium-Small 10 to 49 e

Small 100 or fewer employees 

Large-Small 50 to 100 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

422910 – Farm Supply Wholesalers 

Large 101 or more employees Large 101 or mo

Small-Small 1 to 9 em

Medium-Small 10 to 49 e

Small Maximum revenues of $6.0 

million a

Large-Small 50 or mor

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 

453998 – All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) 

Large Revenues greater than $6.0 

million a

Large Revenues 

million a

a The SBA small business size standard is no more than $6 million in revenue for NAICS 453998. The analysis divided the SBA smal

three EPA alternative small business size categories regardless of employee or revenue totals once the regulated entity passed the SBA

screening. 
Page 28 

• A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

• Any small, not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.

This economic analysis (EA) evaluates an alternative definition of small entities or businesses 

potentially affected by the container regulations. As discussed by EPA in the 1999 Standards for 

Pesticide Containers and Containment Proposed Rule Supplemental Notice (EPA, 1999), the 

alternative definition disaggregates the SBA-defined small businesses into three size categories: 

small-small, medium-small, and large-small businesses. EPA is concerned that using an overly 

broad definition of small business in the EA of the container regulations may result in significant 

economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information 

about potential impacts on facilities that meet the SBA size standard for small business but are 

not typical of a small business in that industry sector. Table 3.3 represents each affected industry 

by the SBA definition of small business and the alternative definition used in this analysis. 

Two industry sectors considered in the 1999 Supplemental Notice were pesticide formulators and 

agrichemical dealers. These regulated entities correspond with pesticide registrants and 

agricultural pesticide refillers, respectively, in this EA. We have also developed an alternative 

small business definition that disaggregates the SBA-define small businesses into small-small, 

medium-small and large-small businesses for the swimming pool supply companies. 

The remainder of this chapter is divided into three sections. Section 3.2 describes how we 

estimated the total universe of pesticide containers in use for the three market sectors 

(agricultural, I/C/G, and H&G). Section 3.3 illustrates how we applied the scope criteria to the 

total universe of pesticide containers to estimate how many containers are ultimately affected by 

the container regulations. Section 3.4 examines the extent to which pesticide containers are 

already in compliance with various components of the container regulations. 

3.2 Pesticide Container Universe 

An estimate of the current number of non-refillable and refillable containers in the agricultural, 

I/C/G, and H&G markets is based on data from the following sources: 

• 1996 agricultural pesticide container survey by the American Crop Protection Association 

(ACPA, 1997). 

• Container number estimates derived from a 1989 pesticide container survey conducted by the 

pesticide industry. The groups that participated include the National Agricultural Chemicals 

Association (NACA), the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA), the International 

Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA), and the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers 

Association (CSMA). 

• Non-refillable container numbers from 2001 and 1991 surveys conducted by the American 

Chemistry Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association). 

• Information and best professional judgment from industry and association representatives 

(EPA, 2005, and Paulson, 2002). 
Page 29 

Because of the pesticide use diversity among the major pesticide markets, the number of 

containers is estimated separately for each market. The general approach we took was to 

summarize the number of containers by type from the appropriate source(s) and adjust container 

numbers as appropriate to reflect current use levels based on 2001 information and best 

professional judgment (EPA, 2005). Tables 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate the estimated number of nonrefillable and refillable containers, respectively, that are currently in use. Table 3.6 gives 

estimates of the number of swimming pool chemical containers affected by the container 

regulations. A more detailed discussion of how the estimates were derived for refillable 

containers can be found in Appendix B. 
Page 30 

Table 3.4. Estimated Number of Non-Refillable Pesticide Containers in Use by 

Major Market Sectors 

Container Size Category Agricultural a

Industrial/ 

Commercial/ 

Government b

Home & 

Garden c Total 

Liquid Pesticide Products 

30-55 Gallons 

 Plastic 309,100 1,600,000 0 1,909,100

 Steel 115,500 2,320,000 0 2,435,500

5 Gallons 

 Plastic 58,100 14,048,000 0 14,106,100

 Steel 28,800 960,000 0 988,800

1 To < 5 Gallons 

 Plastic 27,877,500 21,072,000 28,000,000 76,949,500

 Steel 0 1,440,000 8,000,000 9,440,000

< 1 Gallon 

 Plastic 1,007,000 20,560,000 104,000,000 125,567,000

 Steel 0 160,000 12,000,000 12,160,000

 Glass 0 240,000 8,000,000 8,240,000

Water Soluble Packets 

 PVA 544,600 0 0 544,600

 Barrier 82,200 0 0 82,200

Bag-In-Box 500 260,000 0 260,500

Aerosol Cans 0 23,200,000 200,000,000 223,200,000

Other Sizes 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 30,023,300 85,860,000 360,000,000 475,883,300

Dry Pesticide Products 

> 100 lb Bulk 429,500 0 0 429,500

56-100 lb Bags 0 0 0 0

45-55 lb Bags 

 Plastic 1,849,200 0 0 1,849,200

 Paper 8,161,000 0 0 8,161,000

11-44 lb Bags 0 1,120,000 39,500,000 40,620,000

 Plastic 3,764,900 0 0 44,384,900

 Paper 2,216,600 0 0 2,216,600

1-10 lb Bags 

 Plastic 328,900 0 0 328,900

 Paper 5,730,200 0 0 5,730,200

Jugs 

 2.5 gallons 26,400 0 0 26,400

 1 quart to < 2.5 gallons 2,273,000 370,000 500,000 3,143,000
Page 31 

Table 3.4 (Continued). Estimated Number of Non-Refillable Pesticide Containers in Use by 

Major Market Sectors 

Container Size Category Agricultural a

Industrial/ 

Commercial/ 

Government b

Home & 

Garden c Total 

 PVA 44,070,700 1,300,000 0 45,370,700

 Barrier 11,879,100 430,000 0 12,309,100

Fiber Drums 

 > 30 pounds 12,300 1,280,000 0 1,292,300

 < 30 pounds 129,600 0 0 129,600

Other Sizes 3,442,200 0 0 3,442,200

Subtotal 84,313,600 4,500,000 40,000,000 128,813,600

Total - Non-Refillables 114,336,900 90,360,000 400,000,000 604,696,900

Percentage of Non-Refillables 18.91% 14.94% 66.15% 

a

 Current estimates of the number of non-refillable containers in the agricultural market were taken from the most 

recent (1996) ACPA Container Survey (ACPA, 1997). Number of containers has been rounded to the nearest 

hundred for purposes of this table. Actual container estimates surveyed are used throughout the pesticide container 

compliance profile (Chapter 3) and cost analysis (Chapter 4). EPA (2005) determined that the 1996 ACPA 

Container Survey results were reasonable and should be used based on correspondence with Tom Gilding of 

CropLife America (formerly ACPA). 

b

 Current estimates of the number of non-refillable containers in the I/C/G market were based on the combined total 

number of containers for the industrial and institutional market sectors used in the proposed container rule RIA 

(EPA, 1993). EPA solicited comments from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and ISSA in May 2001 to aid 

in updating the I/C/G non-refillable container estimates. The ACC received information on the number of 

containers used by 11 out of 40 member companies. This information was used to modify the current estimated 

number of containers in the I/C/G market sector. As a result, EPA made the following changes in the estimated 

number of non-refillable container estimates for the I/C/G market sector (EPA, 2005): 

• Bag-in-box: Two companies reported 133,162 bag-in-box containers. Since only a small number of companies 

reported using these containers, this estimate was doubled and rounded down to 260,000. 

• One quart to < 2.5 gallon plastic: Two companies reported 184,617 containers in this category. This estimate 

was doubled and rounded to 370,000. 

• Water soluble PVA packets and barrier packs: Three companies reported 653,305 water soluble PVA packets. 

This estimate was doubled and rounded to 1,300,000. The number of barrier packs was calculated based on a 

ratio of three PVA packets to one barrier pack, resulting in an estimated 430,000 barrier packs. c

 Current estimates of the number of non-refillable containers in the H&G market were based on the total number of 

containers in the household market sector used in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993). EPA received the 

following qualitative feedback from John DiFazio of Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) with regard 

to the current number of H&G non-refillable containers in use versus the 1993 estimates: 

• Liquid non-refillables: (1) 1 to <5 gallon plastic - about the same; (2) <1 gallon plastic - about the same; (3) <1 

gallon steel - much less; and (4) aerosol cans - about the same. 

• Dry non-refillables: (1) 11 to 44 pound plastic bags - a bit less; (2) 1 to 10 pound paper bags - a bit more; (3) 1 

quart to <2.5 gallon plastic - a bit less; and (4) subtotal for dry non-refillables - more, possibly much more. 

As a result, the following non-refillable container estimate modifications were made: 

• <1 gallon steel: Assumed that “much less” reduced the estimate for this category from 24,000,000 to 

12,000,000. 

• Flexible bags (see note “d” below): Assumed that “a bit less” 11 to 44 pound plastic bags combined with “a bit 

more” 1 to 10 pound paper bags increased the estimate for this category from 28,000,000 to 40,000,000, with 

500,000 of this total allocated to the “1 quart to <2.5 gallon plastic” size category specifically and the 

remaining 39,500,000 allocated to flexible bags with no size criteria specified. 

d

 As with the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993), no size criteria are specified for flexible bags. For the 

purposes of this analysis, all of the flexible bags for the market sector were allocated to the “11 to 44 pound 

paper/plastic bags” category. 
Page 32 

Table 3.5. Estimated Number of Refillable Pesticide Containers in Use 

by Major Market Sectors 

Container Size Category Agricultural a I/C/G b

Home & 

Garden c Total 

Liquid Pesticide Products 

Retail Bulk Tanks (>500 Gal) 

 Plastic 12,060 7,200 0 19,260

 Steel 1,340 800 0 2,140

Large Tanks (251-500 Gal) 

 Plastic 1,170 8,400 0 9,570

 Steel 130 2,800 0 2,930

126-250 Gallons 

 Plastic 34,800 9,000 0 43,800

 Steel 6,700 1,000 0 7,700

61-125 Gallons 

 Plastic 172,600 9,000 0 181,600

 Steel 57,600 1,000 0 58,600

26-60 Gallons 

 Plastic 48,800 2,920 0 51,720

 Steel 4,000 4,380 0 8,380

5-25 Gallons 

 Plastic 127,900 0 0 127,900

 Steel 99,800 0 0 99,800

Other Sizes 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 566,900 46,500 0 613,400

Dry Pesticide Products 

Retail Bulk Tanks (> 4,000 lbs) 175 0 0 175

Large Tanks (2,501-4,000 lbs) 5,425 0 0 5,425

101-2,500 lb Bags 13,300 0 0 13,300

< 100 lb Bags 677,800 0 0 677,800

Other Sizes 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 696,700 0 0 696,700

Total - Refillables 1,263,600 46,500 0 1,310,100

Percentage of Refillables 96.45% 3.55% 0.00% 

Note: See Table 3.6 for estimates of the number of swimming pool chemical containers in use. a

 Current estimates of the number of refillable containers in the agricultural market were based on converting the 

formulated volume (gal) and formulated weight (lbs) of pesticides reported in the 1996 ACPA Container Survey 

(ACPA, 1997) to the number of refillable containers in use. The non-bulk container estimates were rounded to the 

nearest hundred, and the bulk container estimates were rounded to nearest multiple of five. See Appendix B. 

b

 Current estimates of the number of refillable containers in the I/C/G market were based on the combined total 

number of containers for the industrial and institutional market sectors used in the proposed container rule RIA 

(EPA, 1993). EPA solicited comments from the ACC and ISSA in May 2001 to aid in updating the I/C/G refillable 

container estimates. No changes to the estimated number of refillable containers were warranted, based on 

responses from the ACC and ISSA. 

c

 The analysis assumes that there are no refillable containers in the H&G market. 
Page 33 

Table 3.6. Estimated Number of Swimming Pool Chemical Refillable 

Containers Affected by the Pesticide Container Regulations 

Container Size Category Number of Containers a

Liquid Pesticide Products 

Retail Bulk Tanks (>500 Gal) 

 Plastic 1,620 

 Steel 180 

Bulk Tanks (251-500 Gal) 

 Plastic 4,680 

 Steel 520 

126-250 Gallons 

 Plastic 0 

 Steel 0 

61-125 Gallons 

 Plastic 0 

 Steel 0 

26-60 Gallons 

 Plastic 140,000 

 Steel 0 

5-25 Gallons 

 Plastic 70,000 

 Steel 0 

Other Sizes b 1,000,000 

Total – Refillables 1,217,000 

a

 Estimates are based on comments to the 1999 Supplemental Notice submitted by 

relevant trade associations (i.e., the Chlorine Institute, National Spa and Pool Institute, 

and Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers Association) that provide the average 

number of refillings and volume. Based on the comments, the number of refillings 

was assumed to be 8. A smaller refilling rate of 4 was assumed for larger containers. 

This refilling rate was used with the data on volume from the comments (38 million 

gallons of sodium hypochlorite in use for pools in spas annually) to arrive at the total 

number of containers. 

b

 Other sizes include relatively smaller, 1- or 2.5-gallon plastic containers known to be 

in use. 

3.3 The Implications of the Scope of the Regulations on the Container Estimates 

The regulations specify which pesticide products are and are not subject to the regulations 

(40 CFR Part 165 Subparts C, D, and E). The container scope criteria are relatively complex, but 

some of the key points are briefly summarized here and in Table 3.7: 
Page 34 

Table 3.7. Summary of Regulatory Scope 

Pesticide Products NOT Subject to the Pesticide Container Regulations 

Non-Refillable and Refillable Containers 

The following three categories of pesticide products are not subject to the non-refillable container, refillable 

container, and repackaging regulations: 

(1) Manufacturing use products (MUPs); 

(2) Plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs); and 

(3) Antimicrobial pesticide products that satisfy all four of these criteria: 

• It is an antimicrobial pesticide, as defined in FIFRA Section 2(mm), or it has antimicrobial properties, as 

defined in FIFRA Section 2(mm)(1)(A), and is subject to a tolerance or a food additive regulation. 

• Its label includes directions for use on a site in at least one of the 10 antimicrobial product use categories 

identified as “household, industrial, or institutional.” a

• It is not a hazardous waste when it is intended to be disposed, as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 

• EPA has not specifically found that the product must be subject to the container provisions to prevent an 

unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 

Pesticide Products Subject to the Pesticide Container Regulations 

Non-Refillable Containers 

Other than MUPs, PIPs, and exempt antimicrobial products, a pesticide product sold or distributed in a nonrefillable container is subject to all of the non-refillable container regulations if it satisfies at least one of the 

following criteria: b 

(1) It meets the criteria of Toxicity Category I; 

(2) It meets the criteria of Toxicity Category II; or 

(3) It is classified for restricted use (as set out in 40 CFR parts 152.160–152.175). 

If a product (other than MUPs, PIPs, and exempt antimicrobials) does not meet any of these criteria, the product is 

subject to only the basic DOT requirements in 49 CFR 173.24. 

Refillable Containers and Repackaging 

Other than MUPs, PIPs, and exempt antimicrobial products, a pesticide product sold or distributed in a refillable 

container is subject to the refillable container and repackaging regulations.

Pesticide Products Subject to the Pesticide Container Labeling Standards 

All pesticide products are subject to the new labeling standards. 

a

 The “household, industrial, or institutional” antimicrobial product use categories are: (1) food handling/storage 

establishments premises and equipment; (2) commercial, institutional, and industrial premises and equipment; 

(3) residential and public access premises; (4) medical premises and equipment; (5) human drinking water 

systems; (6) materials preservatives; (7) industrial processes and water systems; (8) antifouling coatings; (9) wood 

preservatives; and (10) swimming pools. 

b

 The residue removal standard affects a smaller subset of Toxicity Category I , II, and restricted use products 

because it is applicable to only flowable concentrate products. 

(1) The non-refillable container, refillable container, and repackaging regulations do not apply 

to the same subset of pesticide products, although the structure of the non-refillable container 

regulations is different. 

(2) For the non-refillable container regulations, only “higher-risk” products are subject to all of 

the non-refillable container requirements. The “lower-risk” products are subject only to the 

basic DOT requirements. In particular: 
Page 35 

(a) A product is subject to all non-refillable container requirements if it is classified in at 

least one of the following categories: (1) Toxicity Category I, (2) Toxicity Category II, or 

(3) Restricted Use Product.15

(b) All other products (those in Toxicity Category III or IV that are not restricted use 

products) must comply only with the basic DOT requirements in 49 CFR 173.24. 

(3) For the refillable container and repackaging regulations, antimicrobial products that are used 

only in swimming pools (and closely related sites such as hot tubs, spas, or whirlpools) are 

exempt from some of the standards. 

(4) The new labeling standards apply to all pesticide products. 

The remainder of this section discusses how the container regulations’ scope affects the estimate 

of the number of containers affected by the regulation. 

3.3.1 Manufacturing Use Products and Plant-Incorporated Protectants 

Manufacturing use products (MUPs) and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) are explicitly 

exempt from the pesticide container regulations. MUPs are any products intended (labeled) for 

formulation or repackaging into other pesticide products and therefore assumed to be excluded 

from estimates of the pesticide container universe. PIPs are substances that plants produce for 

protection against pests. These substances and the genetic material necessary to produce them 

are pesticides under FIFRA if humans intend these substances to prevent, repel, or mitigate any 

pest. Bags of seed or other containers containing PIPs are assumed to be excluded from the 

estimates of the pesticide container universe based on the scope of the data sources used. In 

particular, the 1996 ACPA Container Survey (ACPA, 1997) used as the basis for the agricultural 

market container estimates did not assess containers containing PIPs. Therefore, it is assumed 

that none of the containers considered in this analysis will be affected by the MUP or PIP 

exemptions. 

3.3.2 Antimicrobial Pesticide Products 

The container rule’s antimicrobial exemption applies only to containers in the I/C/G and H&G 

markets. EPA (2005) determined that 27.7 percent of the total number of containers in each of 

the two markets (and distributed by container type) would be antimicrobial product containers.16 

Additionally, EPA (2005) identified the number of antimicrobial products subject to the 

container regulations (1,350 products or 29.8 percent of the total number of antimicrobial 

products [4,528]), and the number of antimicrobial products that are exempt from the regulations 

(3,178 products, or 70.2 percent of the total number of antimicrobial products). As a result, it is 

 

15 The residue removal standard affects a smaller subset of Toxicity Category I, II, and restricted use products 

because it is applicable to only flowable concentrate products. 16 The estimate of the total number of antimicrobial product containers is based on the estimated usage of 

antimicrobial pesticides in the H&G and I/C/G markets. The estimate of 27.7 percent assumes that the total number 

of antimicrobial product containers is in the same proportion as the number of antimicrobial products subject to the 

regulations. The estimate is calculated by multiplying 29.8 percent, the percentage of antimicrobial products subject 

to container regulations (EPA, 2005), by the total amount of antimicrobial usage, and dividing this value by the total 

usage of pesticides: antimicrobial, conventional (e.g., herbicides, insecticides), and other (e.g., petroleum oil). 
Page 36 

assumed that approximately 8.25 percent (.277 * .298) of all I/C/G and H&G non-refillable and 

refillable containers are antimicrobial products subject to all the container regulations. 

EPA’s attempt in the 1999 Supplemental Notice (EPA, 1999) to partially exempt antimicrobials 

used in swimming pools from some refillable container requirements was drafted to apply to 

products that were eligible for exemption. EPA acknowledges that some of the products that 

were intended to be partially exempted from the refillable container standards are hazardous 

wastes when they are disposed. They are therefore not eligible for the antimicrobial exemption 

from the container rule. In other words, the partial exemption from the refillable container 

standards as described in the Supplemental Notice would not have applied to the products for 

which it was intended to provide relief. Antimicrobial products that were not eligible for 

exemption would have had to comply with the full set of container regulations. 

As stated in the Supplemental Notice, EPA acknowledges that applying some of the refillable 

container standards (specifically, the serial number marking, one-way valves or tamper-evident 

devices, and recordkeeping) to sodium hypochlorite used in swimming pools would disrupt the 

current refillable container system for these products and would probably cause the refillables to 

be replaced by millions of single-use, non-refillable containers. EPA believes that adding 

millions of pounds of these non-refillable containers to the waste stream is inconsistent with the 

goals of Section 19(e) of FIFRA, particularly the goal that the regulations facilitate the safe refill 

and reuse of containers. Therefore, in the Supplemental Notice, EPA attempted to create a 

partial exemption from the refillable container standards for these products. 

Based on comments and an analysis of which antimicrobial pesticides may be hazardous waste 

when they are disposed, EPA is revising the partial exemption in the final rule so that it 

accomplishes EPA’s intended goal. The partial exemption will apply to “antimicrobial” products 

that are: 

• Distributed in refillable containers; 

• Subject to the container regulations; and 

• Used in swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and whirlpools. 

EPA is limiting the scope of the reduced set of refillable container standards to products used 

only in swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and whirlpools because commenters on the proposed 

container rule and the Supplemental Notice made a convincing case that applying the full set of 

refillable container regulations to the refillable containers servicing these sites would be 

burdensome. A significant factor was the large amount of detail about the refillable containers 

used for distributing pool chemicals (generally 1- or 2.5-gallon plastic containers), the large 

amount of product distributed in these containers, and the system that the pesticide registrants 

had in place for managing these containers. 

The estimated number of refillable containers in the swimming pool industry is not readily 

available. Comments to the 1999 Supplemental Notice submitted by relevant trade associations 

(i.e., the Chlorine Institute, National Spa and Pool Institute, and Swimming Pool Chemical 

Manufacturers Association) were considered in the process of determining a reasonable number 

of refillable containers of various sizes used by the estimated 305 small and 17 large swimming 
Page 37 

pool supply companies (or companies that routinely refill containers for distributing sodium 

hypochlorite for pool disinfection). Table 3.6 illustrates the estimated number of swimming pool 

chemical refillable containers subject to the container regulations. 

3.3.3 Non-Exempt Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers: 

Toxicity Categories I and II 

The scope criteria for the container standards limit the universe of non-refillable containers that 

are affected by all of the non-refillable container requirements. Pesticide products classified in 

Toxicity Category I or II are subject to all of the non-refillable container regulations. 

Based on an analysis of pesticide registration data in an Office of Pesticide Programs database 

and literature searching, we estimated the percentage of pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) in 

Toxicity Categories I and II used in the agricultural, I/C/G, and H&G markets. The pounds of 

PAIs applied in each market sector was based on 1999 information compiled for the “Pesticide 

Industry Sales and Usage: 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates” report (EPA, 2002b). We crosschecked all PAIs comprising 0.05 percent or greater of the pounds applied in the agricultural 

market, and all I/C/G and H&G PAIs, to determine their toxicity category and whether the PAI 

was also classified for restricted use. In the agricultural market, it is estimated that Toxicity 

Category I and Toxicity Category II PAIs account for 28.7 percent and 22.9 percent of the total 

pounds applied, respectively. In the I/C/G market, Toxicity Category I and II PAIs account for 

an estimated 28.4 percent each of the pounds applied. In the H&G market, Toxicity Category I 

and II PAIs account for an estimated 18.5 percent and 45.7 percent of the total pounds applied, 

respectively. It is assumed that the relative percentage of the pounds applied for PAIs 

categorized as Toxicity Category I or II is applicable to the number of pesticide containers 

affected by the container regulations according to the toxicity scope criteria (see Table 3.8). 
Page 38 

Table 3.8. Percentage of Pesticide Containers Affected by the Final Rule Scope Criteria 

Pesticide Container 

Final Rule Scope Criteria 

Agricultural 

(%) 

Industrial/Commercial/ 

Government (%) 

Home & Garden 

(%) 

Pesticide Products NOT Subject to the Pesticide Container Regulations 

Manufacturing Use Products 0 0 0 

Plant-Incorporated Protectants 0 0 0 

Antimicrobials a 0 8.25 8.25 

Pesticide Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers Subject to All of the Non-Refillable 

Container Regulations b

Toxicity Category I 28.7 28.4 18.5 

Toxicity Category II 22.9 28.4 45.7 

Restricted Use Products 12.9 5.2 3.0 

a

 The antimicrobial exemption only applies to containers in the I/C/G and H&G markets. EPA (2005) determined 

that 27.7 percent of the total number of containers in each of the two markets (and distributed by container type) 

would be antimicrobial product containers. Additionally, EPA (2005) identified the number of antimicrobial 

products subject to the container regulations (1,350 products or 29.8 percent of the total number of antimicrobial 

products [4,528]), and the number of antimicrobial products that are exempt from the regulations (3,178 products, or 

70.2 percent of the total number of antimicrobial products). As a result, approximately 8.25 percent (.277 * .298) of 

all I/C/G and H&G non-refillable and refillable containers were assumed to be antimicrobial products subject to all 

the container regulations. 

b

 The container rule scope criteria limit compliance with all of the non-refillable container regulations to non-exempt 

products that meet the Toxicity Category I, Toxicity Category II, and/or restricted use criteria. Other non-exempt 

products sold in non-refillable containers (those in Toxicity Categories III and IV that are not restricted use 

products) must comply only with the basic DOT packaging standards in 49 CFR 173.24. These products are 

considered separately because they are not subject to the full set of non-refillable container requirements. 

3.3.4 Non-Exempt Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers: 

Restricted Use Products 

Pesticide products classified for restricted use are also subject to all of the non-refillable 

container regulations. The same data set and assumptions used to evaluate PAI toxicity were 

used to develop the percentage of pesticide containers affected by the restricted use nonrefillable container scope criteria. PAIs and/or pesticide products ranging in toxicity (i.e., 

Toxicity Categories I through IV) may be classified for restricted use. Those PAIs that did not 

meet the scope criteria based on toxicity (Toxicity Categories III and IV) were separated from 

those that were affected by the container regulations (Toxicity Categories I and II). Each of the 

PAIs in the Toxicity Categories III and IV were evaluated to determine if they were classified for 

restricted use. In the agricultural market, Toxicity Category III and Toxicity Category IV 

restricted use products account for an estimated 12.9 percent of the total pounds applied. In the 

I/C/G and H&G markets, Toxicity Category III and Toxicity Category IV restricted use products 

account for an estimated 5.2 percent and 3.0 percent of the pounds applied in each of these 

markets, respectively.17 It is assumed that the relative percentage of PAIs categorized as 

Toxicity Category III or IV substances and classified for restricted use were applicable to the 

number of pesticide containers affected by the container regulations according to the restricted 

use scope criteria (see Table 3.8).

 

17 Pesticide usage in the H&G market includes some applications by lawn care professionals and pest control 

operators, who may be certified pesticide applicators and can, therefore, apply restricted use pesticides. 
Page 39 

3.3.5 Non-Exempt Products Sold or Distributed in Non-Refillable Containers: 

Toxicity Categories III and IV That Are Not Restricted Use Products 

Pesticide products classified in Toxicity Categories III and IV that are not restricted use 

products are not subject to the full set of non-refillable container requirements. Instead, these 

products are subject only to the basic DOT requirements in 49 CFR 173.24. These products are 

not subject to the other non-refillable container requirements, such as the container closure, 

container dispensing, and residue removal standards. Also, these products are not subject to the 

other DOT requirements that are adopted by the pesticide container regulations. 

3.3.6 Summary of Pesticide Container Scope Criteria 

Table 3.8 summarizes the percentage of non-refillable and refillable containers affected by the 

container scope criteria. As stated in Sections 3.3.1–3.3.4, the percentage of pesticide products 

subject to the container scope criteria was applied to the estimated number of containers for each 

size category. 

We estimated the number of containers that are affected by the container regulations out of the 

total universe of pesticide containers based on the percentage of containers affected by the scope 

criteria listed in Table 3.8. For example, for “1 to <5 gallons” plastic non-refillables in the 

agricultural sector, we estimated the number of containers affected by the container rule as: 

(0.287 + 0.229 + 0.129) * 27,877,500 = 17,980,988 containers 

where: 

• “27,877,500” is the total number of containers in use in this size category (see Table 3.4.); 

• “(0.287 + 0.229 + 0.129)” represents the percentage of containers subject to the container 

regulations based on the Toxicity Category I, Toxicity Category II, and restricted use product 

classifications, respectively. 

For the I/C/G and H&G markets, the same considerations as for the agricultural market sector 

applied for determining the number of containers subject to the container regulations with one 

exception. In these market sectors, we considered antimicrobial pesticide containers separately 

from non-antimicrobial pesticide containers. Therefore, the number of containers containing 

antimicrobials subject to the container regulations was added to the number of non-antimicrobial 

pesticide containers that met the container rule scope criteria based on Toxicity Category I, 

Toxicity Category II, and restricted use product classifications. For example, for I/C/G “30 to 55 

gallon” plastic non-refillables, we estimated the number of containers affected by container rule 

as: 

(1,600,000 * 0.277 * 0.298) + {(0.284 + 0.284 + 0.052) * [1,600,000 * (1 - 0.277)]} = 

848,711 containers 
Page 40 

where: 

• “1,600,000” is the total number of 30 to 55 gallon plastic non-refillable containers in use in 

the I/C/G market (see Table 3.4); 

• “0.277” is the percentage of containers that hold antimicrobials; 

• “0.298” is the percentage of antimicrobials that are subject to the container regulations; and 

• “(0.284 + 0.284 + 0.052)” represents the percentage of containers subject to the container 

regulations based on the Toxicity Category I, Toxicity Category II, and restricted use product 

classifications, respectively. 

We calculated the number of pesticide containers affected by the scope criteria for each nonrefillable and refillable container size category. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 detail the number of nonrefillables and refillables, respectively, that are within the scope of the container regulations and 

are potentially affected by the regulations. 

As mentioned earlier, all products are subject to the refillable container and repackaging 

regulations. As a result of this requirement, the number of refillable containers in the 

agricultural market sector affected by the container regulations as displayed in Table 3.10 is the 

same as in Table 3.5, which establishes the baseline number of refillable pesticide containers in 

use. However, certain antimicrobial products in the I/C/G market sector (in fact, 70.2 percent of 

antimicrobial products, as previously discussed) are exempt from the container regulations. As a 

result of this exemption, the number of refillable containers in the I/C/G market is less than the 

baseline for I/C/G refillable containers as described in Table 3.5. For example, in the baseline, 

there are an estimated 7,200 refillable liquid plastic retail bulk tanks in the I/C/G market sector. 

Due to the antimicrobial exemption, an estimated 5,800 containers of this type fall under the 

scope of the regulations. The calculation is as follows: 

(7,200 * 0.277 * 0.298) + [7,200 * (1-0.277)] = 5,800. 
Page 41 

Table 3.9. Estimated Number of Non-Refillable Pesticide Containers Affected by the 

Pesticide Container Regulations a

Size Category Agricultural 

Industrial/ 

Commercial/ 

Government 

Home & 

Garden Total 

Liquid Pesticide Products

30-55 Gallons 

 Plastic 199,434 848,711 0 1,048,145

 Steel 74,518 1,230,631 0 1,305,149

5 Gallons 

 Plastic 37,496 7,451,684 0 7,489,181

 Steel 18,594 509,227 0 527,821

1 to < 5 GALLONS 

 Plastic 17,986,536 11,177,527 15,909,183 45,073,245

 Steel 0 763,840 4,545,481 5,309,321

< 1 Gallon 

 Plastic 649,731 10,905,939 59,091,250 70,646,921

 Steel 0 84,871 6,818,221 6,903,092

 Glass 0 127,307 4,545,481 4,672,787

Water Soluble Packets 

 PVA 351,374 0 0 351,374

 Barrier 53,012 0 0 53,012

Bag-In-Box 303 137,916 0 138,219

Aerosol Cans 0 12,306,312 113,637,020 125,943,332

Other Sizes 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 19,370,998 45,543,965 204,546,636 269,461,599

Dry Pesticide Products 

> 100 lb Bulk 277,097 0 0 277,097

56-100 lb Bags 0 0 0 0

45-55 lb Bags 

 Plastic 1,193,113 0 0 1,193,113

 Paper 5,265,477 0 0 5,265,477

11-44 lb Bags 0 1,120,000 39,500,000 0

 Plastic 2,429,134 594,098 22,443,311 25,466,543

 Paper 1,430,124 0 0 1,430,124

1-10 lb Bags 

 Plastic 212,196 0 0 212,196

 Paper 3,697,147 0 0 3,697,147

Jugs 

 2.5 gallons 17,020 0 0 17,020

 1 quart to < 2.5 gallons 1,466,578 196,264 284,093 1,946,935
Page 42 

Table 3.9 (Continued). Estimated Number of Non-Refillable Pesticide Containers Affected 

by the Pesticide Container Regulations a

Size Category Agricultural 

Industrial/ 

Commercial/ 

Government 

Home & 

Garden Total 

Water Soluble Packets 

 PVA 28,434,409 689,578 0 29,123,987

 Barrier 7,664,424 228,091 0 7,892,515

Fiber Drums 

 > 30 pounds 7,925 678,969 0 686,894

 < 30 pounds 83,628 0 0 83,628

Other Sizes 2,220,893 0 0 2,220,893

Subtotal 54,399,166 2,387,000 22,727,404 79,513,570

Total - Non-Refillables 73,770,164 47,930,965 227,274,040 348,975,169

Percentage of Non-Refillables 21.14% 13.73% 65.13% 

a

 Estimates based on the container rule scope criteria (see Section 2.3) applied to the total universe of non-refillable 

containers (see Section 2.2). 
Page 43 

Table 3.10. Estimated Number of Refillable Pesticide Containers Affected by the 

Pesticide Container Regulations a

Container Size Category Agricultural 

Industrial/ 

Commercial/

Government 

Swimming 

Pool 

Industry b

Home & 

Garden Total 

Liquid Pesticide Products 

Retail Bulk Tanks (>500 Gal) 

 Plastic 12,060 5,800 1,620 0 19,480

 Steel 1,340 644 180 0 2,164

Large Tanks (251-500 Gal) 

 Plastic 1,170 6,767 4,680 0 12,617

 Steel 130 2,256 520 0 2,906

126-250 Gallons 

 Plastic 34,800 7,250 0 0 42,050

 Steel 6,700 806 0 0 7,506

61-125 Gallons 

 Plastic 172,600 7,250 0 0 179,850

 Steel 57,600 806 0 0 58,406

26-60 Gallons 

 Plastic 48,800 2,352 140,000 0 191,152

 Steel 4,000 3,528 0 0 7,528

5-25 Gallons 

 Plastic 127,900 0 70,000 0 197,900

 Steel 99,800 0 0 0 99,800

Other Sizes c 0 0 1,000,000 0 1,000,000

Subtotal 566,900 37,458 1,217,000 0 1,821,358

Dry Pesticide Products

Retail Bulk Tanks (>4,000 lbs) 175 0 0 0 175

Large Tanks (2,501-4,000 lbs) 5,425 0 0 0 5,425

101-2,500 lb Bags 13,300 0 0 0 13,300

Fiber Drums 677,800 0 0 0 677,800

Other Sizes 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 696,700 0 0 0 696,700

Total – Refillables 1,263,600 37,458 1,217,000 0 2,518,058

Percentage of Refillables 50.18% 1.49% 48.33% 0.00% 

a

 Estimates based on the container regulations scope criteria (see Section 2.3) applied to the total universe of 

refillable containers (see Section 2.2 and Table 3.5). 

b

 Assumed estimates based on comments to the 1999 Supplemental Notice submitted by relevant trade associations 

(i.e., the Chlorine Institute, National Spa and Pool Institute, and Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers 

Association). 

c

 Other sizes include relatively smaller, 1- or 2.5-gallon plastic containers. 
Page 44 

3.4 Regulatory Compliance Baseline 

Table 3.11 provides an overview of the pesticide container regulatory requirements broken down 

by various components of the rule. 

Table 3.11. Overview of the Container Regulations 

Non-Refillable 

Containers Refillable Containers 

Repackaging Pesticide 

Products Labels 

All Non-Exempt 

Products 

(1) Basic DOT packaging 

standards (49 CFR 173.24) 

All Non-Exempt 

Products Meeting Scope 

Criteria 

(1) DOT container design, 

construction, and marking 

standards 

(2) Container dispensing 

capability 

(3) Standardized closures 

(4) Residue removal 

(5) Recordkeeping 

Non-Exempt Products 

(1) DOT container design, 

construction, and marking 

standards 

(2) Serial number 

marking* 

(3) One-way valves or 

tamper-evident devices* 

(4) Bulk container 

requirements 

* Swimming pool 

antimicrobial products are 

not subject to these 

requirements. 

All Non-Exempt 

Products 

(1) Pesticide registrants 

develop information 

(2) Registrants and others 

comply with specified 

conditions 

(3) Refillers (registrants 

and others) obtain and 

follow registrant 

information, and clean, 

inspect, and label 

containers before refilling 

them* 

*Swimming pool 

antimicrobial products are 

not subject to several of 

these requirements. 

All Products 

(1) Identify container as 

non-refillable or refillable 

All Products in NonRefillable Containers 

(1) Statements to prohibit 

reuse and offer for 

recycling; batch code 

Some Products in NonRefillable Containers 

(1) Cleaning instructions 

All Products in Refillable 

Containers 

(1) Cleaning instructions 

before final disposal 

Some Products in 

Refillable Containers 

(1) Leave blank spaces for 

net contents and 

establishment number 

3.4.1 Regulatory Compliance Rates for Non-Refillable Containers 

The regulatory components and compliance rates affecting non-refillable containers are 

discussed below. The regulatory components affect three different sets of non-refillable 

containers; all non-exempt products (Section 3.4.1.1), all non-exempt products meeting the scope 

criteria (Section 3.4.1.2), and all products (Section 3.4.1.3). Table 3.12 summarizes the 

container rule regulation compliance rates for non-refillable containers. 

3.4.1.1 All Non-Exempt Products 

All non-exempt products sold or distributed in non-refillable containers must comply with the 

basic DOT packaging requirements in 49 CFR 173.24. It is assumed that all containers comply 

with these requirements, which establish minimum standards for container integrity, 

compatibility, and filling limits. 
Page 45 

Table 3.12. Regulatory Compliance Rates for Non-Refillable Containers a 

DOT 

Packaging 

Standards 

hazardous 

materials b

(§165.60-

64) 

DOT 

Packaging 

Standards – 

nonhazardous 

materials c

(§165.60-64) Closure Standards d, e (§165.66) 

Standards for container dispensing 

capability f, g, h (§165.68) 

Labe

require

(Sec.

Small-Small Establishments Agriculture 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% Home & Garden 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 80.5% 50.0% 0.0% Medium-Small Establishments Agriculture 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% Home & Garden 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 80.5% 50.0% 0.0% Large-Small Establishments Agriculture 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% Home & Garden 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 80.5% 50.0% 0.0% Large Establishments Agriculture 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 81.5% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% Home & Garden 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 100.0% 80.5% 50.0% 0.0% a In many cases, a regulation is not applicable to particular types of containers in a particular market sector. For example, the closure sta

are applicable only to containers that hold at least 1 gallon and that hold liquid products in the agricultural market sector. 

b Under the container rule, both containers for hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials must comply with the DOT standards f

materials. The costs of complying with the DOT standards for containers holding hazardous materials are therefore attributed to the DOcontainer rule. 

c For non-hazardous materials, we assume that DOT-compliant containers can be purchased on the market at prices comparable to non-c

also assume that within the compliance period, regulated entities will exhaust their inventory of non-compliant containers and replace thcontainers at no extra cost. This assumption was based on inputs from container manufactures that indicated that only DOT-compliant 

Accordingly, we assume that all non-compliant containers will be out of use by the time the rule goes into effect. 

d The closure standards are not applicable to I/C/G and H&G establishments. They are also not applicable to liquid containers less than 

soluble packets, bag in boxes, and aerosol cans. They are also not applicable to dry product containers. 
Page 46 

Table 3.12 (Continued). Regulatory Compliance Rates for Non-Refillable Containers 

e The first percentage represents the compliance rate for liquid containers 30 to 55 gallons. The second percentage represents the compli

containers of 5 gallons, and liquid containers in the “other sizes” category. The third percentage represents the compliance rate for liquigallons. 

f The standards for container dispensing capability are not applicable to liquid containers 30 to 55 gallons, water soluble packets, bag in 

They are also not applicable to dry product containers. 

g For agricultural and I/C/G establishments: The first percentage represents the compliance rate for liquid containers of 5 gallons. The se

represents the compliance rate for liquid containers 1 to less than 5 gallons. The third percentage represents the compliance rate for liqugallon. The fourth percentage represents the compliance rate for liquid containers in the “other sizes” category. 

h For H&G establishments: The first percentage represents the compliance rate for liquid containers of 5 gallons. The second percentage 

compliance rate for liquid containers less than 5 gallons. The third percentage represents the compliance rate for liquid containers in the 
Page 47 

3.4.1.2 All Non-Exempt Products Meeting Scope Criteria 

Non-exempt products are subject to all of the following non-refillable container regulations if the 

product is classified as Toxicity Category I, Toxicity Category II, or restricted use. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) Standards 

Products sold or distributed in non-refillable containers must meet a subset of the DOT 

Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), which establish standards for container design, 

construction, and marking. Pesticide products that are not DOT hazardous materials must 

comply with some of the general packaging requirements and the non-bulk and bulk packaging 

standards for Packing Group III (the least stringent requirements). Pesticide products that are 

DOT hazardous materials must comply with all of DOT’s regulations. For purposes of the 

container regulations, EPA is specifically adopting the same kind of DOT requirements as for the 

non-DOT hazardous materials, but for the product’s packing group. 

EPA estimates that approximately 35 percent of pesticide products in use fall under the DOT 

definition of a hazardous material and therefore meet the DOT requirements (EPA, 1999). We 

assume that 35 percent of all pesticide containers in the three major markets and for each size 

category are DOT hazardous materials. Therefore, these containers are already in compliance 

with the container regulations. 

It is assumed that the remaining 65 percent products sold or distributed in non-refillable 

containers contain DOT non-hazardous material. It is assumed that these containers are also 

already in compliance with the Packing Group III requirements. This assumption is consistent 

with the proposed EPA container rule RIA which assumed that most of the containers in use 

were DOT-compliant and that nearly all containers in production were also DOT-compliant. 

This assumption was also validated for the final EPA container rule EA through additional 

discussions with pesticide registrants, refillers and industry experts. Compliance with the DOTrelated standards was high for the proposed rule, and, given the increasing availability and use of 

DOT-compliant containers, it is assumed in the final rule that those containers that were out of 

compliance have either been replaced or will be replaced with compliant containers within the 

compliance period. 

Container Closures for Liquid Pesticide Products 

To further allow for the safe use of pesticide containers, the container rule requires that rigid 

non-refillable containers that have a capacity of at least 3.0 liters (0.79 gallons) and are used to 

hold liquid agricultural pesticides have one of four standardized closures. Container closure 

requirements are not required for rigid non-refillables in the I/C/G or H&G markets. The 

container closure compliance rate for affected agricultural non-refillables is based upon an 

assumption that EPA made for the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993): 

• 100.0 percent compliance for “30 to 55 gallon” containers; 

• 95.0 percent compliance for “5 gallon” and “other” size containers; and 

• 90.0 percent compliance for “1 to <5 gallon” containers. 
Page 48 

Container Dispensing Capability 

The container regulations state that non-refillable containers of 20 liters (5.3 gallons) or smaller 

for liquid products must allow the contents to be poured without glugging and with minimal 

dripping. The major factors that reportedly affect pesticide dispensing are the design of the 

container opening, and the design and placement of the container handle. The container 

dispensing capability compliance rate for affected non-refillables is based upon assumptions that 

EPA made for the proposed container rule RIA.18 Since there are no new data with which to 

update these assumptions, the assumptions are left in place. Therefore, the following compliance 

rates are assumed for all of the affected liquid non-refillables: 

Agricultural Market 

• 100.0 percent compliance for “5 gallon” containers; 

• 81.5 percent compliance for “1 to <5 gallons” containers; 

• 35.0 percent compliance for “<1 gallon” containers; and 

• 50.0 percent compliance for “other” size containers. 

I/C/G Market 

• 100.0 percent compliance for “5 gallon” containers; 

• 81.5 percent compliance for “1 to <5 gallons” containers; 

• 35.0 percent compliance for “<1 gallon” containers; and 

• 50.0 percent compliance for “other” size containers. 

H&G Market 

• 100.0 percent compliance for “5 gallon” containers; 

• 80.5 percent compliance for “1 to <5 gallons” and “< 1 gallon” size containers; and 

• 50.0 percent compliance for “other” containers. 

Residue Removal Standards 

The container regulations specify a residue removal standard for rigid containers for flowable 

concentrate products that meets the Toxic Category I or II criteria and/or are classified for 

restricted use. The regulations specify a test protocol that requires every registrant to test three 

containers from each rigid container/dilutable formulation combination to determine that the 

containers are capable of attaining at least 99.99 percent removal of each active ingredient in the 

fourth rinsate after a triple rinse. 

It is assumed that the average establishment, regardless of size or market sector, uses three rigid 

container types per formulation, based on an assumption EPA made in its Container Rule RIA. 

The residue removal standards, however, are applicable to only flowable concentrate products. 

The representative number of existing and new formulations is assumed to vary by registrant 

size. It is assumed that there are 0.25 existing and new formulations for the large registrants, 0.20 

existing and formulations for the large-small registrants, 0.10 existing and new formulations for 

 

18 Refer to the Proposed Container Rule RIA (EPA, 1993), Table G-7, Non-refillable rigid containers: Compliance 

with container dispensing requirements for all three regulatory options, except as noted otherwise, “percent of 

plastic containers in market that meet requirement” and the table footnotes for information to substantiate the 

assumptions used in this analysis. 
Page 49 

the medium-small registrants and 0.05 existing and new formulations for the small-small 

registrants that will be subject to the residue removal standards (see Appendix A). 

Not all existing container/formulations will be tested because test data conforming to the residue 

removal protocol on a different non-refillable container/formulation may be used to demonstrate 

that a non-refillable container meets the residue removal standard (“me-too” scenario). In the 

proposed container rule RIA, EPA assumed that a lower range of 50 percent of all the container 

formulation combinations will be tested and an upper range of 100 percent of all such 

combinations will be tested. In the final economic analysis, the midpoint of this range, 75 

percent, is used since the extent to which “me-toos” will apply is not known. 

It is also assumed that a certain number of container/formulation combinations will fail the initial 

residue removal test, requiring a second test using a container carefully selected from the open 

market and expected to rinse more readily. Based on a study conducted for EPA, EPA assumed 

in the proposed container rule RIA that 13 percent of small, medium, and large agricultural 

containers and 3 percent of small and medium industrial/institutional/household containers 

would not pass a triple-rinse test where 99.999 percent (“five-9s”) of a given formulation would 

be removed after rinsing (EPA, 1993 and 1992b). The 99.99 percent (“four-9s”) standard in the 

final rule is expected to have a much lower initial failure rate. Testing data summarized in the 

final rule preamble show that one out of the 79 container/formulation combinations tested did not 

reach the four-9s level. However, since the residue removal standards apply to only flowable 

concentrate products, in the final economic analysis, a higher (30 percent) failure rate is 

assumed. This is based on the failure rate of flowable concentrate container/formulation 

combinations in the study of 79 container/formulation combinations tested (see Appendix A). 

For all other container/formulation combinations, the final economic analysis assumes a 2 

percent failure rate for all containers (all markets and all sizes of facilities). 

Recordkeeping 

For each pesticide product that is distributed or sold in non-refillable containers that meet the 

scope criteria, pesticide registrants must maintain certain records to show compliance with the 

non-refillable container standards. It is assumed that none of the pesticide registrants are 

currently maintaining these records. 

3.4.1.3 All Products 

Labeling 

The new labeling standards apply to all pesticide products. Therefore, the labeling compliance 

rates are applicable to all pesticide registrants selling or distributing pesticide products in nonrefillable containers. The pesticide container regulations modify the label requirements in 40 

CFR Part 156. The new standards require statements that: 

• Identify a container as non-refillable; 

• Prohibit the reuse or refilling of a non-refillable container; 

• Provide a recycling statement for non-refillable containers; 
Page 50 

• Provide a lot number or other identification code on non-refillable containers; and 

• Provide residue removal instructions on some containers.19

All of these statements are to be grouped and appear under the heading, “Storage and Disposal.” 

It is assumed that no non-refillable containers are labeled with all of the required statements at 

this time. 

3.4.2 Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refillable Containers 

Each of the regulatory components and compliance rates affecting refillable containers is 

discussed below. The regulatory components affect all non-exempt products sold or distributed 

in refillable containers, except for labeling requirements, which affect all refillable containers. 

Antimicrobial pesticides used in swimming pools are subject to a reduced set of these 

requirements. The H&G market does not include refillable containers and is not affected by the 

refillable container regulations. 

DOT Standards 

All non-exempt products sold or distributed in refillable containers must meet a subset of the 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), which establish standards for container design, 

construction, and marking. Pesticide products that are not DOT hazardous materials must 

comply with some of the general packaging requirements and the non-bulk and bulk packaging 

standards for Packing Group III (the least stringent requirements). Pesticide products that are 

DOT hazardous materials must comply with all of DOT’s regulations. For the purpose of the 

container regulations, EPA is specifically adopting the same kinds of DOT requirements as for 

the non-DOT hazard materials, but for the product’s packing group. 

EPA estimates that approximately 35 percent of non-exempt pesticide products in use meet the 

DOT definition of a hazardous material and are therefore in compliance with the DOT 

requirements (EPA, 1999b). It is assumed that 35 percent of all pesticide containers in the three 

major markets and for each size category are DOT hazardous materials. 

The remaining 65 percent of non-exempt products sold or distributed in refillable containers are 

not DOT hazardous materials. However, it is assumed that containers used for the DOT nonhazardous materials are in compliance with the Packing Group III requirements. This 

assumption is consistent with the proposed EPA container rule RIA which assumed that most of 

the containers in use were DOT-compliant and that nearly all containers in production were also 

DOT-compliant. This assumption was also validated for the final EPA container rule EA 

through additional discussions with pesticide registrants, refillers and industry experts. 

Compliance with the DOT-related standards was high for the proposed rule, and, given the 

increasing availability and use of DOT-compliant containers, the final rule assumed that those 

containers that were out of compliance have either been replaced or will be replaced with 

compliant containers within the compliance period.

 

19 Residue removal instructions are required on the labels of all refillable containers and on the labels of rigid nonrefillable containers holding dilutable products that are not for residential use. 
Page 51 

Standards for Container Markings 

The container regulations require that non-exempt pesticide products that are sold or distributed 

in refillable containers be durably marked with a serial number or other identifying code (using 

techniques including stamping, embossing, burning, or printing). The information must be 

visibly located on the outside part of the container. We assume that none of the pesticide 

registrants are durably marking refillable containers with a serial number at this time. 

Standards for Openings 

The container regulations limit access to the interior of liquid minibulk containers by requiring 

that each opening of a liquid minibulk container other than a vent have a one-way valve, a 

tamper-evident device, or both. EPA believes that one-way valves and tamper-evident devices 

will give repackagers reasonable assurance of the previous contents of the containers. Most 

agricultural minibulks and small volume returnable containers supplied by or purchased from 

registrants are equipped with either a one-way valve or a tamper-evident device (EPA, 1992b) 

and are therefore expected to be in compliance in the baseline. Agricultural minibulks obtained 

on the open market, rather than from registrants, usually lack tamper-evident devices or one-way 

valves, so refillers must add them (or something similar). The standards for openings are not 

applicable to bulk tanks. 

The standards for the openings compliance rate for affected refillables is based on assumptions 

that EPA made for the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993)20: 

• 65.0 percent compliance for minibulk containers in the agricultural market; and 

• 10.0 percent compliance for minibulk containers in the I/C/G market (assumes that tote bins 

are minibulks, but small volume returnables in the I/C/G market are not minibulks). 

Bulk Container Standards 

The container regulations include a general integrity standard for all bulk containers and, for 

liquid bulk containers, require vents and lockable valves and prohibit external sight gauges. The 

bulk container standards compliance rate is based upon assumptions that EPA made for the 

proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993): 

• 100.0 percent compliance for dry bulk containers; 

• 75.0 percent compliance for liquid plastic bulk containers in the agricultural market; 

• 20.0 percent compliance for liquid steel bulk containers in the agricultural market; and 

• 5.0 percent compliance for I/C/G liquid bulk containers. 

Labeling 

The new labeling standards apply to all pesticide products. Therefore, the labeling compliance 

rates are applicable to registrants selling or distributing pesticide products in refillable 

containers. The pesticide container regulations modify the labeling requirements in 40 CFR Part 

156. The new standards for refillables require statements that: 

 

20 Refer to the Proposed Container Rule RIA (EPA, 1993) Tables VII-8 and VII-9 and the table footnotes for 

information to substantiate the assumptions used in this analysis. 
Page 52 

• Prohibit users of refillable containers from refilling such containers with substances other 

than pesticides; and 

• Provide residue removal instructions. 

All of these statements are to be grouped and appear under the heading, “Storage and Disposal.” 

It is assumed that none of the refillable containers are labeled with all of the container rule’s 

required statements at this time. 

Other Administrative Requirements 

For each non-exempt pesticide product that is distributed or sold in refillable containers, 

pesticide registrants must prepare and keep records of the repackaging-related documents. It is 

assumed that none of the pesticide registrants are currently keeping these records. 

The regulatory compliance rates for refillable containers are summarized in Table 3.13.21 The 

compliance rates affect pesticide registrants selling or distributing refillable containers 

containing non-exempt pesticide products. It is assumed that the container standards for 

refillables in the swimming pool industry are unaffected by the container regulations because 

they are either partially exempt from or already in compliance with the applicable standards 

(EPA, 2002c). This assumption is based on comments received from pool supply companies, 

industry associations, and an antimicrobial manufacturer, who pointed out many positive aspects 

of the refillable containers they currently use, including: they are durable and appropriately 

sized; they meet applicable DOT standards; there is a deposit system that leads to nearly 

100 percent return of the containers; the company inspects and, if necessary, reconditions the 

containers before refilling them; an applicator can tell if the container has been tampered with 

when removing the cap; and their one-gallon containers are of the “no-glug” design. It is 

assumed that swimming pool chemicals are not in compliance with the new labeling 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 156.

 

21 We used the compliance rates presented in this table to calculate the total number of containers not in compliance 

by regulation, which we then multiplied by the unit cost of regulation to develop total cost. 
Page 53 

Table 3.13. Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging 

Standards 

hazardous 

materials a

(§165.110-114) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

non-hazardous 

materials b

(§165.110-114) 

Standards 

for 

container 

marking c

(§165.116) 

Standards for 

openings (for 

liquid 

minibulks 

only)d, e

(§165.118) 

Bulk container standards e, f 

(§165.120) 

Labeling 

requireme

(§156) 

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 65.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 0.I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.Swimming Pool Supply Companies 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0% N/A NMedium-Small Establishments Agricultural 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 65.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 0.I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.Swimming Pool Supply Companies 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0% N/A NLarge-Small Establishments Agricultural 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 65.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 0.I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.Swimming Pool Supply Companies 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0% N/A NLarge Establishments Agricultural 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 65.0% 100.0% 75.0% 20.0% 0.I/C/G 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.Swimming Pool Supply Companies 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0% N/A Na Under the container regulations, both containers for hazardous and non-hazardous materials must comply with the DOT standards for c

hazardous materials. The costs of complying with the DOT standards for containers holding hazardous materials are therefore attributed 

and not to the container regulations. 
Page 54 

Table 3.13 (Continued). Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refillable Containers 

b For non-hazardous materials, we assume that DOT-compliant containers can be purchased on the market at prices comparable to non-c

We also assume that within the compliance period, regulated entities will exhaust their inventory of non-compliant containers and replaccontainers at no extra cost. 

c The standards for container markings are not applicable to I/C/G plastic containers from 5 to 25 gallons and to I/C/G liquid containers u

category. 

d The standards for openings (for liquid minibulks only) are not applicable to retail bulk tanks, and to dry product containers. These stan

applicable to I/C/G liquid containers under the “other sizes” category. 

e The bulk container standards are only applicable to retail bulk tanks. f For bulk containers in the all markets, the first percentage represents the compliance rate for dry bulk containers. For the agricultural m

percentage refers to liquid plastic bulk containers and the third percentage refers to liquid steel bulk containers. For the I/C/G market the all liquid bulk containers. 
Page 55 

3.4.3 Regulatory Compliance Rates for Refilling Activities 

The container regulations establish procedural and handling standards to ensure that containers 

are refilled legally and safely. Registrants have certain responsibilities to develop information, 

and, if a different company (such as a retailer) repackages their product into refillable containers, 

to ensure that certain conditions are met. The person who is actually doing the refilling—

regardless of whether it is the registrant or another company—must obtain the registrant’s 

information; comply with certain conditions; and clean, inspect, and ensure proper labeling of 

the refillable containers. 

It is assumed that the refilling requirements for 90 percent of the total number of agricultural 

refillables under the scope of the container rule are attributed to agricultural pesticide refillers 

and the remaining 10 percent are attributed to pesticide registrants (Paulson, 2002).22 All 

refilling requirements in the I/C/G market are attributed to pesticide registrants because there is 

no readily available information to differentiate an industry sector that repackages pesticide 

products in the I/C/G market that is also not a registrant for products in that sector. All refilling 

requirements in the swimming pool industry are attributed to registrants and swimming pool 

supply companies. 

The standards for establishments that repackage pesticide products into refillable containers 

(refillers) require that these entities inspect, clean, and keep certain records about the refillable 

containers that they refill (§165.198–§165.218). Using professional judgment based on 

consultations with pesticide registrants, refillers, and industry experts, we estimated that 60 

percent of establishments inspect refillables before refilling, 92 percent properly clean the 

container before refilling, and none of the establishments currently implements recordkeeping 

that meets the standards. 

Based on comments from pool supply companies, industry associations, and an antimicrobial 

manufacturer, EPA has determined that swimming pool supply companies in general inspect 

containers before refilling (EPA, 2002c). For this analysis, we assumed that 95 percent of 

refillable containers in the swimming pool industry are properly inspected prior to refill. EPA 

has also determined that refillables in the swimming pool industry will probably not have to be 

cleaned prior to refilling because specified conditions (§165.170) will be met and certain 

recordkeeping requirements do not apply (§165.178(b)) (EPA, 2002c). We assumed that all of 

the refillables in the swimming pool industry are already in compliance with the applicable 

cleaning and recordkeeping requirements. 

Table 3.14 summarizes the container rule refilling requirements for entities handling pesticide 

products that are repackaged into refillable containers for sale or distribution. 

 

22 We used these assumptions to allocate the total number of containers in each size and type category to the 

different markets (e.g., pesticide registrants, agricultural pesticide refillers). For example, out of the estimated 

12,060 plastic bulk containers in the agricultural market, 10,854 (90 percent) are attributed to agricultural pesticide 

refillers. We then used these numbers to develop estimates of number of containers in not in compliance and finally 

to estimate the cost of compliance by registrants. 
Page 56 

Table 3.14. Repackaging/Refilling Requirements and Responsibility 

Requirement 

Registrants Who Distribute 

or Sell in Refillable 

Containers 

Registrants Who Distribute 

or Sell to Outside Refillers 

for Repackaging 

Not the 

Ensure product integrity Yes Yes Develop written documents describing: (1) how to clean containers and (2) acceptable containers 

Yes Yes 

Comply with conditions to allow an outside refiller to repackage your product (e.g., provide contract or authorization) a

No Yes 

Comply with conditions to allow you to repackage a registrant’s product (e.g., obtain contract or authorization) a

No No 

Have documents available at refilling establishment b Yes No Be a registered producing establishment b Yes No Repackage product only into acceptable container b Yes No Repackage up to rated capacity of container b Yes No No limits on size of container b Yes No Identify product previously in container to determine the appropriate cleaning procedure b

Yes No 

Clean container b,c Yes No Visually inspect container b,c Yes No Label container b Yes No Recordkeeping c Yes Yes Compliance period 5 years 5 years a The conditions for a registrant to allow a refiller that is not part of the registrant’s company to repackage a product include (a) the repack

in the pesticide formulation; (b) the refiller is a registered producing establishment; (c) the registrant and refiller enter into a written contrrepackage the pesticide product and to use the product’s label; (d) the product is repackaged only into refillable containers that comply wi(e) there are no changes to the pesticide label (other than adding the appropriate net contents and EPA establishment number). 

b The repackaging regulations do not specifically apply these standards to registrants who distribute or sell to refillers that are not part of 

repackaging. In this case, the registrant is not actually repackaging the product into refillable containers, which is the activity that these raddress. The table therefore indicates “no” for these registrants. However, some of these requirements apply because of other regulation

registrants are required to be registered producing establishments by 40 CFR Part 167. In addition, a registrant may also repackage produ

containers as described in the previous column, and those requirements would thus apply. 

c Antimicrobial products that are used only in swimming pools (and closely related sites such as hot tubs, spas, or whirlpools) are exempt 

cleaning and inspecting requirements that relate to serial numbers and one-way valves/tamper-evident devices and from some of the recor
Page 57 

In summary, this chapter presented the level of compliance of pesticide containers with the final 

container standards. We calculated the number of pesticide containers affected by the scope 

criteria for each non-refillable and refillable container size category for all the market sectorsAgriculture, I/CG and H&G. We also described the regulatory compliance baseline that presents 

the percentage of containers expected to be in compliance with the requirements of the container 

rule. This provides an estimate of the number of containers not in compliance, which we use in 

the cost analysis presented in the next chapter (Chapter 4). 
Page 58 

4.0 Pesticide Container Standards Cost Analysis 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the methods and the results of the analysis of the costs of the container 

regulations. Section 4.2 defines the basic framework of the analysis: the categories of regulated 

entities considered, the market sectors examined, the container types included, the specific 

regulations covered, and the broad assumptions that underlie the analysis.23 Section 4.3 

describes those characteristics of the regulated entities that are inputs to the cost analysis: the 

number of regulated entities and, for each category of regulated entity, the percentage of total 

annual revenue in each size class. Section 4.4 describes the method for estimating the costs 

incurred by pesticide registrants of complying with the container-related regulations. Section 4.5 

describes the method for estimating the costs incurred by pesticide refillers (a broad category that 

includes several categories of regulated entities, described in Section 4.2 below) of complying 

with the refilling-related regulations. 

The estimates of total annualized compliance cost, both by regulated entity and by regulation, are 

presented in Section 4.6. The total annualized costs of the pesticide container rule are calculated 

across all regulations contained within it, for: 

• The average regulated entity – in each combination of entity type, market sector, and 

company size class; 

• All regulated entities – in each combination of entity type, market sector, and company size 

class; 

• The average pesticide registrant with a “representative share” in each market sector;24

• All pesticide registrants (across all market sectors) in each company size class; 

• All pesticide registrants across all market sectors and company size classes; 

• All regulated entities within each category complying with refilling-related regulations; and 

• All regulated entities. 

These results are shown in Tables 4.17a and 4.17b in Section 4.6. Regulated entities in this 

analysis are companies rather than individual facilities. In addition to costs per regulated entity, 

costs are calculated by regulation, as shown in Tables 4.18a and 4.18b. 

The impact of the container regulation on the average regulated entity in each regulated entity 

type is measured as the ratio of its annual compliance cost to its annual revenue. The results of 

the impact analysis, for each combination of market sector and size class, are presented in 

Section 4.7. The subcategories of the “small” size category are aggregated for the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) analysis of impact. Finally, in 

 

23 Specific assumptions made at different points in the analysis are detailed in the appropriate sections. 24 The cost analysis estimates the compliance costs of an average pesticide registrant in each market sector, as well 

as the compliance costs of an average pesticide registrant that works in all three market sectors. The average 

pesticide registrant that works in all three market sectors is assumed to have the same distribution of containers 

across market sectors as the distribution of pesticides (by volume) across market sectors. That is, if the distribution 

of pesticide usage by volume is 40 percent, 30 percent and 30 percent in the agricultural, I/C/G, and H&G markets, 

respectively, then the distribution of containers by an average pesticide registrant who for example has 100 

containers will be 40, 30, and 30 for the three markets, respectively. 
Page 59 

Section 4.8 the results of two sensitivity analyses are presented—one that uses a set of “low-end” 

input values (i.e., input values that will result in lower-cost estimates) and one that uses a set of 

“high-end” input values (i.e., input values that will result in higher-cost estimates). 

4.2 The Basic Framework of the Cost Analysis 

There are two broad sets of regulations under the pesticide container rule. One set of regulations 

pertains to pesticide containers themselves—how they must be constructed, marked, and labeled 

to ensure safety. The regulated entities that must comply with these regulations are the pesticide 

registrants. The other set of regulations concerns the refilling (or repackaging) of (refillable) 

pesticide containers, specifying what must be done to ensure that the act of refilling a pesticide 

container does not pose safety or health problems. The regulated entities (broadly termed 

“pesticide refillers”) that must comply with this set of regulations are agricultural pesticide 

refillers, swimming pool supply companies, and some pesticide registrants (in particular, 

pesticide registrants in two of the three market sectors plus the swimming pool industry). 

Descriptions of each of these categories of regulated entities can be found in Section 3.1 and 

Appendix D. 

To the extent possible, we estimated costs for regulated entities separately by the market sectors 

in which they operate. The categorization of regulated entities by market sector is shown in 

Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1. Types of Regulated Entities by Market Sector 

Agricultural 

Sector 

Industrial/ 

Commercial/ 

Government 

(I/C/G) Sector 

Swimming 

Pool 

Industry 

Home & Garden 

(H&G) Sector 

(Households) 

Pesticide Registrants 9 9 9 9

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 9 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 9 a a

 Swimming pool supply companies could be considered part of both the I/C/G and H&G markets. However, for the 

purposes of this analysis, we considered swimming pool supply companies separately. 

The types of containers covered under the container regulation are broadly categorized as nonrefillable and refillable containers. Because the set of regulations pertaining to the activity of 

refilling obviously involves only refillable containers, only regulated entities that engage in 

refilling must comply with them. A broad overview of the regulated entities and the sets of 

regulations with which they must comply is provided in Table 4.2. A more detailed overview, 

identifying the pesticide container standards with which the different regulated entities must 

comply, is given in Table 4.3.25

 

25 See Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Appendix G for a more detailed description of the final pesticide container 

standards. 
Page 60 

Table 4.2. Overview of Regulated Entities and Types of Regulations with 

Which They Must Comply 

Regulated Entity 

Regulation of Pesticide 

Containers 

(Non-Refillables and 

Refillables) 

Regulation of Refilling 

(Refillables) 

Pesticide Registrants: 

 In the Agricultural Sector 9 9

 In the I/C/G Sector 9 9

 In the Home & Garden Sector 9

 In the Swimming Pool Industry 9 9

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 9

Swimming Pool Supply Companies a 9

a

 Swimming pool supply companies are subject to a subset of the refilling requirements. Swimming pool supply 

companies must maintain certain records, but not all. Swimming pool supply companies must meet certain refilling 

requirements, but not all. Refillables are required to be inspected and cleaned (unless specified conditions in 

§165.170 are met) but not do not need to be relabeled. Copies of the residue removal procedures for refilling and 

description of acceptable containers must be on file (§165.218(a)), but a record of certain information recorded each 

time a container is refilled (e.g., product, amount) is not required (§165.218(b)). Swimming pool supply companies 

could be considered part of both the I/C/G and H&G markets. For the purposes of this analysis, however, we 

considered swimming pool supply companies separately. 
Page 61 

Table 4.3. Intersection of the Pesticide Container Regulations and Regulated Entities 

Pesticide Container Regulations Pesticide Registrants

Agricultural 

Pesticide Refillers 

Non-Refillable Containers Ensure that containers meet a subset of DOT packaging standards 9Ensure that liquid product containers dispense properly and have standard closures 9Develop residue removal procedures for dilutable pesticides in rigid containers 9Refillable Containers Ensure that containers meet a subset of DOT packaging standards 9Mark containers with a serial number 9Ensure that a one-way valve and/or tamper-evident device is in place for liquid minibulks 

9

Ensure that a vent, gauge, and shutoff valve are in place for liquid bulk containers 9Meet repackaging conditions 9 a 9 Develop cleaning procedures for repackaging 9 aInspect, clean, and properly label containers 9 a 9 Maintain records 9 a 9 Labeling Standards Ensure that labels include specified information 9a Refilling requirements affect pesticide registrants for 10 percent of the total refillable containers in the agricultural market sector and 

the I/C/G market sector. Available data are insufficient to differentiate pesticide registrants that also repackage I/C/G market pesticide 

do not. Therefore, pesticide registrants are held accountable. 

b Swimming pool supply companies must meet certain refilling requirements, but not all. Refillables are required to be inspected and 

conditions in §165.170 are met) but not do not need to be relabeled. Swimming pool supply companies must maintain certain records

the residue removal procedures for refilling and description of acceptable containers must be on file (§165.218(a)), but a record of cert

each time a container is refilled (e.g., product, amount) is not required (§165.218(b)). 
Page 62 

Containers within the broad categories of non-refillable and refillable containers are further 

subdivided by size and material type, as shown in Table 4.4. 

Table 4.4. Types of Containers Considered in the Analysis 

Containers for Liquid Products Containers for Dry Products 

Non-Refillables 

30 - 55 gallons, plastic 56 - 100 lb. bags, paper/plastic 

30 - 55 gallons, steel 45 - 55 lb. bags, plastic 

5 gallons, plastic 45 - 55 lb. bags, paper 

5 gallons, steel 11 - 44 lb. bags, plastic 

1 - <5 gallons, plastic 11 - 44 lb. bags, paper 

1 - <5 gallons, steel 1 - 10 lb. bags, plastic 

< 1 gallon, plastic 1 - 10 lb. bags, paper 

< 1 gallon, steel 2.5 gallon jugs 

< 1 gallon, glass 1 qt. - < 2.5 gallon jugs 

Water soluble packets – PVA packets Water soluble packets – PVA packets 

Water soluble packets – barrier packs Water soluble packets – barrier packs 

Bag in box > 101 lb. bulk containers 

Aerosol can > 30 lb. fiber drums 

 < 30 lb. fiber drums 

 Other 

Refillables 

Bulk Tanks (> 500 gallons), plastic Bulk (> 4,000 lbs.), paper/plastic 

Bulk Tanks (> 500 gallons), steel Large (2,501 - 4,000 lbs.), paper/plastic 

Large Tanks (251 - 500 gallons), plastic 101 - 2,500 lbs., paper/plastic 

Large Tanks (251 - 500 gallons), steel Fiber drums 

126 - 250 gallons, plastic Other sizes 

126 - 250 gallons, steel 

61 - 125 gallons, plastic 

61 - 125 gallons, steel 

26 - 60 gallons, plastic 

26 - 60 gallons, steel 

5 - 25 gallons, plastic 

5 - 25 gallons, steel 

Other sizes 

4.3 Characteristics of the Regulated Entities That Are Inputs to the Cost Analysis 

Regulated entities are divided into two size classes: small and large. As discussed in Chapter 3, 

for this analysis, the “small” category is further sub-divided into “small-small,” “medium-small,” 

and “large-small.”26 We estimated costs for several of the cost categories listed above (e.g., 

 

26 This analysis considers an alternative definition to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) definition of 

small business for the industries potentially affected by the final pesticide container regulations. The analysis 
Page 63 

costs for the average regulated entity in each combination of entity type, market sector, and size 

class) using the following two characteristics of regulated entities as inputs: 

• The number of entities in each combination of market sector and size class; and 

• The breakdown of total revenue by size class (i.e., the percentage of total revenue attributed 

to large establishments and to small-small, medium-small, and large-small establishments). 

We used the number of entities in a combination of market sector and company size class to 

calculate the number of containers out of compliance with each regulation under the container 

rule per average regulated entity in that combination of market sector and size class. For 

example, there are estimated to be 26,703 1 to <5 gallon plastic non-refillable containers out of 

compliance with the standards for container dispensing capability among “large-small” pesticide 

registrants in the agricultural sector.27 There are 66 such pesticide registrants, so the average 

number of containers out of compliance with that regulation per “large-small” registrant in the 

agricultural sector is 402 (=26,703/66).28

We used the percentage of total revenue attributed to regulated entities in a given size class to 

allocate the number of containers that fall within the scope of the container rule within each 

market sector to the different size classes (see Section 4.4.3). For example, 0.8 percent of 

revenue among pesticide registrants is associated with “large-small” establishments. Using this 

as a proxy for the distribution of containers that fall under the scope of the rule, the analysis 

assumed that 0.8 percent of all such containers were registered by “large-small” establishments 

in each market sector. 

Appendix D describes the data sources and procedures we used to characterize representative 

regulated entities for each market sector and size category. In general, Dun & Bradstreet 

financial data were matched to the representative list of companies for each regulated entity type, 

and the companies were profiled based on the SBA definition of small and large businesses and 

EPA’s alternative definitions of small businesses (see Appendix D). 

 disaggregates the SBA-defined small businesses into three categories: small-small, medium-small, and large-small. 

EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the container 

regulations may result in significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined 

with information about potential impacts on facilities that meet the SBA size standard for small business but are not 

typical of a small business in that industry sector. 

27 We calculated the number of plastic non-refillable containers out of compliance for the container dispensing 

capability among “large-small” pesticide registrants in the agricultural sector by multiplying the total number of 

non-refillable containers affected by the container regulations (17,986,536, see Table 3.9) and multiplying it by the 

percentage of containers among the “large-small” containers (0.8%), which was obtained from the distribution of 

total revenues across the pesticide registrant company size categories. Out of the 144,339 (17,986,536*0.08) 

containers, 81.5% are expected to be in compliance with the container dispensing standards (see Table 3.12) which 

gives 26,703 containers not in compliance (144,339*0.185). 

28 Discrepancy is due to rounding. The inputs to the calculation shown here (26,703 and 66) are rounded. The 

output, 402, is based on the unrounded numbers. 
Page 64 

Table 4.5 presents the estimated numbers of regulated entities by market sector and size 

category.29 The percentages of total revenue in each size class within a regulated entity type are 

given in Table 4.6.30

Table 4.5. Estimated Numbers of Regulated Entities by Market Sector and Size Class 

Size Classes 

Market Sector Small-Small Medium-Small Large-Small Large All Size Classes

Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural 399 198 66 58 722

I/C/G 299 148 50 44 541

Home & Garden 299 148 50 44 541

Total 997 495 166 146 1,804

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Agricultural 13,996 2,395 251 153 16,795

Total 13,996 2,395 251 153 16,795

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 

Total 174 117 14 17 322

Table 4.6. Percentages of Total Revenue in Each Size Class

Size Classes 

Regulated Entity Type Small-Small Medium-Small Large-Small Large 

Pesticide registrants 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 98.6%

Agricultural pesticide refillers 18.0% 25.8% 9.1% 47.0%

Swimming pool supply companies 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 98.9%

4.4 Estimating the Costs of Complying with the Final Regulations 

This section describes the method of estimating the costs of complying with the set of containerrelated regulations incurred by the average pesticide registrant. For a given combination of 

market sector and size class, the analysis proceeds through the following series of steps to a final 

estimate of the cost to the average pesticide registrant in that market sector/size class per 

container-related regulation: 

• Estimate the number of containers in the market sector; 

• Estimate the number of those containers that fall within the scope of the container rule; 

• Estimate the number of those containers that are associated with pesticide registrants in the 

size class; 

 

29 The number of regulated entities in each size category is distributed across the market sector based on the amount 

of pesticide product used in each market sector (see Appendix D for details). The 2001 pesticide use estimates that 

the agricultural, I/C/G, and H&G sectors used 40 percent, 30 percent, and 30 percent of pesticides, respectively. 

Based on these percentages, the number of registrants in the large size category (146) that are in the agricultural 

sector is calculated as 0.40*146 = 58. 

30 The revenue ratio for each pesticide registrant size category is based on the per size category total revenue 

compared to the revenue for the total universe of registrants based on the PPIS sample data set (see Appendix D for 

details). 
Page 65 

• For each regulation under the container rule, estimate the number of those containers that are 

out of compliance with the regulation; 

• Estimate the number of containers out of compliance with each regulation per average 

registrant in the market sector/size class; 

• Estimate the cost, in each year of a 20-year period, of bringing those containers into 

compliance, and the present discounted value of that 20-year stream of costs, using a 

3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate; and 

• Annualize this present discounted value, using a 3 percent interest rate and a 7 percent 

interest rate. 

The steps are described below in the order in which they were carried out in the analysis. 

4.4.1 Estimate the Number of Pesticide Containers in Each Market Sector 

The cost analysis begins by using the number of pesticide containers of each type within each 

market sector, separately for non-refillable and refillable containers, as described in Chapter 3. 

4.4.2 Estimate the Number of Pesticide Containers in Each Market Sector That Fall 

Within the Scope of the Container Rule 

As discussed in Chapter 3, not all containers fall within the scope of the full set of container 

regulations.31 For the next step in the cost analysis, we estimate the number of containers, within 

each combination of container type and market sector, that fall within the scope of the rule. The 

process of estimating the number of containers that fall within the scope of the container rule in 

each market sector is described in Chapter 3. The estimated numbers of containers (across all 

container types) in each market sector, and the estimated numbers and percentages that fall 

within the scope of the container rule, are presented, separately for non-refillables and refillables, 

in Table 4.7. 

 

31 The scope criteria apply the full set of non-refillable container regulations to non-exempt products that meet the 

Toxicity Category I, Toxicity Category II, and/or restricted use criteria. The basic DOT packaging standards in 49 

CFR 173.24 apply to all non-exempt products that are distributed/sold in non-refillable containers. 
Page 66 

Table 4.7. Number of Containers by Market Sector, and Number and Percentages that 

Fall Within the Scope of the Container-Related Regulations Under the Container Rule 

Agricultural 

Sector I/C/G Sector 

Home & 

Garden 

Sector 

Swimming 

Pool 

Industry a Total 

Non-Refillables 

Number of containers c 114,336,894 90,360,000 400,000,000 0 604,696,894

Number of containers within the 

scope of the container rule 73,770,164 47,930,965 227,274,040 0 348,975,169

Percentage of containers within 

the scope of the container rule 64.5% 53.0% 56.8% 0 57.7%

Refillables 

Total number of containers 1,263,600 46,500 0 1,217,000 2,527,100

Number of containers within the 

scope of the container rule b 1,263,600 37,458 0 1,217,000 2,518,058

Percentage of containers within 

the scope of the container rule 100.0% 80.6% --- 100.0% 99.6%

a The swimming pool industry is part of the I/C/G and H&G sectors, but is analyzed separately for the refillable 

container analysis. Most refillables are in compliance with the regulations, except the labeling and other 

administrative requirements, because these containers store DOT hazardous materials. 

b Swimming pool refillers are subject to a subset of the refilling requirements. Swimming pool refillers must meet 

certain refilling requirements, but not all. See Table 3.1 footnote for more detail. c See Tables 3.4 and 3.9 for non-refillables and Tables 3.5 and 3.10 for refillables. 

4.4.3 Allocate Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule in Each Market Sector 

to Each of the Size Classes 

To allocate those containers that fall within the scope of the container rule to pesticide registrants 

within each of the different size classes, it is assumed that the percentage of total revenue 

(among all pesticide registrants) associated with establishments in a given size class is a 

reasonable proxy for the percentage of containers registered by registrants in that size class. This 

allocation of containers to size classes by percentage revenue was applied to each of the market 

sectors, and within each market sector, to each container type. For example, of the 73,770,164 

non-refillable containers in the agricultural sector that fall within the scope of the container rule 

(see Table 4.7), 0.8 percent (see Table 4.6), or 591,993, are assumed to be registered by largesmall pesticide registrants.32 Of the 73,770,164 non-refillable containers in the agricultural 

sector that fall with the scope of the container rule, 199,434 are 30–55 gallon plastic containers 

for holding liquid products. Of those, it is assumed that 0.8 percent, or 1,600 containers, are 

registered by large-small pesticide registrants (see Table K-1).33 By the end of this step in the 

analysis, all containers that fall within the scope of the container rule are allocated to pesticide 

registrants in each combination of market sector and size class. 

 

32 Percentages given here are rounded. The numbers are based on the unrounded percentages, and are therefore 

slightly different from what would be obtained if the rounded percentages had been used. 

33 Table K-1 contains estimates of the number of containers by container type for each container and facility size 

category. 
Page 67 

4.4.4 For Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule, Estimate the Number of 

Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule That Are Out of Compliance 

with That Regulation 

Many containers are already in compliance with one or more of the regulations under the 

pesticide container rule and therefore do not need to be brought into compliance. For this step of 

the cost analysis, the compliance rates estimated for each type of container in each combination 

of market sector and size class are used. The estimation of compliance rates is described in 

Chapter 3. 

The number of containers of a given type within a given combination of market sector and size 

class that are out of compliance is just the number of containers of that type in that combination 

of market sector and size class that fall within the scope of the rule multiplied by one minus the 

corresponding compliance rate. For example, it is estimated that 35 percent of non-refillable 

plastic containers for holding liquid products smaller than one gallon registered by large-small 

establishments in the agricultural sector are in compliance with the dispensing capability 

requirement (§165.68 of the rule). It is estimated that 5,214 containers of that type in large-small 

establishments in the agricultural sector fall within the scope of the rule. The estimated number 

of containers of that type in that combination of market sector and size class that are out of 

compliance with the dispensing capability requirement is (1 - 0.35)*5,214 = 3,389. 

The rates of compliance with the final pesticide container regulations by container type are 

described in Chapter 3. Tables 4.8a (for non-refillables) and 4.8b (for refillables) give the 

numbers of containers (over all types) estimated to be out of compliance with each of the 

container-related regulations under the pesticide container rule. 
Page 68 

Table 4.8a. Estimated Numbers of Non-Refillable Containers Out of Compliance with the Container-Re

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

hazardous 

materials b 

(§165.60-64) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards – nonhazardous 

materials c 

(§165.60-64) 

Closure 

Standards 

(§165.66) 

Standards for 

container 

dispensing 

capability 

(§165.68) 

Labeling 

requirements

O

Small-Small EstablishmentsAgriculture 0 0 3,418 7,115 139,972 I/C/G 0 0 0 17,904 90,944 Home & Garden 0 0 0 33,636 431,230 Medium-Small Establishments Agriculture 0 0 7,975 16,600 326,568 I/C/G 0 0 0 41,771 212,183 Home & Garden 0 0 0 78,476 1,006,105 Large-Small EstablishmentsAgriculture 0 0 14,456 30,092 591,993 I/C/G 0 0 0 75,722 384,638 Home & Garden 0 0 0 142,259 1,823,837 Large Establishments Agriculture 0 0 1,775,609 3,696,028 72,711,631 I/C/G 0 0 0 9,300,532 47,243,200 Home & Garden 0 0 0 17,473,004 224,012,868 Total Number of Containers Agriculture 0 0 1,801,458 3,749,834 73,770,164 I/C/G 0 0 0 9,435,929 47,930,965 Home & Garden 0 0 0 17,727,375 227,274,040 Total Containers 0 0 1,801,458 30,913,138 348,975,169 a In many cases, a regulation is not applicable to particular types of containers in a particular market sector. For example, the closure sta

are applicable only to containers that hold at least 1 gallon and that hold liquid products in the agriculture sector. In all cases in which a applicable, a compliance rate of 100% was used, so that there would be 0% “out of compliance.” 

b Under the container rule, both containers for hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials must comply with the DOT standards f

hazardous materials. The costs of complying with the DOT standards for containers holding hazardous materials are therefore attributeand not the container rule. 

c For non-hazardous materials, we assume that DOT-compliant containers can be purchased on the market at prices comparable to non-c

also assume that within the compliance period, regulated entities will exhaust their inventory of non-compliant containers and replace thcontainers at no extra cost. 
Page 69 

Table 4.8b. Estimated Numbers of Refillable Containers Out of Compliance with the Container-Relat

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

hazardous 

materials b

(§165.110-114) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

non-hazardous 

materials c

(§165.110-114) 

Standards for 

container 

marking 

(§165.116) 

Standards for 

openings (for 

liquid 

minibulks only) 

(§165.118) 

Bulk 

container 

standards 

(§165.120) 

Labe

require

 Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 0 0 2,398 367 8 I/C/G 0 0 72 396 15 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 

 Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 0 0 5,594 856 18 I/C/G 0 0 168 924 35 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 

 Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 0 0 10,140 1,551 33 I/C/G 0 0 304 1,676 63 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 

 Large Establishments 

Agricultural 0 0 1,245,469 190,497 4,028 1,2I/C/G 0 0 37,374 205,796 7,720 1,2Home & Garden 0 0 0 00Total Number of Containers Agriculture 0 0 1,263,600 193,270 4,087 1,2I/C/G 0 0 37,919 208,792 7,832 1,2Home & Garden 0 0 0 00Total Containers 0 0 1,301,519 402,062 11,919 2,5

a In many cases, a regulation is not applicable to particular types of containers in a particular market sector. In all cases in which a regul

compliance rate of 100% was used, so that there would be 0% “out of compliance.” 

b Under the container rule, both containers for hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials must comply with the DOT standards f

hazardous materials. The costs of complying with the DOT standards for containers holding hazardous materials are therefore attributeand not the container rule. 

c For non-hazardous materials, we assume that DOT-compliant containers can be purchased on the market at prices comparable to non-

also assume that within the compliance period, regulated entities will exhaust their inventory of non-compliant containers and replace tcontainers at no extra cost. 

d Other administrative requirements relate to preparing and keeping records of the repackaging-related documents. The costs related to 

included here (rather than the repackaging regulation) because these costs are solely the registrant’s costs —not refillers’ costs. 
Page 70 

4.4.5 For Each Regulation Under the Container Rule, Estimate the Number of 

Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule That Are Out of Compliance 

with That Regulation – for the Average Registrant in Each Combination of 

Market Sector and Size Class 

For each combination of container type, market sector, and size class, the number of containers 

out of compliance with each container regulation is divided by the number of pesticide 

registrants in that combination of market sector and size class (see Table 4.5). This yields an 

estimate of the number of containers of each type that are out of compliance with each regulation 

for an “average registrant” in each market sector-size class combination.34 For example, there 

are an estimated 836,533 plastic 30–55 gallon non-refillable containers for liquid products 

registered by large establishments in the I/C/G sector that are out of compliance with the labeling 

requirements (see Table K-2).35 There are estimated to be 44 large establishments in the I/C/G 

sector. It is therefore estimated that the number of plastic 30–55 gallon non-refillable containers 

for liquid products that are out of compliance with the labeling requirements for the average 

large pesticide registrant in the I/C/G sector is 836,533/44 = 19,099.36

4.4.6 Estimate the Cost, in Each Year of a 20-Year Period, of Bringing Containers into 

Compliance 

There are two dimensions to the cost calculations. First, compliance costs may be fixed or 

variable.37 (See Table A-1 of Appendix A for a description of the type of cost associated with 

each container standard.) Fixed costs do not depend on the number of containers that must be 

brought into compliance with the regulation, whereas variable costs do. Fixed costs include, for 

example, the cost of a filing cabinet or the cost of initial testing of each combination of container 

type and pesticide formulation. A fixed cost was estimated for each regulation, as described in 

detail in Appendix A. 

Total variable cost increases with each container brought into compliance. The marginal 

variable cost curve was assumed to be horizontal; that is, there was assumed to be a constant unit 

variable cost, so that the variable cost incurred by bringing N containers into compliance is N

times the variable cost of bringing one container into compliance. A unit variable cost was 

estimated for each regulation, as described in detail in Appendix A. 

The second dimension of the cost calculations is the time dimension. Some costs are incurred 

only once (e.g., at the beginning of the period of time over which costs may be incurred), 

whereas other costs are incurred in each year of the period. The distinction between fixed costs 

and variable costs is not the same as the distinction between one-time costs and annual costs. 

Some fixed costs may occur year after year, whereas some variable costs may occur only once, at 

the beginning of the cost period. For example, the cost of testing combinations of non-refillable 

 

34 An “average registrant” in a market sector-size class combination is assumed to have the same combination of 

container types as the market sector-size class combination as a whole. 35 Table K-2 presents estimates of the number of containers by container type for each container and facility size 

category. 

36 Discrepancy is due to rounding. The inputs to the calculation shown here (836,533 and 44) are rounded. The 

output, 19,099, is based on the unrounded numbers. 

37 For some regulations there are only fixed costs (e.g., all container-related regulations for non-refillables have only 

fixed costs); for some, there are only variable costs; and for some there are both (see Appendix A). 
Page 71 

containers and pesticide formulations is a fixed cost (it does not depend on the number of nonrefillable containers subject to the regulations), but it is assumed to be incurred in each year, as 

new formulations are introduced. The cost of bringing liquid minibulk containers into 

compliance with the standards for openings is a variable cost (it increases as the number of liquid 

minibulk containers increases), but it occurs only once, at the beginning of the cost period. 

Unless a pesticide registrant is able to obtain a waiver releasing it from the responsibility to 

comply with a given container regulation, the annual cost of complying with the regulation is 

found by: 

• Calculating the cost in each year of the 20-year period; 

• Calculating the presented discounted value of the resulting stream of costs; and 

• Annualizing this present discounted value. 

Pesticide registrants will have 3 years in which to bring their non-refillable containers into 

compliance with regulations under the rule. It is assumed that the compliance costs associated 

with non-refillables will be incurred beginning at the end of the third year. Pesticide registrants 

will have 5 years in which to bring their refillable containers into compliance with regulations 

under the rule. It is assumed that the compliance costs associated with refillables will be 

incurred beginning at the end of the fifth year. In calculating the present discounted value of the 

costs of a regulation, all costs are discounted back to the beginning of the first year of the 20-

year period. 

The costs incurred in a single year are the fixed costs (if any in that year) plus the variable costs 

(if any in that year). If: 

• Fn denotes the fixed cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year (n=1, ..., 20); 

• UVCn denotes the unit variable cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year; and 

• N denotes the number of containers out of compliance with the regulation annually,38

then the cost of complying with the regulation in the nth year is: 

Fn + UVCn*N. 

Both fixed and unit variable costs, however, may differ for pesticide registrants in different 

market sectors and/or different size classes, and the cost analysis attempted to capture those 

differences whenever possible. For example, cost of testing to ensure compliance with the 

residue removal standard depends on the number of formulations, which tends to vary with the 

size of the establishment. The number of existing formulations for the average large 

establishment, for example, is estimated to be 0.25, whereas the number of existing formulations 

for the average small-small establishment is only 0.05 (see Appendix A, Table A.6). This results 

in greater testing costs for the average large pesticide registrant than the average small-small one. 

 

38 The number of containers to which the unit variable cost must be applied, if variable costs are annual, is assumed 

not to change over the 20-year period. 
Page 72 

In addition, the type of container could affect the unit variable cost of compliance. The simple 

formula above is therefore made more specific as follows: The cost of complying with the ith 

regulation for the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class in the 

nth year of the 20-year period is 

∑=

= + ∗

M

m

CCijkn Fijkn UVCijkmn Nijkmn

1

( , )

where: 

• CCijkn denotes the cost of complying with the ith regulation for the average pesticide 

registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class in the nth year; 

• Fijkn denotes the fixed cost of complying with the ith regulation for the average pesticide 

registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class in the nth year; 

• M denotes the number of container types; 

• UVCijkmn denotes the unit variable cost, specific to the mth container type, of complying with 

the ith regulation for the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size 

class in the nth year; and 

• Nijkmn denotes the number of containers of the mth type that are out of compliance with the ith 

regulation for the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class in 

the nth year (assumed not to change over the n years). 

For example, the unit (per-container) variable cost of meeting the bulk container standards for 

refillable containers is estimated to be $856 (regardless of container type or market sector). 

There is no fixed cost. The average large establishment in the agricultural sector has 51 plastic 

“large” bulk tanks and 18 steel “large” bulk tanks out of compliance with the bulk container 

standards. The cost to the average large establishment in the agricultural sector of complying 

with this regulation in year 3 is, then,39

$0 + (51)*($856) + (18)*($856) = $43,571 + $15,492 = $59,063 

The 20-year schedules of costs associated with non-refillables and refillables, for the average 

pesticide registrant in each combination of market sector and size class, is shown in Tables 4.9a 

and 4.9b, respectively. Regulation-specific cost schedules for the average pesticide registrant in 

each combination of market sector and size class are shown in Appendix C. (Note: There are no 

costs for those regulations not shown in the tables in Appendix C due to assumed 100 percent 

compliance. In other words, for non-refillable containers no costs are associated with the DOT 

packaging standards, container closure standards, and standards for container dispensing 

capability. For refillable containers, no costs are associated with the DOT packaging standards.) 

 

39 Discrepancy is due to rounding. The inputs to the calculation shown here (51 and 18) are rounded. The output, 

$59,063, is based on the unrounded numbers. 
Page 73 

Table 4.9a. Total (Undiscounted) Costs a of Complying with All Regulations for 

Non-Refillables Under the Container Rule (2005$)b

Year c

Establishment 3 4 - 20 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural $58,808 $2,274

I/C/G $58,808 $2,274

Home & Garden $58,808 $2,274

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural $27,096 $1,166

I/C/G $27,096 $1,166

Home & Garden $27,096 $1,166

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural $4,424 $598

I/C/G $4,424 $598

Home & Garden $4,424 $598

Large Establishments

Agricultural $92,638 $2,814

I/C/G $92,638 $2,814

Home & Garden $92,638 $2,814

a Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

b Costs for the following regulations are included: residue removal standards, recordkeeping 

requirements, and labeling requirements. 

c The compliance period for non-refillables is 3 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred 

beginning at the end of the third year. 
Page 74 

Table 4.9b. Total (Undiscounted) Costs a of Complying with All Regulations for Refillables 

Under the Container Rule (2005$)b

Year c

Establishment 3 4 - 20 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural $2,153 $126

I/C/G $2,194 $102

Home & Garden N/A N/A

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural $988 $63

I/C/G $996 $59

Home & Garden N/A N/A

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural $565 $45

I/C/G $566 $44

Home & Garden N/A N/A

Large Establishments

Agricultural $155,894 $3,819

I/C/G $161,637 $455

Home & Garden N/A N/A a Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

b Costs for the following regulations are included: container marking standards, standards for openings, bulk 

container standards, and recordkeeping requirements. 

c The compliance period for refillables is 5 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the 

end of the fifth year. 

4.4.7 Calculate the Present Discounted Value of the 20-Year Stream of Costs 

In order to determine the total cost of complying with a regulation over the period of analysis, in 

this case 20 years, we could simply sum all the costs incurred regardless of the year in which 

they were incurred. However, when costs are incurred is very important. Economic theory holds 

that given a choice, people would rather consume goods and services now rather then in the 

future. All else being equal, regulatory options that create benefits now and incur costs later are 

preferred to options that incur costs now and create benefits later. Therefore, we must take this 

into account when comparing the costs and benefits of alternative regulatory options. 

 

We accomplish this by discounting any costs that will be incurred in the future. The amount by 

which we discount future expenditures is known as the social discount rate. We conducted our 

analysis using both a 3 percent and 7 percent social discount rate. 
Page 75 

The present discounted value (pdv) of the 20-year stream of compliance costs associated with the 

ith regulation for the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class is 

∑= + =

20

1 (1 ) n

n

pdv ijkn

ijk d

CC

CC

where d is the discount rate. 

For example, costs to meet the residue removal standard begin in year 3 and go through year 20. 

In year 3, there are fixed costs associated with the existing containers; in subsequent years there 

are fixed costs associated with containers for new products. The compliance cost associated with 

existing containers for a small-small pesticide registrant in the agricultural sector, for example, in 

year 3 is $494. The compliance cost associated with new containers in each subsequent year 

(years 4–20) is $479. Using a 3 percent discount rate, and discounting back to the beginning of 

year 1, the present discounted value of the stream of costs associated with the residue removal 

standard for a small-small pesticide registrant in the agricultural sector is $6,993. Since all costs 

are discounted back to year 1, this $$6,993 is the cost to society as if all costs were incurred in 

year 1.40

4.4.8 Calculate the Annualized Cost of Complying with Each Regulation 

As mentioned above, the present discounted value of the costs of a regulation tells us how much 

it would cost to comply with a regulation if all costs were incurred in the first year of 

implementation. In order to discuss the cost per year of complying with a regulation, we must 

annualize the present discounted value of costs over the period of analysis, in this case 20 years. 

If the present discounted value is like paying cash upfront for a house in year 1, then the 

annualized cost is the mortgage payment that would be required to pay off a mortgage equal to 

the present discounted value at a rate of interest equal to the discount rate. Annualization 

provides a “per year” cost for each regulatory option so that we can compare costs across 

regulatory options that require expenditures at different times. Also, later on we will be able to 

compare the annualized costs and benefits of each regulatory option. 

The present discounted value of the costs of complying with a regulatory option is annualized 

over the 20-year period, using the same discount rate used to obtain present discounted values. 

The annualized (ann.) cost of complying with the ith regulation for the average pesticide 

registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class is calculated using discount rate r, as:41

pdv

ijk

ann

ijk CC

r r

r CC ∗⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ ∗ − + = − [1 ] [1 (1 ) ] 20

.

The estimated annual cost of complying with each regulation for the average registrant in each 

combination of market sector and size class is shown in Tables 4.10a (for non-refillables) and 

 

40 See Table K-5 for presented discounted cost by market and by type of cost –fixed and variable. 

41 The procedure for annualization is based on the guidelines for economic analyses that are published by EPA 

(EPA, 2000b). 
Page 76 

4.10b (for refillables) assuming a discount rate of 3 percent, and Tables 4.10c and 4.10d 

assuming a discount rate of 7 percent.42 As displayed in the tables, the highest cost of 

compliance is associated with the residue removal because of the testing procedure, and the 

labeling standards because all the containers are assumed to be not in compliance. 

 

42 When compared to residue removal standards, much of the other administrative costs and labeling costs are 

incurred in the initial year. Therefore, the annualized costs for labeling and administrative requirements are higher 

at the 7 percent discount rate. The medium-small registrants and small-small registrants have low upfront year 1-5 

costs (relative to ongoing year 6-20 costs) associated with residual removal requirements. Therefore, the annualized 

costs for these registrants are higher at the 3 percent discount rate than at the 7 percent discount rate. 
Page 77 

Table 4.10a. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for Non-Refillable 

Average Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

hazardous 

materials 

(§165.60-64) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards – nonhazardous 

materials 

(§165.60-64) 

Closure 

Standards 

(§165.66) 

Standards 

for container 

dispensing 

capability 

(§165.68) 

Residue 

removal 

standards 

(§165.70) 

Other 

administrative 

requirements – 

recordkeeping 

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $456 $88 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $456 $88 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $456 $88 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $913 $131 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $913 $131 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $913 $131 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,825 $161 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,825 $161 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,825 $161 Large Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,282 $161 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,282 $161 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,282 $161 a Rounded to the nearest dollar. b Unlike the other requirements, the labeling requirement is assumed to result in one fixed cost (and no variable costs) that covers labelinrefillable and refillable containers. Therefore, although the costs given in this table are listed under “non-refillables,” they actually incluof labeling templates for all containers. 
Page 78 

Table 4.10b. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for Refillable Contai

Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) a

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

hazardous 

materials 

(§165.110-114) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards – nonhazardous 

materials

(§165.110-114) 

Standards for 

container 

marking 

(§165.116) 

Standards for 

openings (for 

liquid minibulks 

only) (§165.118) 

Bulk container 

standards 

(§165.120) 

Other 

administrat

requiremen

recordkeep

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NMedium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $5 $5 $4 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $1 $11 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NLarge-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $27 $29 $24 $I/C/G $0 $0 $3 $3 $61 $Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NLarge Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $3,807 $4,084 $3,325 $I/C/G $0 $0 $356 $428 $8,495 $Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Na Rounded to the nearest dollar. b The costs resulting from the labeling requirement are listed in Table 4.10a since, unlike the other requirements, these are assumed to rcost (and no variable costs) that covers labeling of both non-refillable and refillable containers. 
Page 79 

Table 4.10c. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for Non-Refillable 

Average Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

hazardous 

materials 

(§165.60-64) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

non-hazardous 

materials 

(§165.60-64) 

Closure 

Standards 

(§165.66) 

Standards for 

container 

dispensing 

capability 

(§165.68) 

Residue 

removal 

standards 

(§165.70) 

Other 

administrative 

requirements – 

recordkeeping

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $418 $91 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $418 $91 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $418 $91 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $836 $137 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $836 $137 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $836 $137 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,672 $166 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,672 $166 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,672 $166 Large Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,091 $166 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,091 $166 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,091 $166 a Rounded to the nearest dollar. b Unlike the other requirements, the labeling requirement is assumed to result in one fixed cost (and no variable costs) that covers labeling refillable and refillable containers. Therefore, although the costs given in this table are listed under “non-refillables,” they actually includcosts of labeling templates for all containers. 
Page 80 

Table 4.10d. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with Each Container Regulation for Refillable Contai

Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class(Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$)a

DOT Packaging 

Standards – 

hazardous 

materials 

(§165.110-114) 

DOT 

Packaging 

Standards – 

non-hazardous 

materials 

(§165.110-114)

Standards for 

container 

marking

(§165.116) 

Standards for 

openings (for 

liquid 

minibulks 

only) 

(§165.118) 

Bulk container 

standards 

(§165.120) 

Other 

administrativ

requirements 

recordkeepin

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NMedium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $5 $6 $5 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $1 $13 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NLarge-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $26 $33 $27 $I/C/G $0 $0 $2 $3 $68 $Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NLarge Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $3,592 $4,564 $3,715 $I/C/G $0 $0 $334 $478 $9,492 $Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Na Rounded to the nearest dollar. b The costs resulting from the labeling requirement are listed in Table 4.10a since, unlike the other requirements, they are assumed to resulno variable costs) that covers labeling of both non-refillable and refillable containers. 
Page 81 

4.4.9 Estimate the Annualized Cost of Complying with All Regulations per Average 

Regulated Entity in Each Combination of Market Sector and Size Class – 

Assuming No Waivers 

In the absence of any waivers, the total annualized cost of complying with all container-related 

regulations for the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class is 

∑=

=

I

i

ann

ijk

ann CCjk w o waiver CC

1

. . ( , / )

where i is the number of such regulations. With one exception, regulations are directed at either 

refillable containers or non-refillables. Even for regulations that are essentially the same for 

non-refillables and refillables (e.g., administrative requirements – recordkeeping), the cost 

analysis assumes that any fixed costs incurred for non-refillables are separate from those 

incurred for refillables (e.g., it is assumed that a separate filing cabinet is purchased for each set 

of records). The exception is the labeling requirement, which results in only fixed costs that are 

not incurred separately for non-refillable and refillable containers. 

The total annualized cost of complying with all regulations, in the absence of any waivers, for 

the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class can then be 

rewritten as: 

( / ) ( ) ( ) ( ) .

1

.

1

. . CC w o waiver CC nr CC r CC labeling ann

jk

N

i

ann

ijk

N

i

ann

ijk

ann

jk

nr r

∑ ∑ = =

= + +

where: 

• Nnr denotes the number of container-related regulations for non-refillable containers; 

• Nr denotes the number of container-related regulations for refillable containers; 

• denotes the annualized cost of complying with the ith regulation for nonrefillables, for the average registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class; 

• denotes the annualized cost of complying with the ith regulation for refillables, for 

the average registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class; and 

• denotes the annualized cost of complying with the labeling requirements for 

the average registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class. 

The total annualized compliance cost without waivers, across all regulations, for the average 

registrant in the jth market sector and the kth size class is shown in Tables 4.11a and 4.11b. At 

3 percent, costs of compliance without a waiver range from as high as $19,807 ($20,642 at 

7 percent) for large registrants to $796 ($800 at 7 percent) for small-small registrants. As 

described in Tables 4.10a and 4.10b, the majority of the cost is associated with compliance with 

the residue removal and labeling requirements.43

 

43 When compared to large-small and large registrants, small-small and medium-small registrants have low upfront 

year 1-5 costs (relative to ongoing year 6-20 costs) associated with the residual removal requirements. Therefore, 

the annualized costs for the medium-small and small-small registrants are higher at the 3 percent discount rate than 

at the 7 percent discount rate, while the opposite is true for the large-small and large registrants. 

( ) . CC nr ann

ijk

( ) . CC r ann

ijk

( ) . CC labeling ann

ijk
Page 82 

Table 4.11a. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20-Year Period of the Pesticide Container 

Rule for the Average Registrant: Total Without a Waiver (Interest =3 percent) 

Establishment Annualized Cost 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural $5,506 

I/C/G $5,492 

Home & Garden $5,426 

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural $2,633 

I/C/G $2,631 

Home & Garden $2,618 

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural $796 

I/C/G $795 

Home & Garden $793 

Large Establishments

Agricultural $19,087 

I/C/G $17,149 

Home & Garden $7,870 

Table 4.11b. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20-Year Period of the Pesticide Container 

Rule for the Average Registrant: Total Without a Waiver (Interest =7 percent) 

Establishment Annualized Cost 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural $6,041 

I/C/G $6,030 

Home & Garden $5,956 

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural $2,870 

I/C/G $2,867 

Home & Garden $2,854 

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural $800 

I/C/G $799 

Home & Garden $797 

Large Establishments

Agricultural $20,642 

I/C/G $19,077 

Home & Garden $8,772 
Page 83 

4.4.10 Estimate the Annual Cost of Complying with All Regulations per Average 

Regulated Entity in Each Combination of Market Sector and Size Class – Allowing 

for Waivers 

EPA may modify or waive the requirements for some but not all of the container-related 

Regulations. For non-refillables, EPA may: 

• Modify or waive the requirements of the DOT packaging standards for non-hazardous 

materials (§165.60) and for hazardous materials (§165.62); 

• Approve a non-standard closure (i.e., a closure not listed in §165.66); 

• Modify or waive the container dispensing standards (§165.68); and 

• Modify or waive the residue removal standard (§165.70). 

For refillables, EPA may modify or waive the requirements of the DOT packaging standards for 

non-hazardous materials (§165.110) and for hazardous materials (§165.112). 

The total annualized compliance cost, across all regulations, for the average registrant in the jth 

market sector and the kth size class when a waiver has been obtained is shown in Tables 4.11c 

and 4.11d. The standards, and their potential to be waived, are summarized in Table 4.12. As 

expected, given the range of standards that can be waived (in particular, the residue removal 

standard), costs are lower for the registrant that obtains a waiver compared to the registrant that 

does not obtain a waiver (see Tables 4.11a and 4.11b). With a waiver, costs of compliance range 

from $17,167 at 3 percent ($18,914at 7 percent) for large registrants, to $698 at 3 percent ($740 

at 7 percent) for small-small registrants. 
Page 84 

Table 4.11c. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20 Year Period of the Pesticide Container 

Rule for the Average Registrant: Total With a Waiver (Interest Rate = 3 percent) 

Establishment Annualized Cost 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural $4,042 

I/C/G $4,028 

Home & Garden $3,962 

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural $2,082 

I/C/G $2,080 

Home & Garden $2,067 

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural $701 

I/C/G $701 

Home & Garden $698 

Large Establishments

Agricultural $17,167 

I/C/G $15,229 

Home & Garden $5,950 

Table 4.11d. Total Annualized Costs Over a 20 Year Period of the Pesticide Container 

Rule for the Average Registrant: Total With a Waiver (Interest Rate = 7 percent) 

Establishment Annualized Cost 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural $4,731 

I/C/G $4,719 

Home & Garden $4,646 

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural $2,395 

I/C/G $2,393 

Home & Garden $2,379 

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural $744 

I/C/G $743 

Home & Garden $740 

Large Establishments

Agricultural $18,914 

I/C/G $17,348 

Home & Garden $7,043 
Page 85 

Table 4.12. Container-Related Standards and Waivers 

Standard 

May It Be Modified or 

Waived? 

Non-Refillables 

DOT packaging (design, construction, and marking) standards – for non-hazardous 

materials (§165.60) 

Yes 

DOT packaging (design, construction, and marking) standards – for hazardous 

materials (§165.62) 

Yes 

Closure standards (§165.66) Yes 

Standards for container dispensing capability (§165.68) Yes 

Residue removal standards (§165.70) Yes 

Recordkeeping (§165.86) No 

Labeling (§156.144(d)) a Yes 

Refillables 

DOT packaging (design, construction, and marking) standards – for non-hazardous 

materials (§165.110) 

Yes 

DOT packaging (design, construction, and marking) standards – for hazardous 

materials (§165.112) 

Yes 

Standards for marking (§165.116) No 

Standards for openings (§165.118) No 

Standards for bulk containers (§165.120) No 

Labeling (§156.144(d)) a Yes a

 The regulations specify that the label requirements can be modified or waived. For the purposes of the cost 

analysis, we assume that the label requirements are more likely to be modified than completely waived, so it is 

assumed that registrants still incur the cost of changing the pesticide label. Therefore, label waivers are not included 

in the waiver cost analysis. 

The cost analysis assumes that: 

• Pesticide registrants will apply for a waiver only if they are reasonably certain of getting it; 

• Five percent of registrants will apply for a waiver; 

• All those who apply will get the waiver; 

• If a requirement is waived, the cost of meeting the requirement is zero; and 

• There is a cost to apply for a waiver. 

The total annualized cost of complying with the container rule for the average pesticide registrant 

in the jth market sector and the kth size class who applies for and gets a waiver can be written as: 

( / ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . . . . CC w waiver CC nr CC r C waiver CC labeling ann

jk

m S

jk

ann

ijk

i S

ann

ijk

ann

jk

nr r

∑ ∑ ∈ ∈

= + + +

where: 

• Snr is the set of container-related regulations for non-refillable containers for which a waiver 

cannot be obtained; 
Page 86 

• Sr is the set of container-related regulations for refillable containers for which a waiver 

cannot be obtained; 

• Cjk(waiver) is the cost of applying for a waiver for the average pesticide registrant in the jth 

market sector and the kth size class; and 

• All other components on the right-hand side of the equation are as described above. 

The expected annualized cost for the average pesticide registrant in the jth market sector and the 

kth size class, given that pjk percent of all pesticide registrants in the jth market sector and the kth 

size class apply for and obtain waivers (which relieve them of the responsibility of complying 

with some but not all regulations), is: 

( ) ( / ) (1 ) ( / ) . . . E CC p CC w waiver p CC w o waiver ann

jk jk

ann

jk jk

ann

jk = ∗ + − ∗

As noted above, it is assumed that pjk = 0.05 for all j and k; that is, 5 percent of pesticide 

registrants apply for and receive a waiver.44 The cost of the waiver is an estimated $362 (see 

Appendix A). The expected cost to a large-small agricultural pesticide registrant, for example, 

using the estimates of total annualized costs with and without a waiver at 3 percent found in 

Tables 4.11a and 4.11c, respectively, would be: 

(0.05)*($4,042) + (1-0.05)*($5,506) = $5,43345

Total expected annualized costs (across all container-related regulations), given that waivers are 

available for some regulations, are given in Tables 4.17a and 4.17b in Section 4.6, where total 

expected costs for both container-related and refilling-related regulations are summarized. 

4.5 Estimating the Costs of Compliance with Refilling-Related Regulations 

The method use to estimate the costs of complying with the set of refilling-related regulations 

incurred by the average pesticide refiller is basically the same as the method of estimating the 

costs of complying with the set of container-related regulations. For a given pesticide refiller 

category/size class (e.g., large agricultural pesticide refillers), the analysis proceeds through the 

following series of steps to a final estimate of the cost to the average pesticide refiller in that 

refiller category/size class per refilling-related regulation: 

• Estimate the number of refillable containers in the relevant market sector; 

• Estimate the number of those that fall within the scope of the rule; 

• Estimate the number of those that are refilled by pesticide refillers in the refiller category 

(this is an issue only for the agricultural sector, in which there are two categories of pesticide 

refillers – agricultural pesticide refillers and agricultural pesticide registrants); 

 

44 The assumption that the probability of applying for and getting a waiver is the same for all market sectors and size 

classes is made in the absence of sufficient information to the contrary. 

45 The difference between this estimated cost ($5,433) and the estimate of cost provided in Table 4.17a ($5,477) is 

the annual cost of complying with the refilling-related regulations for an average large-small agricultural pesticide 

registrant ($44) (see Section 4.5). 
Page 87 

• Using annual refilling rates estimated for each different type of refillable container refilled by 

each category of pesticide refiller, estimate the total number of refillings per year in each 

refiller category; 

• Estimate the number of refillings per year in each refiller category/size class; 

• For each refilling-related regulation under the rule, estimate the number of those refillings 

that are out of compliance with the regulation in each refiller category/size class; 

• Estimate the number out of compliance with each regulation per average refiller in each 

refiller category/size class; 

• Estimate the cost, in each year of a 20-year period, of bringing those refillings into 

compliance, and the present discounted value of that 20-year stream of costs, using a 

3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate; and 

• Annualize this present discounted value, using a 3 percent interest rate and a 7 percent 

interest rate. 

This section describes the method of estimating the costs of complying with the refilling-related 

regulations under the pesticide container rule for the average refilling entity. The steps are 

described in the order in which they were carried out in the analysis. The first two steps in the 

process (estimating the number of refillable pesticide containers in each market sector and 

estimating the number of refillable pesticide containers in each market sector that fall within the 

scope of the rule) were already carried out for the analysis of the costs of the container-related 

regulations, and are described above in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. The description of methods 

presented here begins at the third step. 

4.5.1 Allocate Refillable Containers That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule in Each of 

the Relevant Market Sectors to Each of the Regulated Refilling Entity Categories 

Within the Market Sector 

The agricultural and I/C/G sectors have regulated entities that will have to comply with the set of 

refilling-related regulations under the pesticide container rule (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). H&G 

containers, however, are not refilled, so this market sector does not enter into the refilling cost 

analysis. In the I/C/G sector, I/C/G pesticide registrants make up the only refiller category. 

Therefore, 100 percent of all refillable containers of each type in the I/C/G market sector that fall 

within the scope of the rule were allocated to I/C/G pesticide registrants for this part of the cost 

analysis. 

Although swimming pool supply companies are considered to be in the I/C/G and H&G sectors, 

we treat them separately. As described in Chapter 3, refillable containers associated with 

swimming pool supply companies were not included in the data used to estimate the number of 

containers in the I/C/G market. Therefore, the refillables associated with swimming pool supply 

companies were estimated differently and are treated differently in the cost analysis because they 

are subject to a portion of the refilling requirements only. That is, the number of refillable 

containers of each type, and the number that fall within the scope of the rule, refilled by 

swimming pool supply companies were calculated separately. Therefore, the swimming pool 

industry is treated as its own market sector, and all of the refillable containers that fall within the 

scope of the rule in the swimming pool industry are allocated to swimming pool supply 

companies. 
Page 88 

Within the agricultural sector there are two refiller categories: 

• Agricultural pesticide refillers; and 

• Agricultural pesticide registrants. 

It is estimated that 90 percent of the refillable containers that fall within the scope of the rule in 

the agricultural sector are refilled by agricultural pesticide refillers, and 10 percent are refilled by 

agricultural pesticide registrants (see Table K-3). More details about this assumption are 

provided in Chapter 3. 

4.5.2 Estimate the Number of Refillings per Year That Fall Within the Scope of the 

Rule for Each Category of Regulated Entity for Each Refillable Container Type 

Table 4.13 lists the estimated annual refilling rates (number of refillings per container per year). 

Refilling rates for the agricultural sector are based on information provided by Paulson (2002). 

Refilling rates for the I/C/G sector are transferred from assumptions made in the proposed 

container rule RIA for small volume refillable containers (EPA, 1993, Appendix G). Refilling 

rates for the swimming pool industry (antimicrobial pesticide supply companies) are 

approximately twice the rate (eight times per year) used in the proposed container rule RIA. 

This is based on professional judgment and comments submitted to EPA. The relative amount of 

sodium hypochlorite used and the number of refillable containers needed to meet demand in the 

pool treatment industry are considered. 

4.5.3 Estimate the Number of Refillings per Year That Fall Within the Scope of the 

Rule for Pesticide Refillers in Each Size Class Within Each Refiller Category 

The same size classes that were applied to pesticide registrants were also applied to the different 

refiller categories, as shown in Table 4.5 above. Analogous to the method used to allocate 

containers within each market sector to the different size classes, the analysis assumed that the 

percentage of total revenue (among all pesticide refillers in a given category, such as agricultural 

pesticide refillers) associated with pesticide refillers in a given size class is a reasonable proxy 

for the percentage of refillings by pesticide refillers in that size class. This allocation of 

refillings to size classes by percentage revenue was applied to each category of pesticide refiller, 

and within each refiller category, to each container type. For example, there are assumed to be 

54,810 refillings of 126-250 gallon plastic containers for holding liquid products per year by 

agricultural pesticide refillers.46 Of those, we assume 9.1 percent (see Table 4.6), or 5,009 

refillings, to be refillings by large-small agricultural pesticide refillers.47 Across all sizes and 

types of container, there are assumed to be 2,083,500 refillings per year by agricultural pesticide 

refillers.48 Of these, 9.1 percent, or 190,397, are attributed to large-small pesticide refillers. By 

the end of this step in the analysis, all refillings that fall within the scope of the container rule are 

allocated to each combination of pesticide refiller category and size class. 

 

46 The number of refillings in each container type category is the product of the number of containers in that 

category and refilling rate per container. For the 126–50 gallon plastic container category for agricultural refillers, 

31,320 containers * 1.75 refillings per year per container = 54,810 refillings per year. 47 Percentages given in the text are rounded. The numbers here are based on the unrounded percentages, and are 

therefore slightly different from what would be obtained if the rounded percentages had been used. 

48 The total number of refillings for each refiller class is the sum of the number of refillings over all container type 

categories. 
Page 89 

Table 4.13. Estimated Annual Pesticide Container Refilling Rates 

Estimated Annual Refilling Rate 

Refillable Container Type 

Agricultural 

Pesticide 

Refillers a

Agricultural 

Pesticide 

Registrants a

I/C/G Pesticide 

Registrants b

Swimming Pool 

Industry – 

Antimicrobial 

Applicators c

Containers for Holding Liquid Products 

5 - 25 gallon, plastic or steel 2.25 2.25 4 8 

26 - 60 gallon, plastic or steel 1.75 1.75 4 8 

61 - 125 gallon, plastic or steel 1.75 1.75 4 N/A 

126 - 250 gallon, plastic or steel 1.75 1.75 4 N/A 

Large (251 - 500 gallons) 1.25 1.25 4 4 

Bulk (> 500 gallons) 1.25 1.25 4 4 

Other 1.75 1.75 4 8 

Containers for Holding Dry Products 

< 100 lbs. 1.75 1.75 4 N/A 

101 - 2500 lbs. 1.75 1.75 4 N/A 

Large (2501 - 4409 lbs.) 1.25 1.25 4 N/A 

Bulk (> 4409 lbs.) 1.25 1.25 4 N/A 

Other 1.75 1.75 4 N/A 

a Agricultural sector refilling rates are based on Paulson (2002). 

b I/C/G refilling rates based are based on assumptions in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, 

Appendix G). 

c Estimates are based on comments to the 1999 Supplemental Notice submitted by relevant trade associations (i.e., 

the Chlorine Institute, National Spa and Pool Institute, and Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers Association) 

that provide the average number of refillings. Based on the comments, the number of refillings was assumed to be 

8. A smaller refilling rate of 4 was assumed for larger containers. 

4.5.4 For Each Refilling-Related Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule, 

Estimate the Number of Refillings per Year That Fall Within the Scope of the 

Rule That Are Out of Compliance with That Regulation 

As with the container-related regulations, it is estimated that for each refilling-related regulation, 

some percentage of refillings are already in compliance with the regulation and therefore do not 

need to be brought into compliance. This step of the cost analysis of refilling-related regulations 

relied on compliance rates estimated for refillings of each type of refillable container in each 

combination of refiller category and size class. The estimation of compliance rates is described 

in Chapter 3. 

The number of refillings of a given type of refillable container within a given combination of 

pesticide refiller category and size class that are out of compliance with a given regulation is just 

the number of refillings of that type of container in that combination of refiller category and size 

class that fall within the scope of the rule multiplied by (1 - the corresponding compliance rate). 

For example, it is estimated that, among large agricultural pesticide refillers, 60 percent of 

refillings of 126–250 gallon plastic refillable containers for holding liquid products are in 

compliance with the requirement to inspect the container before refilling. There are estimated to 
Page 90 

be 25,767 refillings per year of that type of container by large agricultural pesticide refillers that 

fall within the scope of the rule. It is estimated that the number of refillings of that type of 

container by large agricultural pesticide refillers that are out of compliance with the requirement 

to inspect the container before refilling is (1 - 0.6)*25,767 = 10,307. 

The numbers of refillings (of all types of refillable containers) estimated to be out of compliance 

with each of the refilling-related regulations under the pesticide container rule is given in 

Table 4.14. 

Table 4.14. Estimated Numbers of Refilling Steps (or Requirements) per Year Out of 

Compliance with Refilling-Related Requirements (2005$) 

Requirement to 

Inspect Container 

Before Refilling 

Requirement to 

Clean Container 

Before Refilling 

Recordkeeping with 

Each Refilling 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Small-Small 150,077 30,015 375,191

Medium-Small 215,367 43,073 538,418

Large-Small 76,159 15,232 190,397

Large 391,797 78,359 979,494

Agricultural Pesticide Registrants 

Small-Small 176 35 439

Medium-Small 410 82 1,025

Large-Small 743 149 1,858

Large 91,271 18,254 228,178

I/C/G Pesticide Registrants 

Small-Small 114 23 284

Medium-Small 265 53 663

Large-Small 481 96 1,202

Large 59,073 11,815 147,682

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 

Small-Small 996 0 0

Medium-Small 3,449 0 0

Large-Small 829 0 0

Large 480,126 0 0

4.5.5 For Each Refilling-Related Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule, 

Estimate the Number of Refillings That Fall Within the Scope of the Rule That 

Are Out of Compliance with That Regulation – for the Average Regulated Entity 

in Each Combination of Refiller and Size Class 

For each combination of refillable container type, refiller category, and size class, we divide the 

number of refillings out of compliance with each refilling-related regulation (see Table 4.14) by 

the number of pesticide refillers in that combination of refiller category and size class (see Table 

4.5). This yields an estimate of the number of refillings of each type of refillable container that 

is out of compliance with each regulation for an “average pesticide refiller” in each refiller type-
Page 91 

size class combination.49 For example, there are an estimated 2,061 refillings of 126–250 gallon 

plastic containers for holding liquid products by large agricultural pesticide refillers that are out 

of compliance with the requirement to clean the container before refilling. There are estimated 

to be 153 large agricultural pesticide refillers. It is therefore estimated that the number of 

refillings of 126–250 gallon plastic containers for holding liquid products that are out of 

compliance with the requirement to clean the container before refilling for the average large 

agricultural pesticide refiller is 2,061/153 = 13.5 (see Table K-4b).50

4.5.6 Estimate the Cost, in Each Year of a 20-Year Period, of Bringing Refillings into 

Compliance 

The estimation of the costs of bringing refillings into compliance with refilling-related 

regulations follows the same pattern as the estimation of costs for container-related regulations. 

Compliance costs may be fixed or variable. Fixed costs do not depend on the number of 

refillings that must be brought into compliance with the regulation, whereas variable costs do. 

The only fixed cost associated with refilling requirements is the cost of a file cabinet, estimated 

at $229.65. (See Appendix A for compliance cost figures.) 

Total variable cost increases with each refilling brought into compliance. As with the containerrelated variable costs, the marginal variable cost curve was assumed to be horizontal; that is, 

there was assumed to be a constant unit variable cost, so that the variable cost incurred by 

bringing N refillings into compliance is N times the variable cost of bringing one refilling into 

compliance. The variable costs associated with refilling are the costs of inspecting, cleaning, and 

recording certain information about refillable containers when refilling. We estimate a unit 

variable cost for each regulation, as described in detail in Appendix A. 

The second dimension of the cost calculations is the time dimension. Some costs are incurred 

only once (e.g., at the beginning of the period of time over which costs may be incurred), 

whereas other costs are incurred in each year of the 20-year period. 

The cost of complying with a refilling-related regulation is calculated by: 

• Calculating the cost in each year of the 20-year period; 

• Calculating the presented discounted value of the resulting stream of costs; and 

• Annualizing this present discounted value. 

Waivers are not available for the refilling-related regulations. Pesticide refillers will have 

5 years in which to bring their refillings into compliance with regulations under the rule. The 

analysis assumes that refilling-related compliance costs will be incurred beginning at the end of 

the fifth year. In calculating the present discounted value of the costs of a regulation, all costs 

are discounted back to the beginning of the first year of the 20-year period. 

 

49 An “average refiller” in a refiller category/size class combination is assumed to refill the same combination of 

refillable container types as the refiller category/size class combination as a whole. 50 Table K-4 presents information for each combination of container type, container size, market type, and entity 

size. 
Page 92 

The cost of compliance with the three refilling requirements—to inspect, clean, and record 

information about refillable containers when refilling—were combined together into a single cost 

estimate. The calculation of these costs is carried out in the same way as the cost of complying 

with a container-related regulation. The only difference is that the unit is now a refilling rather 

than a container. The costs incurred in a single year are the fixed costs (if any in that year) plus 

the variable costs (if any in that year). If 

• Fn denotes the fixed cost of complying with the refilling regulations in the nth year (n=1, ..., 

20); 

• UVCn denotes the unit variable cost of complying with the refilling regulations in the nth 

year; and 

• N denotes the number of refillings out of compliance with the regulation annually;51

then the cost of complying with the refilling regulations in the nth year is: 

Fn + UVCn * N. 

As with container-related compliance costs, it is possible that both fixed and unit variable costs 

differ for pesticide refillers in different refiller categories and/or size classes. There was 

insufficient information to capture any such differences in this cost analysis. (Total variable 

costs will vary, however, because the numbers of refillings varies across refiller categories and 

size classes.) It is also possible that unit variable or fixed costs could differ by refillable 

container type, but as with possible differences across refiller categories and/or size classes, there 

was insufficient information to capture any such possible differences. 

Therefore, although in theory the calculation of the cost of complying with the ith regulation for 

the average pesticide refiller in the jth refiller category and the kth size class in the nth year of 

the 20-year period would follow the same basic pattern as for container-related compliance costs 

(shown in Section 4.4.6), 

CC F UVC N ijkn ijk ijkmn ijkmn

m

M

= + =

∑ ( *)

1

, 

in practice, a simpler formula is used, in which only the number of refillings varies by refiller 

category and/or size class and regulation, and the unit variable cost varies for the regulation. 

The cost of complying with the three refilling requirements is just the fixed cost (it was assumed 

that a single file cabinet would suffice for all three refilling regulations) plus the three variable 

costs. Each unit variable cost was estimated by estimating the time required to meet the 

regulation (e.g., the time it takes to clean a refillable container before refilling) and multiplying 

by the hourly wage rate. For example, we estimate that it takes one minute, or 0.0167 hour, to 

inspect a container before refilling. We estimate the labor cost per hour to be $29.13. The unit 

variable cost of inspection is, then, 0.0167 x $29.13 = $0.4865. There are estimated to be 90 

refillings out of compliance with the inspection regulation for the average medium-small 

 

51 The number of refillings to which the unit variable cost must be applied, if variable costs are annual, is assumed 

not to change over the 20-year period. 
Page 93 

agricultural pesticide refiller each year. The annual (undiscounted) variable cost of meeting the 

inspection regulation for the average medium-small agricultural pesticide refiller is therefore 

$0.49 x 90 = $43.78. 

The 20-year schedule of costs for the three refilling regulations combined for the average 

pesticide refiller in each market sector/refilling category/size class is shown in Table 4.15. Due 

to the significantly larger number of containers refilled by the large registrants compared to the 

small registrants, costs of compliance are estimated to be significantly higher in each year for the 

large registrants. 

Table 4.15. Total Compliance Costs a Related to Refilling Requirements for 

Refillable Containers (2005$)b

Year c

Establishment 5 6-20 

Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers $1,408 $1,178 

Agricultural pesticide registrants $273 $43 

I/C/G – Pesticide registrants $267 $37 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies $258 $29 

Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers $579 $349 

Agricultural pesticide registrants $238 $8 

I/C/G – Pesticide registrants $237 $7 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies $244 $14 

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers $271 $42 

Agricultural pesticide registrants $231 $2 

I/C/G – Pesticide registrants $231 $1 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies $232 $3 

Large Establishments

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers $10,174 $9,944 

Agricultural pesticide registrants $6,300 $6,070 

I/C/G – Pesticide registrants $5,468 $5,238 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies $13,942 $13,712 

a Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

b Compliance with the refilling requirements involves both fixed and variable costs. 

c The compliance period for non-refillables is 5 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the 

end of the fifth year. 

4.5.7 Calculate the Present Discounted Value of the 20-Year Stream of Costs 

The present discounted value of the 20-year stream of compliance costs associated with the 

refilling regulations for the average pesticide refiller in the jth refiller category and the kth size 

class is: 

CC

CC

d jk

pdv jkn

n

n

= = + ∑

1 ( ) 1

20
Page 94 

where d is the discount rate. Two discount rates were considered: 3 percent and 7 percent. Table 

K-5 shows the present discounted value of each year’s costs refilling requirement costs for each 

the average pesticide refiller in each market sector/refilling category and size class. 

4.5.8 Calculate the Annualized Cost of Complying with the Refilling Regulations 

The present discounted value of the cost of complying with the refilling regulations was 

annualized over the 20-year period, using two interest rates (r) that were assumed to be the same 

as the two discount rates used to obtain present discounted values (that is, when the discount rate 

was assumed to be 3 percent, the interest rate was also assumed to be 3 percent, and similarly for 

7 percent). The annualized cost of complying for the average pesticide refiller in the jth refiller 

category and the kth size class is calculated using interest rate r as 

 . 

The estimated annualized cost of complying with the three refilling-related regulations 

(combined) for the average refiller in each combination of refiller category and size class is 

shown in Tables 4.16a (at 3 percent interest) and 4.16b (at 7 percent interest). As discussed 

earlier, due to the significantly larger number of containers refilled by the large registrants 

compared to the small registrants, the estimated annual cost of compliance is estimated to be 

significantly higher for large registrants. 

Table 4.16a. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with the Refilling-Related Container 

Regulations for the Average Refiller by Refiller Category and Size Class

(Interest = 3 percent) (2005$)a

Refiller Category / Size Class 

Cost of Requirements to Inspect, Clean, 

and Track Container Before Refilling 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Small-Small $43 

Medium-Small $267 

Large-Small $871 

Large $7,255 

Agricultural Pesticide Registrants 

Small-Small $14 

Medium-Small $19 

Large-Small $45 

Large $4,434 

I/C/G Pesticide Registrants 

Small-Small $14 

Medium-Small $18 

Large-Small $40 

Large $3,828 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 

Small-Small $15 

CC

r

r r jk CC ann

jk

. pdv

[ ]*[ ( ) ] = *

+ −+

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ − 1 11 20
Page 95 

Medium-Small $23 

Large-Small $34 

Large $10,000 a Costs for all three refilling-related requirements are aggregated. Some costs are higher at the 7 percent 

discount rate while the others are higher at the 3 percent discount rate depending on whether the costs incurred 

in the initial year is high. If the initial year costs are high then the typically the cost estimate is higher for the 7 

percent discount rate and vice versa. For example, the large swimming pool supply companies face a high cost 

in the initial year while the small-small agricultural pesticide refiller faces low initial year costs. Accordingly, 

the cost at the 7 percent discount rate is higher for the large former, while the opposite is true for the latter. 

Table 4.16b. Estimated Annual Cost of Complying with the Refilling-Related Container 

Regulations for the Average Refiller by Refiller Category and Size Class

(Interest = 7 percent) (2005$)a

Refiller Category / Size Class 

Cost of Requirements to Inspect, Clean, 

and Track Container Before Refilling 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Small-Small $41

Medium-Small $237

Large-Small $764

Large $6,336

Agricultural Pesticide Registrants 

Small-Small $16

Medium-Small $20

Large-Small $42

Large $3,874

I/C/G Pesticide Registrants 

Small-Small $15

Medium-Small $19

Large-Small $38

Large $3,345

Swimming Pool Supply Companies 

Small-Small $16

Medium-Small $24

Large-Small $33

Large $8,732 a Costs for all three refilling-related requirements are aggregated. 

4.6 The Total Annual Costs of the Rule 

We calculated the total annual costs of the pesticide container rule, across all regulations 

contained within it, for: 

• The average regulated entity – in each combination of entity type, market sector, and size 

class; 

• All regulated entities – in each combination of entity type, market sector, and size class; 

• The average pesticide registrant with a “representative share” in each market sector; 

• All pesticide registrants (across all market sectors) in each size class; 

• All pesticide registrants across all market sectors and size classes; 
Page 96 

• All regulated entities within each category complying with refilling-related regulations; and 

• All regulated entities. 

The cost of complying with each of the container-related and refilling-related regulations under 

the rule, for the average regulated entity in each combination of regulated entity category, market 

sector, and size class are given above in Tables 4.10a–4.10d and 4.16a and 4.16b, respectively. 

The estimation of costs across all regulations for the average regulated entity is described in 

Sections 4.4 and 4.5. The sets of regulations to which each regulated entity category is subject 

are summarized in Table 4.2. The numbers of regulated entities in each category of regulated 

entity for each combination of market sector and size class are given in Table 4.5. The 

information in all these tables is synthesized in Tables 4.17a and 4.17b, which summarize the 

annualized costs across all regulations for each type of regulated entity and across all regulated 

entities, at 3 percent interest and 7 percent interest, respectively. In general, as displayed in 

Tables 4.17a and 4.17b (and as discussed earlier), costs are also higher for the average large 

entity than for the average small entity, and the costs are higher for large entities when 

considered over all entities. The exceptions include the large-small registrants, which have a 

similar number of regulated entities to large registrants, making their costs smaller over all 

regulated entities; and large agricultural pesticide refillers, which have higher costs over all 

entities, despite a relatively small number of entities in this market sector and size. At 3 percent 

and 7 percent, the total cost of compliance over all regulated entities is estimated to be 

$8.4 million and $8.5 million, respectively. With a 3 percent discount rate, pesticide registrants 

account for nearly $5.6 million (or almost 70 percent) of the total cost of compliance, while 

agricultural pesticide refillers and swimming pool supply companies account for less than $2.6 

million and $180,000 of the total cost of compliance, respectively. 
Page 97 

Table 4.17a. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities 

(Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities 

For the Average 

Regulated 

Entity 

Number of 

Regulated 

Entities 

Over All 

Regulated 

Entities 

Pesticide Registrants 

Large-Small 

Agricultural $5,477 66 $364,061

I/C/G $5,459 50 $272,139

Home & Garden $5,352 50 $266,825

Average Across Market 

Sectors a 

$5,434

National Total Across Market Sectors $903,024

Medium-Small 

Agricultural $2,625 198 $519,462

I/C/G $2,621 148 $389,096

Home & Garden $2,591 148 $384,601

Average Across Market 

Sectors a 

$2,613

National Total Across Market Sectors $1,293,158

Small-Small 

Agricultural $805 399 $321,217

I/C/G $805 299 $240,698

Home & Garden $788 299 $235,727

Average Across Market 

Sectors a 

$800

National Total Across Market Sectors $797,642

Large 

Agricultural $23,425 58 $1,367,998

I/C/G $20,881 44 $914,608

Home & Garden $7,774 44 $340,508

Average Across Market 

Sectors a 

$17,967

National Total Across Market Sectors $2,623,114

National Total Across Market Sectors and Size Categories $5,616,939

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Large-Small $871 251 $218,684

Medium-Small $267 2,395 $640,191

Small-Small $43 13,996 $605,474

Large $7,255 153 $1,110,296

National Total Across Size Categories $2,574,646
Page 98 

Table 4.17a (Continued). Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for 

Regulated Entities (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies – Antimicrobial Applicators 

Large-Small $34 14 $474

Medium-Small $23 117 $2,732

Small-Small $15 174 $2,602

Large $10,000 17 $169,993

 

National Total Across Size Categories $175,800

National Total Across All Regulated Entities $8,367,385 a The average pesticide registrant across market sectors is assumed to have the same distribution across market 

sectors as the distribution of pesticides across market sectors (by volume of pesticide) in the pesticide industry 

as a whole: 

Agricultural sector: 40 percent 

Industrial/commercial/govt. sector: 30 percent 

Home & Garden sector: 30 percent 
Page 99 

Table 4.17b. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities 

(Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities 

For the Average 

Regulated Entity 

Number of 

Regulated 

Entities 

Over All 

Regulated 

Entities 

Pesticide Registrants 

Large-Small 

Agricultural $6,018 66 $399,987

I/C/G $6,003 50 $299,243

Home & Garden $5,891 50 $293,661

Average Across 

Market Sectors a 

$5,975

National Total Across Market Sectors $992,891

Medium-Small 

Agricultural $2,865 198 $567,135

I/C/G $2,863 148 $424,939

Home & Garden $2,830 148 $420,112

Average Across 

Market Sectors a 

$2,854

National Total Across Market Sectors $1,412,186

Small-Small 

Agricultural $813 399 $324,089

I/C/G $812 299 $242,890

Home & Garden $794 299 $237,420

Average Across 

Market Sectors a 

$807

National Total Across Market Sectors $804,400

Large 

Agricultural $24,430 58 $1,426,696

I/C/G $22,335 44 $978,272

Home & Garden $8,685 44 $380,418

Average Across 

Market Sectors a 

$19,078

National Total Across Market Sectors $2,785,386

National Total Across Market Sectors and Size Categories $5,994,863

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Large-Small $764 251 $191,692

Medium-Small $237 2,395 $566,418

Small-Small $41 13,996 $572,767

Large $6,336 153 $969,709

National Total Across Size Categories $2,300,585
Page 100 

Table 4.17b (Continued). Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for 

Regulated Entities (Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$) 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies – Antimicrobial Applicators 

Large-Small $33 14 $458

Medium-Small $24 117 $2,755

Small-Small $16 174 $2,821

Large $8,732 17 $148,448

 

National Total Across Size Categories $154,481

National Total Across All Regulated Entities $8,449,929

a The average pesticide registrant across market sectors is assumed to have the same distribution across market 

sectors as the distribution of pesticides across market sectors (by volume of pesticide) in the pesticide industry as 

a whole: 

Agricultural sector: 40 percent 

Industrial/commercial/govt. sector: 30 percent 

Home & Garden sector: 30 percent 
Page 101 

Costs are presented by regulation in Tables 4.18a and 4.18b. Approximately 16 percent of the 

cost of compliance is attributed to compliance with the residue removal standards. The refillingrelated standards and labeling standards account for 38 percent and 27 percent of the total cost of 

compliance, respectively. 

Table 4.18a. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide 

Container Rule (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulation Annual National Cost 

For Non-Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a

 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a

 $0

Closure Standards a $0

Standards for container dispensing capability a $0

Residue Removal standards a $1,465,967

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $202,617

 

For Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a

 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a

 $0

Standards for container markings $241,402

Standards for openings (for liquid minibulks only) $261,018

Bulk container standards $574,504

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $138,849

 

For Refilling $3,198,256

For Labeling $2,252,148

Cost of Waivers $32,624

Total National Cost Annually $8,367,385 a Incorporates waivers for 5 percent of pesticide registrants. 
Page 102 

Table 4.18b. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide 

Container Rule (Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$) 

Regulation Annual National Cost 

For Non-Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a $0

Closure Standards a $0

Standards for container dispensing capability a $0

Residue Removal standards a $1,343,068

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $210,575

 

For Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a $0

Standards for container markings $227,685

Standards for openings (for liquid minibulks only) $291,648

Bulk container standards $641,923

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $136,753

 

For Refilling $2,849,969

For Labeling $2,715,685

Cost of Waivers $32,624

Total National Cost Annually $8,449,929 a Incorporates waivers for 5 percent of pesticide registrants. 

4.7 Impact Analysis 

The impact of the pesticide container rule on a regulated entity is measured as the ratio of that 

entity’s annual cost of complying with the rule to its annual revenue. The impacts of the rule are 

estimated using both a 3 percent interest rate and a 7 percent interest rate. Estimated impacts are 

given for the average regulated entity in each combination of market sector and size class in 

Tables 4.19a and 4.19b. For all regulated entities (at both 3 percent and 7 percent) the annual 

cost to revenue ratio is less than 0.02 percent. The highest ratios are associated with the small 

pesticide registrants. Agricultural pesticide refillers and swimming pool supply companies have 

annual cost to revenue ratios very close to zero. 
Page 103 

Table 4.19a. Ratio of Annual Compliance Cost to Annual Revenue for the Average 

Regulated Entity (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities a

Annual Cost For 

the Average 

Regulated 

Entity b

Annual Revenue 

For the Average 

Regulated Entity c

Annual CostRevenue Ratio For 

the Average 

Regulated Entity 

Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $1,817 $9,439,902 0.02%

I/C/G $1,813 $9,439,902 0.02%

Home & Garden $1,784 $9,439,902 0.02%

Large-Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $5,477 $52,676,100 0.01%

I/C/G $5,459 $52,676,100 0.01%

Home & Garden $5,352 $52,676,100 0.01%

Medium-Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $2,625 $9,758,400 0.03%

I/C/G $2,621 $9,758,400 0.03%

Home & Garden $2,591 $9,758,400 0.03%

Small-Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $805 $2,075,800 0.04%

I/C/G $805 $2,075,800 0.04%

Home & Garden $788 $2,075,800 0.04%

Large Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $23,425 $7,363,740,000 0.00%

I/C/G $20,881 $7,363,740,000 0.00%

Home & Garden $7,774 $7,363,740,000 0.00%

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Small $88 $1,985,935 0.00%

Large-Small $871 $22,705,400 0.00%

Medium-Small $267 $6,730,300 0.00%

Small-Small $43 $802,500 0.01%

Large $7,255 $191,604,900 0.00%

Swimming Pool (Antimicrobial) Supply 

Companies 

 

Small $19 $1,537,432 0.00%

Large-Small $34 $5,266,697 0.00%

Medium-Small $23 $2,620,614 0.00%

Small-Small $15 $509,031 0.00%

Large $10,000 $2,511,092,910 0.00% a

 Average cost for the small size category is calculated by adding the cost for the small-small, medium-small, and 

large-small categories and dividing the sum by the total number of companies in the small size category. Similarly, 

the average revenue for the small size category was calculated by adding the total revenue for each of its component 

size categories and dividing the sum by the total number of companies in the small size category. 

b Annual cost of the average regulated entity is calculated by dividing the total cost for the regulated entities by the 

total number of entities under the scope of the rule. 

c

 Annual average revenue for the average regulated entity is calculated by dividing the total revenue by the total 

number of entities. 
Page 104 

Table 4.19b. Ratio of Annual Compliance Cost to Annual Revenue for the Average 

Regulated Entity (Interest Rate = 7 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities a

Annual Cost For 

the Average 

Regulated 

Entity b

Annual 

Revenue For 

the Average 

Regulated 

Entity c

Annual CostRevenue Ratio For 

the Average 

Regulated Entity 

Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $1,947 $9,439,902 0.02%

I/C/G $1,944 $9,439,902 0.02%

Home & Garden $1,912 $9,439,902 0.02%

Large-Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $6,018 $52,676,100 0.01%

I/C/G $6,003 $52,676,100 0.01%

Home & Garden $5,891 $52,676,100 0.01%

Medium-Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $2,865 $9,758,400 0.03%

I/C/G $2,863 $9,758,400 0.03%

Home & Garden $2,830 $9,758,400 0.03%

Small-Small Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $813 $2,075,800 0.04%

I/C/G $812 $2,075,800 0.04%

Home & Garden $794 $2,075,800 0.04%

Large Pesticide Registrants 

Agricultural $24,430 $7,363,740,000 0.00%

I/C/G $22,335 $7,363,740,000 0.00%

Home & Garden $8,685 $7,363,740,000 0.00%

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Small ag. pesticide refillers $80 $1,985,935 0.00%

Large-Small ag. pesticide refillers $764 $22,705,400 0.00%

Medium-Small ag. pesticide refillers $237 $6,730,300 0.00%

Small-Small ag. pesticide refillers $41 $802,500 0.01%

Large ag. pesticide refillers $6,336 $191,604,900 0.00%

Swimming Pool (Antimicrobial) Supply 

Companies 

Small swimming pool supply companies $20 $1,537,432 0.00%

Large-Small swimming pool supply companies $33 $5,266,697 0.00%

Medium-Small swimming pool supply companies $24 $2,620,614 0.00%

Small-Small swimming pool supply companies $16 $509,031 0.00%

Large swimming pool supply companies $8,732 $2,511,092,910 0.00% a

 Average cost for the small size category is calculated by adding the cost for the small-small, medium-small, and 

large-small categories and dividing it by the total number of companies in the small size category. Similarly, the 

average revenue for the small size category was calculated by dividing the total revenue for each of its component 

size category and dividing it by the total companies in this size category. 

b Annual cost of the average regulated entity is calculated by dividing the total cost for the regulated entities by the 

total number of entities under the scope of the rule. 

c

 Annual average revenue for the average regulated entity is calculated by dividing the total revenue by the total 

number of entities.
Page 105 

For purposes of the analysis under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act 

(SBREFA), we combined the three sub-categories of small businesses within the “small” size 

class (i.e., large-small, medium-small, and small-small) into a single “small” size class for each 

regulated entity type in Tables 4.19a and 4.19b. A threshold for regulations potentially causing 

significant impacts to small businesses is an annual cost to revenue ratio of greater than 

1 percent. As is evident from these tables, in no case are annual compliance costs for the average 

small regulated entity expected to exceed 0.02 percent of annual average revenue. As a result, 

significant impacts on small businesses are not expected as a result of the container regulations. 

The ratio is highest among small entities for small pesticide registrants, at 0.02 percent. Small 

agricultural pesticide refillers and small swimming pool supply companies are estimated to have 

annual revenue to cost ratios very close to zero. 

We found similar results using the alternative definition of small businesses used in the EA. The 

impacts to small businesses using the alternative definition, in terms of the annual revenue to 

cost ratio, are estimated to be no more than 0.04 percent. As with the SBA-defined small 

entities, the highest ratio is measured for small pesticide registrants—ranging from a ratio of 

0.01 percent for large-small registrants to 0.04 percent for small-small registrants. The annual 

cost to revenue ratio does not change using the alternative definition of small business (versus 

the SBA definition) for small agricultural pesticide refillers and small swimming pool supply 

companies. Redefining the small pesticide registrant has provided more information in regards 

to the impacts expected across the spectrum of small businesses impacted by the container 

regulations, but the impacts still remain below the threshold of causing a significant impact to 

small businesses. 

4.8 Sensitivity Analysis 

Many of the assumptions present in the preceding cost analysis discussion (and presented in 

detail in Appendix A) are inherently uncertain, though every effort has been made to use the best 

available data to inform our assumptions. Despite efforts to minimize the uncertainty, 

uncertainty remains. It is important, therefore, to attempt to characterize the impact that this 

uncertainty has on the magnitude of the total regulatory compliance costs we have estimated for 

the container regulations. 

To test the sensitivity of total cost estimates to the assumptions in the analysis, compliance costs 

have been recalculated based on a suite of lower- and upper-bound assumptions that bound the 

central cost estimate presented in the primary analysis. The lower-bound suite of assumptions is 

composed of adjustments to the primary assumptions that lower the overall container regulations 

compliance cost. The upper-bound suite of assumptions is composed of adjustments to the 

primary assumptions that increase the overall compliance cost for the container regulations. We 

calculated the resulting upper- and lower-bound costs in the same manner as described in the 

preceding sections. We used a 3 percent discount rate to calculate the present discounted value 

of costs and in the annualization of those costs. 
Page 106 

Parameters were selected for sensitivity analysis based on the following two criteria: 

(1) Total costs appear particularly sensitive to a given assumption; and 

(2) We have a reasonable idea regarding what the lower and upper bounds of a given assumption 

should be. 

The sensitivity analysis is summarized in Table 4.20. As compared to the total cost estimate of 

$8.4 million (3 percent discount rate) and $8.5 million (7 percent discount rate), the “low-end” 

total cost is $4.9 million, while the “high-end” estimate is $11.0 million.52 The low-end total cost 

estimate is 42 percent lower than the total cost under primary assumptions, while the high-end 

estimate is 32 percent higher. 

 

Table 4.20. Annual National Cost of Regulation Under the Pesticide Container Rule 

(2005$) 

Sensitivity Scenario Annual Cost Nationally 

 3% discount rate $8,367,385

 7% discount rate $8,449,929

 Low (3% discount rate) $4,852,818

 High (3% discount rate) $11,043,774

The underlying suites of “low-end” and “high-end” assumptions are given in Table 4.21. The 

detailed breakdown of resulting costs are shown in Tables 4.22 and 4.23, based on the “low-end” 

suite of assumptions, and in Tables 4.24 and 4.25 based on the “high-end” suite of assumptions. 

These tables show the same set of total cost results that were shown for the primary analysis in 

Tables 4.17a, 4.17b, 4.18a, and 4.18b. 

In order to assess the sensitivity of the cost estimates to the different assumptions, we calculated 

the percentage reduction in total costs associated with a change in each assumption for the “lowend” assumption. We find that the largest percentage reduction in cost is because of changes in 

the labeling requirements (22 percent). Under the primary cost assumption we assume that 50 

percent of the label changes are “routine” and incur only one-third of the label change cost and 

50 percent of the label changes are “necessary” and incur all the label change cost, while in the 

“low-end” cost assumptions we assume that all label changes are “routine.” Since the labeling 

change cost is high, ranging from $205 for a “routine” change small-small establishments to 

$5,069 for a “necessary” change for all establishments except the small-small, changes in the 

assumptions about the number of entities for which this is a “routine” or a “necessary” change 

have a fairly significant implication on the cost. 

The assumption about the percentage of container/formulations combinations that will be exempt 

from residue removal testing because of similarities to other container/formulations 

combinations (“me-toos”) led to a 4 percent reduction in cost. Changing the percentage of 

containers that pass the initial residue removal test from 30 percent to 0 percent reduced the cost 

by 5 percent. Reducing the labor time assumptions by 25 percent for the refilling compliance 

criteria reduces the cost by 9 percent, while for standards for container markings and 

 

52 Both cost estimates are based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
Page 107 

administrative requirements for both non-refillables and refillables, the reduction in labor time 

assumptions by 25 percent reduces the cost by less than 2 percent. 

In addition to the above assumption, we also considered the sensitivity of the cost analysis to 

changes in the assumption about the time it takes to inspect containers. The analysis assumes 

that on average it takes about 1 minute to inspect containers. Given that a relatively larger 

number of containers are small, this seems reasonable. When we change the inspection time to 5 

minutes, the total cost estimate increases to $10.5 million, which is a significant increase. It is 

not clear, however, that 5 minutes is a more reasonable assumption for the amount of time it 

takes to inspect containers. Although it is conceivable that in reality large containers take about 

5 minutes and smaller containers take less, we did not have data to support different inspection 

times for different container sizes. 
Page 108 

Table 4.21. “Low-End” and “High-End” Assumptions for Sensitivity Analysis 

Regulation 

“Low-End” Cost 

Assumptions Primary Cost Assumptions 

“High-End” Cost 

Assumptions 

Non-Refillable Sensitivity Tests 

Residue Removal 

Standard - 

Percent of Containers 

Retested a

All containers pass the 

initial residue removal 

test. 

30% of the containers pass the 

initial residue removal test. 

50% of the containers 

pass the residue removal 

test. 

Residue Removal 

Standard - 

“Me-Toos” b

50% of all 

container/formulations 

combinations exempt 

from residue removal 

testing. 

25% of all 

container/formulation 

combinations exempt from 

residue removal testing. 

No container/formulation 

combinations exempt 

from residue removal 

testing. 

Administrative 

Requirements - 

Recordkeeping c

Reduce labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

Large and Large-Small 

Establishments: 40 hours for 

existing container/formulation 

combinations and 4 hours for 

new container/formulation 

combinations. 

Medium-Small 

Establishments: 

36 hours for existing 

container/formulation 

combinations and 3 hours for 

new container/formulation 

combinations 

Small-Small Establishments: 

24 hours for existing 

container/formulation 

combinations and 2 hours for 

new container/formulation 

combinations 

Increase labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

Refillable Sensitivity Tests 

Administrative 

Requirements - 

Recordkeeping c

Reduce labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

Large and Large-Small 

Establishments: 31 hours for 

existing container/formulation 

combinations and 4.4 hours 

for new container/formulation 

combinations. 

Medium-Small 

Establishments: 

21 hours for existing 

container/formulation 

combinations and 2.5 hours 

for new container/formulation 

combinations 

Small-Small Establishments: 

11 hours for existing 

container/formulation 

combinations and 2 hours for 

new container/formulation 

combinations 

Increase labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 
Page 109 

Table 4.21. “Low-End” and “High-End” Assumptions for Sensitivity Analysis 

Regulation 

“Low-End” Cost 

Assumptions Primary Cost Assumptions 

“High-End” Cost 

Assumptions 

Standards for Container 

Marking c

Reduce labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

It takes 5 minutes to mark 

each container. 

Increase labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

Refiller Sensitivity Tests 

Refilling Compliance 

Criteria d

Reduce labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

For each refill, it takes 1 

minute to inspect, 10 minutes 

to rinse, and 2 minutes to 

record information about a 

container. 

Increase labor time 

assumptions by 25%. 

Facility-Level Sensitivity Tests 

Labeling Requirements e Assume that all label 

changes during the 

compliance period are 

“routine” changes and 

incur only one-third of 

the label change cost. 

Assume that 50% of label 

changes are “routine” and 

incur only one-third of the 

label change cost, and 50% of 

label changes are “necessary” 

and incur all of the label 

change cost. 

Assume that all label 

changes during the 

compliance period are 

“necessary” and incur all 

of the label change cost. 

a

 Primary cost assumption based on final container regulations that require containers to achieve only a four-9s 

standard. It is assumed that all containers will pass the four-9s standard as a lower bound. The high-end assumption 

is based on a container’s ability to achieve a six-9s standard. See EPA (1993, p. IX-13). 

b

 In the proposed container rule RIA, EPA made a lower cost assumption that 50 percent of container/formulation 

combinations would be exempt from residue removal testing because of similarities to other container/formulation 

combinations (“me-toos”). EPA’s upper cost assumption stated that all container/formulations would be tested. 

These high- and low-end cost assumptions are retained here and use the mid-point between the two as the primary 

cost assumption. See EPA (1993, p. IX-13). 

c

 Labor times used in the primary analysis are based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule 

RIA (EPA, 1993, p. IX-13). It is assumed that plus or minus 25 percent of the labor time used in the primary 

analysis is a reasonable uncertainty bound. 

d

 Using professional judgment, based on estimates made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA as a baseline 

(EPA, 1993, p. IX-13), the labor times associated with the primary cost assumptions are estimated. e

 The primary cost assumption is based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 

1993, pp. X-1 through X-7). We believe a reasonable lower cost assumption is that all label changes during the 

compliance period are considered “routine” (therefore incurring only one-third the cost of changing a label). A 

reasonable high-end cost assumption is that all label changes during the compliance period are considered 

“necessary” (therefore incurring the total cost of changing a label). The primary analysis assumes that during the 

compliance period 50 percent of label changes are routine and the rest are necessary. 
Page 110 

Table 4.22. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities: 

Using “Low End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities 

For the 

Average 

Regulated 

Entity 

Number of 

Regulated 

Entities 

Over All 

Regulated 

Entities 

Pesticide Registrants 

 Large-Small 

 Agricultural $1,745 66 $115,978

 I/C/G $1,734 50 $86,438

 Home & Garden $1,635 50 $81,496

Average 

Across Market 

Sectors a 

$1,709

National Total Across Market Sectors $283,912

 Medium-Small 

 Agricultural $884 198 $174,928

 I/C/G $882 148 $130,895

 Home & Garden $850 148 $126,118

Average 

Across Market 

Sectors a 

$873

National Total Across Market Sectors $431,941

 Small-Small 

 Agricultural $384 399 $153,067

 I/C/G $383 299 $114,671

 Home & Garden $367 299 $109,788

Average 

Across Market 

Sectors a 

$379

National Total Across Market Sectors $377,527

 Large 

 Agricultural $15,778 58 $921,459

 I/C/G $14,249 44 $624,126

 Home & Garden $2,185 44 $95,699

Average 

Across Market 

Sectors a 

$11,242

National Total Across Market Sectors $1,641,283

National Total Across Market Sectors and Size 

Categories 

$2,734,662

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

 Large-Small ag. pesticide refillers $657 251 $164,824

 Medium-Small ag. pesticide refillers $267 $204 2,395

 Small-Small ag. pesticide 

refillers $36 13,996 $499,340

 Large ag. pesticide refillers $5,445 153 $833,217

National Total Across Size Categories $1,985,265
Page 111 

Table 4.22 (Continued). Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated 

Entities: Using “Low End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities 

For the 

Average 

Regulated 

Entity 

Number of 

Regulated 

Entities 

Over All 

Regulated 

Entities 

Swimming Pool Applicators – Antimicrobial 

Applicators 

 Large-Small swimming pool applicators $29 14 $401

 Medium-Small swimming pool applicators $21 117 $2,427

 Small-Small swimming pool applicators $14 174 $2,514

 Large swimming pool applicators $7,503 17 $127,549

National Total Across Size Categories $132,891

National Total Across All Regulated Entities $4,852,818 a The average pesticide registrant across market sectors is assumed to have the same distribution across market 

sectors as the distribution of pesticides across market sectors (by volume of pesticide) in the pesticide industry as 

a whole: 

Agriculture sector: 40 percent 

Industrial/Commercial/Govt.: 30 percent 

Home and Garden: 30 percent 
Page 112 

Table 4.23. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container 

Rule: Using “Low End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulation Annual National Cost 

For Non-Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a

 v

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a

 $0

Closure Standards a $0

Standards for container dispensing capability a $0

Residue Removal standards a $708,913

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $151,963

For Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a

 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a

 $0

Standards for container markings $181,065

Standards for openings (for liquid minibulks only) $261,018

Bulk container standards $574,504

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $109,480

 

For Refilling: $2,458,094

For Labeling: $393,188

Cost of Waivers: $14,594

Total National Cost Annually $4,852,818 a Incorporates waivers for 5 percent of pesticide registrants. 
Page 113 

Table 4.24. Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated Entities: 

Using “High End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulated Entities For the Average 

Regulated Entity 

Number of 

Regulated 

Entities 

Over All 

Regulated 

Entities 

Pesticide Registrants: 

 Large-Small 

 Agricultural $8,227 66 $546,825

 I/C/G $8,201 50 $408,850

 Home & Garden $8,087 50 $403,165

Average Across 

Market Sectors a 

$8,177

National Total Across Market Sectors: $1,358,840

 Medium-Small 

 Agricultural $3,874 198 $766,744

 I/C/G $3,869 148 $574,358

 Home & Garden $3,838 148 $569,658

Average Across Market Sectors a $3,862

National Total Across Market Sectors: $1,910,760

 Small-Small 

 Agricultural $974 399 $388,510

 I/C/G $973 299 $291,083

 Home & Garden $956 299 $286,024

Average Across Market Sectors a $969

National Total Across Market Sectors: $965,617

 Large 

 Agricultural $29,842 58 $1,742,799

 I/C/G $26,285 44 $1,151,286

 Home & Garden $12,135 44 $531,518

Average Across Market Sectors a $23,463

National Total Across Market Sectors: $3,425,603

National Total Across Market Sectors and Size Categories: $7,660,820

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

 Large-Small ag. pesticide 

refillers $1,086 251 $272,544

 Medium-Small ag. pesticide refillers $331 $331 2,395

 Small-Small ag. pesticide refillers $51 $51 13,996

 Large ag. pesticide refillers $9,066 153 $1,387,376

National Total Across Size Categories: $3,164,027 
Page 114 

Table 4.24 (Continued). Total Annual Costs of the Pesticide Container Rule for Regulated 

Entities: Using “High End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Swimming Pool Applicators – Antimicrobial Applicators 

 Large-Small swimming pool applicators $39 14 $548

 Medium-Small swimming pool applicators $26 117 $3,037

 Small-Small swimming pool applicators $15 174 $2,690

 Large swimming pool applicators $12,496 17 $212,436

 

National Total Across Size Categories $218,710 

National Total Across All Regulated Entities $11,043,557 a The average pesticide registrant across market sectors is assumed to have the same distribution across market sectors 

as the distribution of pesticides across market sectors (by volume of pesticide) in the pesticide industry as a whole: 

Agriculture sector: 40 percent 

Industrial/Commercial/Govt.: 30 percent 

Home and Garden: 30 percent 
Page 115 

Table 4.25. Total Annual National Cost of Each Regulation Under the Pesticide Container 

Rule: Using “High End” Assumptions (Interest Rate = 3 percent) (2005$) 

Regulation 

Annual National 

Cost 

For Non-Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a

 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a

 $0

Closure Standards a $0

Standards for container dispensing capability a $0

Residue Removal standards a $1,403,140

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $253,271

 

For Refillable Containers 

DOT Packaging Standards - hazardous material a

 $0

DOT Packaging Standards - non-hazardous material a

 $0

Standards for container markings $301,743

Standards for openings (for liquid minibulks only) $261,018

Bulk container standards $574,504

Other administrative requirements – recordkeeping $167,730

 

For Refilling $3,938,418

For Labeling $4,111,108

Cost of Waivers $32,624

Total National Cost Annually $11,043,557 a Incorporates waivers for 5 percent of pesticide registrants. 
Page 116 

5.0 The Human and Non-Human Health Benefits of the Final Standards 

5.1 Introduction 

The container design and residue removal standards are largely pollution prevention regulations 

that will safeguard workers, such as loaders, mixers, and applicators, and the environment by 

reducing the risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides. First, the proposed improvements in 

pesticide container designs will enhance the safe handling, dispensing, use, and residue removal 

efficiency of pesticide containers. Second, the improvement in procedures and/or container 

designs will help facilitate the “clean rinsing” of emptied containers either prior to disposal or 

recycling, or prior to reuse. There are numerous types of human health-related benefits and nonhuman health-related (environment-related) benefits that will stem from such improvements 

because of relatively fewer expected spills, leaks, and other risks associated with exposure (e.g., 

handling by workers during disposal, discharges to the environment, and potential public 

exposures). 

Table 5.1 summarizes the various types of expected benefits (i.e., improved worker safety, 

improved public health, reduced environmental risk, and other effects) resulting from the 

proposed container design/residue removal regulations. It also characterizes the sources of the 

expected benefits. Besides human health-related and environment-related benefits, there are 

other effects such as property damage, personal liability effects, and insurance costs that 

contribute to the overall benefits assessment. Due to limitations in the data available on these 

benefits, there is a high degree of uncertainty concerning both the number and average cost 

(including unquantifiable components of loss such as pain and suffering) of both container 

design and residue removal problems. As a result, the costs of all of the expected benefits cannot 

be quantified. However, data do exist to quantify some of the expected benefits of the 

regulations. Section 5.2 discusses the method and estimates of the number of pesticide-related 

illnesses and injuries potentially avoided as a result of the pesticide container regulations and 

presents the estimated value of these avoided illnesses and injuries. Section 5.3 discusses and 

estimates the cost savings from the disposal of rigid non-refillable containers as non-hazardous 

rather than hazardous waste as a result of the regulations, and discusses the potential for a 

reduction in the number of environmental effects and property damage/spill cleanup costs as a 

result of the container regulations. 
Page 117 

Table 5.1. The Types of Expected Benefits from the Container Design and Residue 

Removal Regulations and Their Sources 

Expected Benefit Source of Expected Benefit 

Human Health-Related Benefits 

Improved Worker Safety • Reduced accidental spills 

• Fewer leaks 

• Less dripping 

• Less frequent container stress failure (durability, 

formulation/container degradation) 

• Reduced personal sickness and injury 

• Improved worker productivity 

Improved Public Health • Less risk of exposure to spills and leaking/dripping 

• Less contamination of surface water and groundwater sources 

• Less personal injury from accidental spills and chronic contamination 

sources 

Non-Human Health-Related Benefits 

Reduced Environmental Risk • Reduced accidental spills 

• Fewer chronic accumulations of chemicals in 

loading/mixing/cleaning areas 

• Reduced risk of harm from pesticide residues to terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife including sensitive and critical habitats 

• Less disposal of hazardous containers in landfills 

Other Effects • Reduced property damage 

• Reduced risk of personal injury and liability 

• Lower costs for personal liability insurance 

• Reduced disposal costs for cleaner containers 

• Reduced loss of product from spills and leaks 

5.2 Human Health-Related Benefits: Estimated Annual National Cases and Valuation 

of Pesticide Product-Related Illnesses and Injuries Potentially Avoided by the 

Standards 

In this section, the annual nationwide number and value of pesticide-related illnesses and injuries 

potentially avoided as a result of the pesticide container design and residue removal regulations 

is estimated. The calculations involved in the results and the underlying methodology used in 

the derivation of the national estimate is described. Section 5.2.1 describes the overall 

methodological approach used. This is followed in Section 5.2.2 by a discussion of the state data 

used to derive the percentage of pesticide illnesses potentially related to the container design and 

residue removal standards. Section 5.2.3 describes the annual national number of pesticide 

exposures and resulting illnesses to which the state data were applied. Section 5.2.4 discusses 

the extrapolation of the state data to estimated pesticide illnesses nationwide and provides a 

discussion of these findings. Finally, Section 5.2.5 describes the approach to valuing the avoided 

illnesses by estimating the direct and indirect costs for several severity levels of illness. More 

detailed information on the general and health-related characteristics of the Toxic Exposure 

Surveillance System (TESS) exposure data subset underlying our discussion in Section 5.2.3 can 

be found in Appendix H, and additional data on direct costs for physician visits, relevant to 

Section 5.2.5, is listed in Appendix I. The detailed case summaries from California in 1999 that 

we used in the analysis (Section 5.2.2) to determine the percentage of pesticide illness potentially 

related to the container regulations are located in Appendix J. 
Page 118 

5.2.1 Summary of Approach 

The first step in estimating the number of illnesses expected to be avoided as a result of the 

container design and residue removal regulations required identifying the available surveillance 

data on the number of toxic substance related illnesses. After reviewing the available toxic 

substance surveillance systems, we selected TESS for estimating the number of injuries and 

illnesses associated with pesticide exposure per year. TESS is a comprehensive surveillance 

system developed in 1983 by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) to 

track acute illness and injury related to toxic substances. The system contains detailed 

toxicological information on poison exposures reported to more than 60 poison centers around 

the country, capturing an estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison 

centers in the United States. We requested a detailed report from AAPCC (2002) describing 

“unintentional” exposures to fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, non-pine oil 

disinfectants, and anti-algae paints to estimate the annual number of unintentional pesticide 

illness cases expected per year. For the purposes of this analysis, we will refer to these 

conventional and antimicrobial pesticide substance categories as “pesticide products.” 

Given the estimated annual national illnesses associated with pesticide products in the TESS 

data, we estimated the percentage of those cases that may have resulted from incidents related to 

containers and residue removal. The percentage to be applied to the annual number of 

unintentionally caused pesticide product illnesses from TESS was based on EPA’s examination 

of state-level case history data from California. EPA examined case summaries from the 

Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) database maintained by the California Department 

of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) for 1999 and estimated the number of cases that are “very 

likely,” “possibly,” and “unlikely” to be avoided as a result of the regulations (CDPR, 2001a,b). 

The estimates of cases that were “very likely” to be avoided as a result of the regulations were 

used to calculate the ratio of pesticide container design/residue-related cases to total pesticide 

product incidents in California. We applied this state-level proportion to the United States as a 

whole to estimate the annual national number of avoided pesticide product illnesses that are 

expected as a result of the container design and residue removal regulations. 

We purchased a single report from TESS itemizing the exposures involving the TESS pesticide 

product categories described above. We selected the product categories to most closely resemble 

the pesticide products covered in the California database. In particular, the active ingredients 

considered by CDPR as antimicrobials were determined to be covered by the TESS categories 

queried. Therefore, the percentage of pesticide-related illnesses avoided as a result of the 

regulations, estimated for California, could be applied to the national number of pesticide-related 

illnesses queried from TESS. The potential illnesses avoided from the container design and 

residue removal regulations described are therefore attributable to both antimicrobial and 

conventional pesticide products. 

5.2.2 Derivation of the Annual Percentage of Pesticide Illnesses Potentially Avoided as a 

Result of the Container Design and Residue Removal Regulations 

CDPR conducts ongoing surveillance of people and the environment to detect the potential for 

pesticide exposure as part of its pesticide safety program. CDPR’s PISP has required mandatory 

reporting of pesticide illnesses since 1971, making it the most comprehensive monitoring 
Page 119 

program in the country. Under a California state statute, physicians are required to report any 

suspected case of pesticide-related illness or injury to the local health officer within 24 hours of 

examining the patient. 

In addition, CDPR reviews doctor’s reports for workers’ compensation claims under the 

pesticide illness surveillance program. Staff members investigate any claim that mentions 

(1) pesticides as a possible cause of illness or injury or (2) unspecified chemicals if the setting is 

one in which pesticide use is likely. CDPR also works with the California Poison Control 

System to facilitate reporting of pesticide-related illnesses by health care workers. 

To estimate the percentage of unintentional pesticide product illnesses potentially avoided as a 

result of the container regulations, it is first necessary to determine the number of unintentional 

pesticide product-related illnesses in California. In 1999, CDPR reported 1,201 episodes in 

which the pesticide exposure was at least a possible contributing factor to illness or injury.53 The 

number of intentional cases occurring in California, however, is not readily available in a 

summary report. 

We examined the case summaries for a subset of the 1,201 CDPR cases in 1999, corresponding 

to a query on particular activity patterns.54 Sixteen potential cases of intentional ingestion were 

identified among this subset, 15 of which were conventional pesticides and one antimicrobial. 

The 1999 CDPR summary table of pesticide-related illnesses summarized by activity and type of 

exposure reports that 35 of the 1,201 total incidents occurred as a result of ingestion (CDPR, 

2001b). Of the 35 cases, only 10 would have been excluded in the subset examined, 

corresponding to “routine indoor” and “routine outdoor” activities.55 Assuming that (1) pesticide 

ingestion would be the only means of intentional exposure and (2) none of the ingestion 

exposures occurring during “routine indoor” and “routine outdoor” activities were intentional, 

the 16 intentional incidents identified from case reports should reflect the total number of 

intentional pesticide-related illnesses in the CDPR database. Using these assumptions, it was 

estimated that for 1999, 1,185 of the pesticide cases in California were due to unintentional 

exposures. 

 

53 1999 incident data is representative of the other years for which data have been analyzed relative to the container 

regulations. In 1999 there were 16 container related cases while from 1995-1999 there were on an average 15 

container related cases. 

54 A total of 489 case summaries resulted from EPA’s query of the 1999 CDPR incident database. The query was for 

incidents from the following field “activities,” during which EPA believes container-related illnesses are likely to 

occur: 

(1) Occupational: Mixer/loader, aerial (code 111); Mixer/loader, ground (112); Mixer/loader, hand (113); 

Applicator, hand (123); Applicator, other (124); Repair/maintenance (160); Exposed to concentrate (182); 

Emergency response (183); Other (199) 

(2) Non-Occupational: Application (220); Other (299). 

55 The CDPR incident database defines routine indoor and outdoor activity in the following way: 

(1) Routine indoor activity: Conducts activities in an indoor environment with minimal expectation for exposure to 

pesticides. This includes people in offices and businesses, residential structures, etc., who are not handling 

pesticides. 

(2) Routine outdoor activity: Conducts activities in an outdoor environment with minimal expectation for exposure 

to pesticides. This excludes field workers in agricultural fields. This includes gardeners who are not handling 

pesticides. 
Page 120 

Furthermore, since pine oil will not be subject to the regulations, and since it was not included in 

the revised TESS query, the cases in 1999 that involved pine oil must also be excluded. In the 

1999 CDPR summary table of pesticide-related illnesses summarized by pesticide, it is reported 

that seven cases involved pine oil (CDPR, 2001a). However, the single antimicrobial intentional 

case identified above also involved pine oil; therefore, an additional six cases were ultimately 

excluded from the total number of unintentional pesticide product-related illnesses in California. 

The breakdown of pesticide product cases is summarized in Table 5.2. 

Table 5.2. Number of Reported Total, Intentional, and Pine Oil-Related Illnesses a in 

California’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program in 1999

Description Number of Cases 

Total Cases a 1,201 

Intentional, antimicrobial pesticide case 1 

Intentional, conventional pesticide cases 15 

Pine oil cases 6 

Total Unintentional Pesticide Product Cases 1,179 

a

 Only those cases in which the relationship between pesticide exposure and illness is designated as “possible,” 

“probable,” or “definite” are included. 

To estimate the number of potentially avoided cases as a result of the rule, EPA examined the 

full set of 1999 CDPR cases summaries with regards to the container design and residue removal 

standards and whether or not an antimicrobial chemical would be subject to the regulations. The 

likelihood that an incident would have been prevented by the regulations was categorized into 

three groups: 

• V = very likely the incident would have been prevented by the container regulations; 

• P = possible the incident would have been prevented by the container regulations; and 

• U = unlikely the incident would have been prevented by the container regulations.56

EPA estimated that seven conventional pesticide illnesses and nine antimicrobial pesticide 

illnesses would be subject to and were “very likely” to be prevented by the regulations. These 

cases represent 1.36 percent of the 1,179 incidents in California that were due to unintentional, 

non-pine oil exposures. A flow chart showing the distribution of CDPR cases is presented in 

Figure 5.1. 

In addition to the 16 incidents designated as “very likely” avoided by the rule, 51 incidents were 

are designated by EPA as “possibly” avoided: 15 conventional pesticide illnesses “possibly” 

 

56 An example of each category of likelihood (very likely, possibly, and unlikely, respectively) that an incident 

would have been prevented by the container regulations: 

Case 1999-511 (glyphosate): While preparing to spray weeds, a homeowner pulled up on the plunger of a ready-touse glyphosate container. The plunger handle broke off, allowing glyphosate to spray up into his face. He felt 

irritant symptoms, so he showered and sought medical attention. 

Case 1999-56 (cypermethrin): A courtesy clerk dropped a can of insecticide as she returned it to the shelf. When 

she picked it up, it exploded in her face. She washed but developed symptoms 30 minutes later. 

Case 1999-932 (methyl bromide): Two workers tried to remove the custom locking caps from a methyl bromide 

cylinder and replace it with a standard cap before returning the cylinder to the dealer. The valve was opened and 

released methyl bromide. 
Page 121 

avoided as a result of the regulations; 30 non-exempt antimicrobial illnesses “possibly” avoided 

as a result of the regulations; and six antimicrobial illnesses that would “very likely” be avoided 

if subject to the regulations, but for which it is unclear from the information provided if they are 

subject to the regulations.
Page 122 

Figure 5.1. Flow Chart of 1999 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Pesticide-Re

1201 total CDPR illness “possibly” , “probably” or “definitely” related to pesticide exposure. 

385antimicrobial 

related illnesses 

815 nonantimicrobial 

related illnesses 

1 (pine oil) case from intentional exposure + 

379 cases from 

unintentional 

exposure 

15 cases from unintentional exposure 

800 cintenexpos

331 cases “unlikely” related to container design and residue removal 

39 cases “possibly” related to container design and residue removal 

9 cases “very likely” related to container design and residue removal standards

7 cases “unlikely” related to container design and residue removal 

15 cases “unlikely” related to container design and residue removal 

30/1179 = 2.54% cases involving non-exempt antimicrobials possibly prevented by the container regulations 

6/1179 = 0.51% cases involving antimicrobials but whether subject to container regulations and/or insufficient information

16/1179 = 1.36% pesticide and antimicrobials-related illnesses occurring in CA potentially avoided by the container design

15/1179 = 1pesticide reillnesses poavoided by container dresidue rem
Page 123 

These 51 incidents are potentially avoided as a result of the regulations and if included in the 

analysis, would increase the percentage of unintentional pesticide product cases by 4.33 percent 

(51 of 1,179 cases). For the purposes of extrapolating California data to the national analysis and 

valuing the avoided cases, only those cases identified as “very likely” avoided by the regulations 

are included (16 of 1,179 cases). It is important to note, however, that additional benefits would 

be realized if a portion of these “possible” cases are also avoided as a result of the regulations. 

In estimating the percentage of pesticide product-related illnesses potentially avoided, no 

adjustment was made for the proportion of pesticide users (e.g., end users, pesticide formulators, 

pesticide registrants) already in compliance with the new regulations. Although some percentage 

of pesticide users will already be in compliance, it was assumed that any pesticide user already in 

compliance should not experience illnesses related to container design and residue removal. 

Consequently, any container-related illnesses captured by CDPR’s database should reflect 

entities that are not in compliance and, therefore, potentially avoided as a result of the 

regulations. 

In addition, no adjustment was made based on the percentage of containers covered by the 

regulations due to toxicity category. We assumed that those container-related exposures resulting 

in illnesses and physician visits would have high enough toxicity levels to be covered by the 

regulations. To the extent to which some of the illnesses observed in the CDPR database were 

due to pesticide containers excluded by the regulations, the potential benefits could be 

overstated. 

5.2.3 Profile of Annual National Pesticide Exposure Cases 

In the previous section, it was estimated from the California PISP database for 1999 that 

approximately 1.36 percent (16 of 1,179 unintentional conventional or antimicrobial pesticide 

cases) of illnesses related to pesticide products occurring in California were likely to have been 

avoided as a result of the container design and residue removal standards. To estimate the 

number of illnesses to which this proportion may translate nationwide, this ratio is applied to the 

annual number of unintentional conventional and antimicrobial pesticide-related illnesses 

occurring across the country.57 To determine the number of injuries and illnesses related to 

pesticide products throughout the United States on an annual basis, an annual detailed report of 

2001 TESS data was acquired from the American Association of Poison Control Centers 

(AAPCC, 2002). Since TESS is a national surveillance system database in which reports of 

human exposures are recorded, the number of exposure cases that resulted in illness was 

determined before applying the ratio. This overall methodology is described below in more 

detail, including the query of TESS exposure data submitted (Section 5.2.3.1) and the estimated 

number of illnesses resulting from pesticide-related unintentional exposures (Section 5.2.3.2). 

5.2.3.1 TESS Database Query 

After reviewing the format of the findings published in the annual summary, a detailed 2001 

TESS report was requested from AAPCC of “unintentional” exposures to the following 

 

57 In using this methodology, it is assumed that the ratio for California would not differ significantly for the United 

States as a whole. 
Page 124 

conventional and antimicrobial pesticide substance categories. As described earlier, for the 

purposes of this analysis these substances are referred to as “pesticide products”: 

• Fungicides; 

• Herbicides; 

• Insecticides; 

• Rodenticides; 

• Non-pine oil disinfectants; and 

• Anti-algae paints. 

These categories are determined by AAPCC, and more detailed examples of included substances 

are identified in the annual summary published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine

(Litovitz et al., 2002). The illnesses resulting from exposures in which these substances are 

implicated were made compatible with those evaluated in CDPR’s PISP by excluding cases 

involving pine oil. Similarly, because intentional cases were excluded from the California dataset 

in order to estimate the number of potentially avoided cases, the underlying reason for the 

exposure was required to be “unintentional.” Therefore, it was requested that these data be 

limited only to those resulting from “unintentional” exposures among all other reasons for 

poison.58

In 2001, unintentional exposures accounted for 85.2 percent of all reported human poison 

exposures (1,931,841 cases out of 2,267,979 reported). Exposures labeled as “intentional” were 

involved in 11.6 percent, “other” for 0.7 percent, “adverse reaction” for 2.2 percent, and 

“unknown” for 0.4 percent of total overall exposures. The specific definitions associated with 

unintentional reasons of exposure are described in Table 5.3. 

From the entire TESS database in 2001, of the substances most frequently involved in human 

exposures, pesticides59 accounted for 4 percent of the total number of overall toxic exposures. 

Among the substances most frequently involved in exposures of children under 6 years of age, 

pesticides also represented 4 percent of the total. This was slightly higher, at 4.5 percent of the 

total number of exposures, in adults over 19 years old. By limiting the search criteria for the 

TESS query, the detailed frequency and distributional information was evaluated just among 

accidental pesticide poisonings for the specific categories of pesticide products expected to be 

regulated under the rule. The results of the TESS query showed that in 2001, pesticide products 

were implicated in 80,978 unintentional exposures. These cases will be referred to as 

“unintentional exposures to pesticide products.” The breakdown of these unintentional pesticide 

exposure cases by reason is provided in Table 5.3. 

 

58 Other reasons for exposure in TESS were: (1) intentional (e.g., suicidal, abuse, misuse); (2) other (e.g., malicious, 

contaminant/tampering); (3) adverse reaction (e.g., drug, food); and (4) unknown. 59 The pesticide group includes fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, repellents, and rodenticides as itemized in 

Litovitz, et al. (2002). Repellents were excluded from the query made by EPA. 
Page 125 

Table 5.3. Profile of Unintentional Pesticide Exposures by Reason of Exposure 

With 

Concomitants a

Without 

Concomitants b Exposure 

Reason Description Number Percent Number Percent 

General Any exposure not specifically defined below 65,766 81.21% 63,809 82.15%

Environmental Any passive, non-occupational exposure that 

results from contamination of air, water, or soil 

(usually but not always caused by man-made 

contaminations) 

6,571 8.11% 6,005 7.73%

Occupational Any exposure that occurs as a direct result of 

the person being on the job or in the workplace 

2,625 3.24% 2,271 2.92%

Therapeutic 

Error 

An unintentional deviation from a proper 

therapeutic regimen that results in the wrong 

dose, incorrect route of administration, 

administration to the wrong person, or 

administration of the wrong substance (only 

exposures to medications or products 

substituted for medications are included) 

603 0.74% 573 0.74%

Misuse Improper or incorrect use of a nonpharmaceutical substance (exposure unplanned 

or not foreseen by the patient) 

5,018 6.20% 4,694 6.04%

Bite/Sting All animal bites and stings, with or without 

envenomation 

56 0.07% 21 0.03%

Food Poisoning Suspected or confirmed food poisoning and 

ingestion of food contaminated with 

microorganisms 

42 0.05% 18 0.02%

Unknown Exposure determined to be unintentional but 

exact reason is unknown 

297 0.37% 281 0.36%

Total 80,978 100.00% 77,672 100.00%

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 7 “Reason” and p. 8 “Field Definitions”). 

a

 “With Concomitants” indicates that a pesticide substance was implicated in the exposure case but could have 

involved another substance which may or may not have been another pesticide. 

b

 “Without Concomitants” indicates that only one pesticide substance was implicated in the exposure. 

The majority (77,672 of 80,978 cases or 95.92 percent) of unintentional pesticide exposures in 

2001 involved only a single pesticide product substance. These cases of exposure are detailed in 

the “Without Concomitants” column in Table 5.3. The remaining fraction (4.08 percent) of 

unintentional pesticide exposures in 2001 involved more than a single substance, but at least one 

pesticide product. These cases are reflected in the column “With Concomitants” along with the 

majority of cases without concomitants, to equal the total number of unintentional exposures to 

pesticide products for 2001 (80,978). Therefore, the column “With Concomitants” indicates 

exposures in which a pesticide substance was implicated, but another substance, which may or 

may not have been another pesticide product, may also have been involved. Since the exposure 

cases without concomitants only involve a single pesticide product, we considered restricting the 

analysis to those incidents. However, we did not believe that this would be appropriate since a 

pesticide product is still implicated in the exposure incident despite the possible co-occurrence of 

another substance. Therefore, subsequent estimates are based on the data that included

concomitants. 
Page 126 

The unintentional reason categories were also reviewed to determine if the corresponding cases 

were suitable for this analysis. When we compared the definitions of reason categories, the 

“therapeutic error” and “bite/sting” categories initially appeared to be inappropriate for the 

objective of this analysis; however, when the data for unintentional exposures were reviewed 

without concomitants, the implication of pesticide products in the exposures was not 

dramatically altered (e.g., therapeutic error comprises 0.74 percent of all unintentional exposures 

to pesticide substances under both scenarios). Therefore, these categories are included in this 

analysis. In the discussion below regarding the estimation of annual illnesses related to 

conventional and antimicrobial pesticides from reported exposure cases, the overall figure of 

80,978 cases of exposure with concomitants is used. 

5.2.3.2 Annual National Illnesses Resulting from Unintentional Human Pesticide 

Product Exposure Cases 

This section describes the number of illnesses used as the national estimate to which the 

California-derived proportion of container-related illnesses was applied to total illnesses. As 

described above, TESS is a national surveillance database for exposures to toxic substances. In 

this section, the evaluation of the proportion of these exposures that resulted in illness is 

described. Although the query was limited to pesticide products, not all the observed illnesses 

were a result of the pesticide. Three categories are used to describe the relationship between the 

clinical effect observed and the exposure in TESS: “related,” “not related,” and “unknown if 

related.” For the purposes of this analysis, since we are interested in the number of illnesses that 

result from these exposures, we evaluated the cases in which the clinical effects were labeled 

“related” to the pesticide exposure as a “low-end” scenario estimate, and the cases in which the 

clinical effects were labeled “related” plus those labeled “unknown if related” as a “high-end” 

scenario estimate. The guidelines used to assess the relationship between observed clinical 

effects and unintentional exposures to pesticide products are summarized in Table 5.4. 

Table 5.4. Guidelines for Field Definition of Clinical Effect Relationships to Exposure 

Exposure-Clinical Effect 

Relationship Selection Criteria 

Related • Timing of clinical effect is reasonable for reported exposure; 

• Severity of effect is consistent with reported exposure; 

• Effect is consistent with anticipated substance toxicity; 

• Clinical assessment of relationship was made by a physician. 

Not related • Effect was pre-existing or began prior to the exposure, and was not 

augmented or worsened as a result of the exposure, or 

• Effect can be ascribed to a documentable alternative etiology. 

Unknown if Related • Relationship between exposure and effect cannot be reasonably 

ascertained; 

• Effect has never been ascribed to the particular substance, but an 

alternative etiology cannot be conclusively established; 

• Effect is not expected based on reported exposure; 

• Knowledge of patient’s history (e.g., concomitant illnesses, other 

medications) is not adequate to allow a determination of the 

relationship between the exposure and the effect. 

Source: AAPCC (2002, “Field Definitions,” p. 8). 
Page 127 

Of all the cases presented, 75.93 percent exhibited no clinical effects related to the pesticide 

exposure, 14.34 percent of patients exhibited one clinical effect, 6.40 percent showed two 

clinical effects, and 3.33 percent sustained three or more clinical effects (Table 5.5). Therefore, 

of the 80,978 exposure cases reported, 19,492 victims exhibited clinical effects related to the 

pesticide exposure. This estimate represents the “low-end” scenario estimate of the total annual 

national cases of pesticide illnesses. To verify the initial assumption to use the number of 

unintentional exposures to pesticide products with concomitants as the basis of this analysis, the 

frequency distribution for the clinical effects among exposures without concomitants was also 

examined. When the frequency of clinical effects is evaluated among exposures without 

concomitants, a similar pattern of distribution of clinical effects is present. 

Table 5.5. Frequency of Clinical Effects “Related” to 

Unintentional Pesticide Product Exposures 

Number of With Concomitants Without Concomitants 

Clinical Effects 

Observed 

Number of Patients Percentage of 

Patients 

Number of 

Patients 

Percentage of 

Patients 

0 61,486 75.93% 59,543 76.66% 

1 11,614 14.34% 11,024 14.19% 

2 5,181 6.40% 4,790 6.17% 

3 1,820 2.25% 1,586 2.04% 

4 567 0.70% 488 0.63% 

5 or more 

19,492 

310 0.38% 241 0.29% 

Total 80,978 100.00% 77,672 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 12 “Frequency of Clinical Effects - Related”). 

There were 31,504 clinical effects observed among patients who were determined to have an 

illness “related” to the unintentional exposure. In total, these 31,504 clinical effects were 

observed for the 19,492 exposure cases that resulted in a related illness. This pattern is a result 

of the information highlighted in Table 5.5 and detailed in Table 5.6, where 11,614 patients 

sustained a single clinical effect, 5,181 patients had two effects, 1,820 exhibited three effects, 

567 suffered four effects, and 310 cases resulted in five or more clinical effects. 

Table 5.6. Detailed Distribution of Clinical Effects “Related” to Unintentional Pesticide 

Product Exposures Among Patients Experiencing With Concomitant” Pesticide Exposures 

With Concomitants 

Number of Clinical 

Effects Observed Number of Patients a

 Percentage of Patients 

Number of Observed 

Clinical Effects “Related” to 

Exposures b

1 11,614 59.58% 11,614

2 5,181 26.58% 10,362

3 1,820 9.34% 5,460

4 567 2.91% 2,268

5 or more 310 1.59% 1,800

Total 19,492 100.00% 31,504 a

 Number of patients with observed clinical effect from Table 5.5. 

b

 Number of “related” clinical effects corresponding to the number of patients from note (a) above. 
Page 128 

Table 5.7 shows the distribution of the 31,504 clinical effects observed among patients who were 

determined to have an illness related to the unintentional pesticide product exposure. Of the 

cases in which some clinical effect related to a pesticide exposure was observed (approximately 

24 percent of the total exposures overall from Table 5.5 above: 19,492 ÷ 80,978 = 0.24), the 

majority of patients suffered ocular (26.95 percent), gastrointestinal (24.06 percent), and dermal 

(17.28 percent) health effects. 

Table 5.7. Percent Distribution of Clinical Effects Among Patients Experiencing Effects 

“Related” to Unintentional Pesticide Product Exposures 

Clinical Effect 

Number of Observed 

Clinical Effects 

“Related” to 

Exposures a Percent 

Number of Observed 

Clinical Effects 

“Unknown if Related” 

to Exposures a Percent 

Cardiovascular 410 1.30% 185 2.27%

Dermal 5,445 17.28% 995 12.22%

Gastrointestinal 7,581 24.06% 2,700 33.15%

Hematologic/Hepatic 42 0.13% 24 0.29%

Neurological 3,122 9.91% 1,788 21.95%

Ocular 8,491 26.95% 323 3.97%

Renal/Genitourinary 32 0.10% 21 0.26%

Respiratory 3,735 11.86% 624 7.66%

Miscellaneous 2,646 8.40% 1,484 18.22%

Total 31,504 100.00% 8,144 100.00%

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 13 “Distribution of Clinical Effects”). a Number reflects clinical effects and not the number of exposure cases, since a single patient can sustain multiple 

clinical effects (frequency distribution for multiple clinical effects is shown in Table 5.5 and detailed in Table 5.6). 

Table 5.7 also shows the number of observed clinical effects among patients in which the effect 

was “related” or “unknown if related” to the pesticide exposure. It is believed that these 

“unknown if related” cases should be considered in the analysis since it is known that a pesticide 

product was involved, but it is unclear from the report whether the exposure was responsible for 

the illness. However, while the available TESS data showed that 31,504 “related” clinical 

effects corresponded to 19,492 exposures cases, similar data are not available for the “unknown 

if related” effects. For these clinical effects, only 8,144 effects were “unknown if related” to the 

exposure. Below an approach is described for estimating the number of “unknown if related” 

illnesses, using the ratio of illnesses to effects from the “related” cases. Including “unknown if 

related” cases with the “related” cases could serve as a “high-end” estimate for the annual 

number of avoided unintentional pesticide illnesses expected nationwide as a result of the 

container design and residue removal regulations, since it is unclear what proportion of these 

cases are truly a result of the pesticide exposure. 

5.2.4 Extrapolation to Estimate of Nationwide Cases Potentially Avoided from the 

Container Design and Residue Removal Standards 

This section describes the method for deriving the frequency of cases and number of clinical 

effects avoided as a result of the container regulations. The number of cases avoided is 

estimated by applying the percentage of pesticide illnesses determined to be container-related 
Page 129 

(1.36 percent as calculated in Section 5.2.2) to the number of cases resulting in illness in TESS 

that are (1) known to be “related” to pesticide exposure (“low-end” estimate) and (2) known to 

be “related” plus “unknown if related” to the exposure (“high-end” scenario). From Section 

5.2.3.2 above, we determined that the number of nationwide illnesses resulting from 

unintentional pesticide-related exposures was estimated to be 19,492. Assuming that 

1.36 percent of these illnesses are related to container design or residue problems, the number of 

potentially avoided cases with clinical effects is 265. In 2001, 64 poison centers participated in 

TESS, reporting more than 2 million human exposure cases, which represent an estimated 

98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison centers in the United States. If it is 

assumed that these cases represent 98.8 percent of the number of illnesses potentially avoided 

from the container design and residue removal regulations, then the “low-end” scenario number 

would be 268 (265 * 1.012 = 268, where the scaling factor of 1.012 is the inverse of 98.8 

percent). The estimated frequency of associated clinical effects for these 268 illnesses (based on 

the frequency distribution in TESS for all unintentional, pesticide product-related illnesses) is 

provided in Table 5.8.60

As a “high-end” estimate of cases avoided, we included those cases in TESS where some 

pesticide exposure was reported but it is unclear if the pesticide was responsible for the illness. 

As discussed earlier, the available TESS data for this subset of “unknown if related” cases were 

limited to the number of clinical effects, rather than the number of cases. Since one case may 

result in more than one clinical effect, the use of this data would overestimate the number of 

cases avoided. In order to extrapolate the number of cases from the number of clinical effects for 

this subset, we applied the ratio of cases to clinical effects for those illnesses known to be 

“related” to pesticide exposure (0.62, calculated as 19,492 related exposures cases to 31,504 

clinical effects = 0.62) to the “unknown if related” cases (8,144 “unknown if related” clinical 

effects * 0.62 = 5,039 “unknown if related” cases). This was added to the number of “related” 

cases to determine an upper bound of 24,531 as the total number of pesticide-related cases in 

TESS for the “high-end” scenario: 

19,492 “related” cases + 5,039 “unknown if related” cases = 24,531 “high-end” cases 

The same percentage (1.36 percent) and scaling factor (1.012) were applied to generate the 

“high-end” estimate of 337 (24,531 “high-end” pesticide-related cases * 1.36 percent of these 

illnesses are related to container design or residue problems * 1.012 scaling factor = 337 cases) 

of the number of cases potentially avoided by the regulations, as shown in Table 5.8. 

Table 5.8 also presents the distribution of the estimated number of clinical effects per avoided 

case. This estimate was generated by applying the frequency distribution observed in TESS for 

illnesses known to be “related” to pesticide exposures (see Table 5.6) to the estimated number of 

avoided cases. By doing so, it is assumed that the frequency of clinical effects for pesticide 

illnesses resulting from container design/residue issues is the same as for all pesticide-related 

illnesses. The assumption is also made that for those cases in which it is unclear that pesticides 

are the implicated agent, the same number of clinical effects would be observed per case. 

 

60 If possible container-related cases are included the “low-end” and “high-end” estimate of associated clinical 

effects is 853 and 1074 respectively. See Appendix J. 
Page 130 

Table 5.8. Estimated Frequency of Clinical Effects for Avoidable Cases as a Result of the 

Container Regulations 

Number of Cases Avoided b Number of Clinical 

Effects per Case 

Percent of Cases with 

Clinical Effect a

“Low-End” Scenario c

 “High-End” Scenario d

1 59.58% 160 201 

2 26.58% 71 90 

3 9.34% 25 31 

4 2.91% 8 10 

5 or more 1.59% 4 5 

Total 100% 268 337 

Notes: Numbers are scaled by a factor of 1.012 to reach 100 percent coverage of the national population. Frequencyspecific estimates may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

a Derived from Table 5.5 and as shown in Table 5.6. 

b Distribution of number of cases avoided (e.g., with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more clinical effects per case) are calculated 

from the total number (268 and 337 in “low-end” and “high-end” scenarios, respectively), using the percentage of 

cases with different numbers of clinical effects. 

c From cases “related” to exposure. 

d From cases “related” and “unknown if related” to exposure. 

Table 5.9 shows the estimated number and type of avoided clinical effects as a result of the 

regulations. In order to estimate the number of clinical effects potentially avoided, the number 

of cases avoided was scaled by a factor of 1.616. This represents the ratio of clinical effects 

“related” to exposures in TESS to the total number of cases resulting in those effects (31,504 

“related” clinical effects to 19,492 “related” exposure cases = 1.616). Therefore, on average, a 

pesticide product-related illness results in 1.616 clinical effects as defined in TESS. By applying 

this ratio to the number of cases avoided as a result of the regulation, it is assumed that the 

container-related illnesses, on average, result in the same number of clinical effects per case as 

all pesticide-related illnesses. It is also assumed that the relative distribution of types of clinical 

effects are the same for container-related cases. The clinical breakdown of the potentially 

avoided clinical effects shown in Table 5.9 was derived using the distributions in Table 5.7 for 

“related” and “unknown if related” cases, respectively. The number of clinical effects avoided 

per year is estimated to be in the range of 433 to 545. These correspond to the estimated range 

of 268 to 337 potentially avoidable pesticide product illness cases as a result of the rule.61

The approach to scaling estimates of potentially avoided cases based on the reported population 

coverage of TESS is discussed above. In addition, although CDPR takes many steps to ensure 

that the data collected are as comprehensive as possible, it is inevitable that some illnesses 

related to pesticide products go unreported or undiagnosed. For the purposes of this analysis, if 

some cases are overlooked by CDPR, the percentage estimated and applied to the TESS data is 

not necessarily biased. As long as the proportion of those unreported or undiagnosed cases that 

are related to container design or residue problems is no different from the proportion reported 

by CDPR, then an unbiased percentage estimate will be obtained. 

 

61 If possible cases are included the number of clinical effects avoided for “low-end”, “unknown if related” and 

“high-end” scenario are 1379, 357 and 1736 respectively. See appendix J. 
Page 131 

Table 5.9. Estimated National Number of Avoidable Clinical Effects as a Result of the 

Container Regulations

Clinical Effect 

Number of Clinical 

Effects Avoided 

“Low-End” Scenario a, b

Number of Clinical 

Effects Avoided 

“Unknown if Related” to 

Exposures a, b

Number of Clinical 

Effects Avoided 

“High-End” Scenario b

Cardiovascular 6 3 8 

Dermal 75 14 88 

Gastrointestinal 104 37 141 

Hematologic/Hepatic 1 <1 1 

Neurological 43 25 67 

Ocular 117 4 121 

Renal/Genitourinary <1 <1 <1 

Respiratory 51 9 60 

Miscellaneous 36 20 57 

Total 433 c 112 c 545 

Note: Clinical effect-specific estimates may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

a Distributions of clinical effects shown here were derived from the total number of clinical effects calculated (see 

note (b) below), using the percentages shown in Table 5.7. (e.g., for the “low-end” scenario, 433 cases * 

1.30 percent of total “related” effects are cardiovascular = 6 cardiovascular effects; for the “high-end” scenario, 112 

cases * 2.27 percent of total “unknown if related” effects are cardiovascular = 3 cardiovascular effects added). 

b “Low-end” scenario clinical effects are represented by those effects “related” to the pesticide exposure, while the 

“high-end” scenario includes those “related” and those “unknown if related” to the pesticide exposure. If possible 

cases are included the number of clinical effects avoided for “low-end”, “unknown if related” and “high-end” 

scenario are 1379, 357 and 1736 respectively. 

c Number of cases avoided from Table 5.8 are scaled by a factor of 1.616 to estimate the number of clinical effects 

resulting from those reported cases (e.g., for the “low-end” scenario, 268 cases * 1.616 = 433 clinical effects). 

Another point to consider is the mechanism by which the data are collected for the TESS 

database. Since case reports are collected through reporting to poison control centers across the 

country, it is possible that acute illnesses and injuries are more likely to be reported than chronic 

effects resulting from the exposure. Similarly, clinical effects were generally recorded at the 

time of the poison report and may have been lost in follow-up and therefore gone unreported if 

the victim developed symptoms subsequent to the initial report. Since the estimate of avoidable 

cases and related clinical effects was based on these reports, the actual number of related 

illnesses may have been higher (see Appendix J for a description of these exposures potentially 

lost to follow-up). 

5.2.5 Valuing Avoided Pesticide Product-Related Illnesses as a Result of the Container 

Regulations 

This section describes the approach to the quantitative valuation of the cases of pesticide product 

illness that may be potentially avoided as a result of the container design and residue removal 

regulations. In order to estimate the potential cost savings from these avoided cases of pesticide 

product-related illness, these cases are first characterized into general illness severity categories 

for which the average costs for outpatient physician visits, inpatient hospitalizations, lost 

productivity, and premature mortality is derived. In using this methodology, we made use of the 

additional data available in the TESS report that provide insight into the type or degree of 
Page 132 

outcome/clinical effects observed for exposure cases. A profile of medical outcome severity as 

reported in TESS is presented in Appendix H. 

5.2.5.1 Avoided Pesticide Product-Related Illnesses by Severity Level 

The potentially avoided cases calculated above are classified into the following TESS outcome 

categories (see Table 5.10 and Appendix H): 

• Minor effect: patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure but they 

were minimally bothersome and generally resolved with no residual disability or 

disfigurement; 

• Moderate effect: patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were 

more pronounced, more prolonged, or more of a systemic nature than minor symptoms 

(usually some form of treatment is indicated); 

• Major effect: patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were lifethreatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement; and 

• Death: patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the exposure. 

Table 5.10. Expected Number of Avoidable Illnesses as a Result of Container Regulation 

by Severity of Clinical Effect

TESS With Concomitants Potential Cases Avoided from Regulations 

Medical 

Outcome/Severity Number of Cases Percentage a, b

“Low-End” 

Scenario a

“High-End” 

Scenario a

No Effect 18,385 56.14% 343 431

Minor Effect 12,084 36.90% 225 284

Moderate Effect 2,164 6.61% 40 51

Major Effect 111 0.34% 2 3

Death 2 

43.86%

0.01%

268

<1c 

337 

<1c

Total 32,746 100.00% 610 d 768 d

a Numbers have been rounded for presentation purposes. 

b Percentages were calculated to equal 100 percent for the five medical outcome categories using their associated 

number of cases from Table H-3 (Appendix H), since complete data were known for these five categories. 

c

 0.04 deaths were estimated for the “Low-End” scenario and 0.05 deaths for the “High-End”. 

d Totals were calculated assuming that the potential illnesses avoided as a result of the container regulations in 

Section 5.2.4 (268 for the “low-end” scenario and 337 for the “high-end” scenario) constitute the minor effect, 

moderate effect, major effect, and death severity categories: e.g., 268 ÷ 43.86% = 610. The breakdown by severity 

category was then calculated using this derived total. 

In addition, a “no effect” category is included (“no effect” represents a patient who reported an 

exposure but developed no signs or symptoms as a result of exposure). In theory, cases that did 

not result in any observed clinical effect should not be associated with any potential medical cost 

savings. However, TESS data show that, in reality, some proportion of those exhibiting “no 

effect” did visit a health care facility and therefore incurred medical costs (shown below). In 

addition, there are likely to be costs associated with lost productivity for the time and anxiety 

associated with a call to a poison control center. 
Page 133 

Table 5.10 presents the expected number of overall avoided cases as a result of the container 

design and residue removal regulations, when cases both with and without any clinical effect are 

considered. Note that the “low-end” and “high-end” scenario estimates from Section 5.2.4 of 

268 and 337 cases, respectively, correspond to the following four medical outcome categories: 

minor effect, moderate effect, major effect, and death. 

The “no effect” cases, in which no clinical effect was observed, are not a component of the 268 

to 337 cases calculated in Section 5.2.4 above, since the California incident data from CDPR 

cover only pesticide exposures that resulted in symptoms. In order to estimate the number of 

avoided exposure cases that did not result in clinical effects, the expected number of these cases 

is calculated based on the percentage distribution of medical outcome/severity observed across 

the entire TESS database of pesticide-related exposures (see Appendix H). This calculation is 

based on the information provided in Table H-3, which presents the cases according to the 

severity of the medical outcome, evaluating only the categories “No Effect,” “Minor Effect,” 

“Moderate Effect,” “Major Effect,” and “Death.” Using the actual number of cases reported to 

TESS for these categories, the proportion of cases that each medical outcome category 

contributes to the total is recalculated, as presented in Table 5.10.62 As a result of this 

recalculated distribution, it is estimated that 43.86 percent of exposures resulted in clinical 

effects (including minor, moderate, and major effects, and death), and 56.14 percent of exposures 

resulted in “no effect,” as shown in Table 5.10.63 For the “low-end” scenario, we estimated that 

268 illnesses would be avoided by the rule. Assuming that the ratio between exposures with 

clinical effects and exposures with “no effect” from TESS holds true in this subset, the number 

of cases with “no effect” avoided by the rule can be estimated as follows: 

343

43.86% 56.14%

268 = ⇒ x = x

Using this methodology, it is assumed that the distribution of severity of effect (ranging from “no 

effect” to “death”) for exposures related to container design and residue removal is no different 

than for all exposures to pesticide products resulting in calls to poison control centers 

nationwide. Data are not available to suggest that the subset of container-related pesticide 

 

62 After examining the medical outcome descriptions shown in Table H-3, we recalculated the distribution among 

only the first 5 categories (no effect, minor effect, moderate effect, major effect, and death) to use in this calculation 

of illness severity. We decided not to use the percentage distribution for all the categories shown in Table H-3 

because sufficient information on the outcome of the exposure was not available for the remaining categories. For 

example, for the category “no follow-up, potentially toxic,” we were not able to assign a reasonable medical 

outcome category to value based on the uncertainties presented in its description: “Patient was lost to follow-up, 

refused to follow-up or was not followed but the exposure was significant and may have resulted in a moderate, 

major, or fatal outcome.” Similarly, for the “unrelated effect” category, we are not concerned with cases for which 

the exposure was not responsible for the medical outcome. Since we want to categorize the medical outcome of 

exposure in order to value the benefits, we decided that including such cases would not be representative of the 

exposure cases. Instead, we assumed that the distribution for those cases in which the medical outcome was known 

is representative of the outcomes from all exposures. 63 The “no effect” category shown in Table H-3 differs from the 75.93 percent with zero clinical effects shown in 

Table 5.5 because the latter shows the number of clinical effects known at the time of the poisoning incident report. 

Alternatively, the medical outcome information presented in Table H-3 describes the known effect resulting from 

the incident. However, it is possible that the “no follow-up” categories in Table H-3 may or may not have had 

clinical effects, or could have had clinical effects later. This information is not known. 
Page 134 

illnesses typically result in more or less severe illnesses than any other pesticide exposure. If this 

assumption is not true, the benefits calculated here could be over- or understated due to an overor underestimate of the severity of health effects avoided. 

5.2.5.2 Unit Costs for Morbidity and Mortality by Severity Level 

The valuation of health benefits associated with reduced pesticide-related morbidity and 

mortality focuses on direct costs for outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays, indirect 

costs of lost productivity, and premature mortality based on the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) 

approach (see Figure 5.2). The value of reduced morbidity is estimated below using TESS data 

on the likelihood of pesticide product-related cases of varying severity levels seeking medical 

care. These data are then used to generate unit costs associated with physician visits, hospital 

stays, and lost productivity for each level of clinical severity. Subsequently, the total value of 

reduced morbidity associated with the container rule is estimated by applying these costs to the 

number of avoided cases by level of severity and summing across severity levels. The premature 

mortality valuation is performed by first generating a VSL estimate in year 2005 dollars and then 

applying the number of premature deaths (or the probability of premature mortality), estimated in 

the previous section, to this VSL. 

Figure 5.2. Components of the Health Benefits Valuation for the Container Design and 

Residue Removal Regulations 

Outpatient

Costs

Value of

Premature

Mortality

Value of Lost

Productivity

Inpatient

Costs

Total Health Benefits

Medical Care Utilization 

In order to estimate direct costs for medical care utilization, the unit costs per outpatient 

physician visit and inpatient hospitalization stay were derived. The unit costs per visit were then 

converted to unit costs per pesticide case for each severity level other than death (no effect, mild, 

moderate, and major) to reflect the probability of visiting a health care facility. The following 

equation presents the method used to generate unit costs by severity level: 

UnitCost UnitCost P(HCFvisit) severity = per visit ×

where: 

UnitCostseverity = the unit cost per case for a particular severity level; 

UnitCostper visit = the unit cost per health care visit; and 
Page 135 

P(HCFvisit) = the probability of visiting a health care facility for a particular severity level. 

TESS provides data on health care facility visits for clinical effects associated with pesticiderelated exposure. Table 5.11 presents the distribution of health care visitation by medical 

outcome/severity. In TESS, a health care facility is defined as “any hospital-based ward or 

emergency department, free-standing emergency medical clinic (emergicenter), first aid station, 

physician’s office, or clinic.” Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between outpatient 

physician visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient hospitalization stays. As would be 

expected, as the clinical effect severity level increases, the proportion of cases requiring health 

care facility visits increases as well. 

Table 5.11. Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide Product-Related 

Unintentional Exposures, TESS, 2001 a

Management Site b

Medical Outcome/Severity Non-Health Care Facility Health Care Facility Refused Referral c

No Effect 76.86% 22.58% 0.56% 

Minor Effect 67.30% 30.32% 2.38% 

Moderate Effect 24.45% 70.65% 4.91% 

Major Effect 9.52% 86.67% 3.81% 

Death 0% 100% 0% 

Source: Adapted from AAPCC (2002, Report 39 “Medical Outcome by Management Site”). 

a

 Excludes those cases with management site designated as “other” and “unknown.” 

b

 Represents row percent. 

c

 Although refused referral cases are those that should have received health care facility treatment, they did not and 

therefore did not incur medical care costs. It is not clear whether some of these cases ultimately received treatment 

at a later time. 

The proportion of cases visiting health care facilities in Table 5.11 were used to adjust outpatient 

physician visit unit costs for each level of clinical effect severity. For hospitalization stays, it is 

assumed that only cases with major clinical effects require inpatient treatment. Table 5.12 

presents TESS data on the duration of clinical effects by medical outcome/severity. For cases 

with minor effects, 74 percent lasted less than eight hours and 88 percent less than one day. 

Similarly, 43 percent of cases with moderate effects lasted less than eight hours and 63 percent 

less than one day. On the contrary, 59 percent of cases with major clinical effects lasted one or 

more days and 30 percent lasted three or more days. As a result, it is assumed that only cases 

with major effects would incur hospitalization inpatient costs and the unit cost per hospitalization 

stay is converted to a unit cost per major effect case in the same way as described for outpatient 

visits. Table 5.12 is also used to estimate the indirect cost of lost productivity, described in the 

section titled “Lost Productivity” below. 
Page 136 

Table 5.12. Duration of Clinical Effect by Medical Outcome for Pesticide Product-Related 

Unintentional Exposures, TESS, 2001 a

Medical Outcome/Severity b Duration of 

Clinical Effects Minor Effect Moderate Effect Major Effect 

#2 Hours 53.84% 18.34% 6.82% 

2-8 Hours 20.60% 24.19% 9.09% 

8-24 Hours 13.70% 20.33% 25.00% 

1-3 Days 6.99% 17.94% 29.55% 

3-7 Days 3.30% 12.49% 11.36% 

1 Week - 1 Month 1.24% 4.66% 6.82% 

>1 Month 0.30% 1.70% 5.68% 

Anticipated Permanent 0.03% 0.34% 5.68% 

Source: Adapted from AAPCC (2002, Report 23 “Duration of Clinical Effects by Medical Outcome”). a

 Excludes those cases with “unknown” duration of clinical effect. 

b

 Represents column percent. 

Outpatient Costs 

To estimate outpatient unit costs, we obtained physician visit benchmark fees from the online 

division of Intellimed, a private corporation that provides analytical software with inpatient and 

outpatient databases to health care-related organizations.64 Evaluation and management costs are 

provided by Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT-4) code, an American 

Medical Association classification used for defining outpatient treatment. Costs are available for 

new and established patients, based on the type of evaluation and management received. For this 

analysis, it is assumed that patients visit their current physician for evaluation and management 

based on a focused problem. Appendix I provides a list of benchmark costs for varying levels of 

complexity of care for both new and established patients. 

Table 5.13 provides the current cost estimate for a physician visit of an established patient for an 

expanded, problem-focused evaluation, updated to 2005 dollars. The cost, $39.35, represents 

only the evaluation and management costs. Diagnostic and medicinal costs are not included in 

this estimate and would be more likely to vary by level of severity. These costs would add to the 

estimates of direct medical costs avoided due to the container regulations. 

 

64 Formerly the Medical Cost and Quality Assistance (MECQA) Web site, the Web site can now be accessed at 

www.myhealthscore.com. 
Page 137 

Table 5.13. Benchmark Evaluation and Management Costs for Physician Office Visit for 

an Established Patient Requiring an Expanded, Problem-Focused Evaluation, 

Adjusted to 2005 Dollars a

CPT-4 Code Brief Description Cost b

99213 Established patient requiring: 

1. Expanded, problem-focused history 

2. Expanded, problem-focused examination 

3. Medical decision-making of low complexity 

$39.35 

a

 Cost data obtained from online division of Intellimed (Intellimed, 2002) 

See Appendix I for benchmark costs for other CPT-4 codes. 

b Cost is updated to year 2005 from year 2000 by scaling based on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule conversion 

factors. See AAMC (1999) for the year 2000 conversion factor and AAPMR (2004) for the year 2005 conversion 

factor. 

Using the health care facility utilization data from TESS, reported in Table 5.11, the outpatient 

physician unit costs per case by level of clinical severity are estimated. Table 5.14 presents the 

adjusted unit costs for cases with no clinical effect, minor effect, moderate effect, and major 

effect. The adjusted unit costs range from $8.89 for “no effect” to $34.11 for “major effect.” 

Table 5.14. Outpatient Physician Unit Costs by Medical Outcome 

Medical Outcome/Severity Unit Cost a

No Effect $8.89 

Minor Effect $11.93 

Moderate Effect $27.80 

Major Effect $34.11 

a

 Unit costs represent the cost per case and are calculated by multiplying 

the benchmark cost in Table 5.13 by the percentage of cases visiting health 

care facilities in Table 5.11. 

Inpatient Costs 

Hospital utilization data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 

a series of databases compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).65 

HCUP contains patient-level health care data on costs and quality of health services, treatment 

outcome, and access to health care collected through state data organizations, hospital 

associations, private data organizations, and the federal government. Unit cost estimates for 

hospital stays were obtained from the HCUP-3 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Release 3 

(AHRQ, 1994), which contains all 1994 discharge records from a 20-percent sample of U.S. 

community hospitals from 17 states. 

Table 5.15 presents mean length of stay and mean charges for diagnosis-related group (DRG) 

455, “other injury, poisoning, toxic effect diagnosis w/o CC,”66 updated to 2005 dollars using an 

 

65 Formerly called the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), part of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

66 CC as defined AHCPR (1994) “(Complications, Comorbidities). Patients who are more seriously ill tend to 

require more hospital resources than patients who are less seriously ill, even though they are admitted to the hospital 
Page 138 

adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for “medical care services”.67 DRGs 

are a classification of hospital case types into groups expected to have similar hospital resource 

use. Therefore, DRG 455 should provide a reasonable approximation of the charges associated 

with treatment of pesticide-related illness. 

Table 5.15. Mean Hospitalization Charges and Length of Stay for Injuries/Poisonings from 

HCUP 1994, Adjusted to 2005 Dollars a

Diagnosis-Related 

Group (DRG) DRG Description Mean Length of Stay Mean Charges 

455 Other injury, poisoning & toxic effect 

diagnosis w/o complications or 

comorbidities 

1.64 $6,856 

a

 Data obtained from HCUP-3 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Release 3 AAPMR (2002) Updated to 2005 

dollars using CPI-U for “medical care services” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005). 

Using the health care facility utilization data from TESS, reported in Table 5.11, and assuming 

that only cases with major effects will have inpatient hospital stays, the inpatient unit costs per 

severity level case by severity level are estimated (see Table 5.16). The unit cost for “major 

effect” is $5,942, representing the average charge for a hospital stay across all “major effect” 

cases, based on the percentage of “major effect” cases that visit a health care facility 

(86.67 percent from Table 5.11). 

Table 5.16. Inpatient Hospitalization Unit Costs 

Medical Outcome/Severity Unit Cost a

No Effect $0 

Mild Effect $0 

Moderate Effect $0 

Major Effect $5,942 

a Unit cost for “major effect” is the average cost across all “major 

effect” cases. Unit costs represent the cost per case and are 

calculated by multiplying the benchmark cost in Table 5.15 by the 

percentage of cases visiting health care facilities in Table 5.11. 

Lost Productivity 

For the purposes of this analysis, a “lower-productivity day” is defined as a day when activity is 

restricted and the person may be less productive in the performance of normal activities (i.e., 

work, housekeeping, leisure). In order to calculate the value lost due to a lower-productivity 

day, it is first necessary to estimate the value of a day of full productivity and then estimate the 

magnitude of reduced productivity associated with each severity level. The socioeconomic data 

were collected from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Bureau of the Census to 

calculate average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, leisure, and sleep, as presented 

in Table 5.17. Using these data, the value of a day of full productivity can be calculated as 

 for the same reason. Recognizing this, the DRG grouper splits certain DRGs based on the presence of secondary 

diagnoses for specific complications or comorbidities (CC).” 

67 CPI-U for Medical Care Services http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu 
Page 139 

presented in Table 5.18. From a review of the pesticide exposure cases in California that were 

potentially avoidable as a result of the container standards, the majority of instances occurred 

during occupational activities. Therefore, the indirect cost of illness reflects estimated activity 

patterns for a typical working adult on any particular day. 

Table 5.17. Socioeconomic Data Used to Calculate Indirect Cost of Illness 

Data Value 

Average hours an employed person works per week 33.8 a

Average hours housekeeping per week (male) 13.4 b

Average hours housekeeping per week (female) 28.3 b

Number of males aged 16 years and over in the U.S. 111,256,354 c

Number of females aged 16 years and over in the U.S. 117,365,320 c

Average hours people aged 16 years and over spend housekeeping per week 21.0 

Median hourly earnings (all workers) $16.41 d

Median hourly earnings (service, private household female) $9.62 d

2002 Effective Tax Rate (includes federal, state, and FICA) 29.1% e

a

 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). 

b

 Research Triangle Institute (1994). 

c

 U.S. Census Bureau (2004). 

d

 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004) (adjusted to 2005 using inflation rate): Median hourly earnings (all workers) 

calculated as $657 in 2005 median weekly earnings for all workers 16 years and over (inflated from $638 in 2004 

median weekly earnings using an inflation rate of 1.029), divided by 40 hours of work per week. Median hourly 

earnings (service, private household female) calculated as $385 in 2005 median weekly earnings (inflated from $374 

in 2004 median weekly earnings using an inflation rate of 1.029), divided by 40 hours of work per week. 

e Tax Foundation (2005). 

Economic theory dictates that the gross wage rate is the best indicator of the value of production 

associated with an hour of work. As show in Table 5.18, the average gross wage rate in the 

United States is $16.41 per hour. Therefore, each hour of lost work due to illness will be valued 

at $16.41. Since housekeeping is a non-market activity, no market value exists with which to 

value the loss to society when housekeeping activity is lost due to illness; an implicit value must 

be determined. Most cost of illness studies use the average after-tax wage for private household 

workers as a proxy (see Tolley et al., 1994; Research Triangle Institute, 1994). This value is 

calculated as $6.82 per hour, as shown in Table 5.18. Finally, an hour of leisure is valued at the 

average after-tax wage rate of $11.64 per hour. 

In order to estimate the reduction in productivity resulting from a pesticide exposure potentially 

avoidable from the regulations, the TESS data on the duration of illness by medical 

outcome/severity were used (see Table 5.12). For each severity level, an average duration of 

clinical illness was generated and the proportion of a day spent with the illness was calculated. 

This proportion was applied to the value of a day of full productivity to estimate the indirect cost 

of illness. Therefore, the loss in productivity is directly proportional to the time spent with the 

illness. 
Page 140 

Table 5.18. Value of a Day of Full Productivity 

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value Total Value 

Work 4.8 a $16.41 $79.26 

Housekeeping 3.0 a $6.82 c $20.50 

Leisure 8.2 b $11.64 d $95.03 

Sleep 8.0 $0.00 $0.00 

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $194.80 

a For work, based on the weekly estimate in Table 5.17 divided by 7 days per week; for housekeeping, based on the 

number of hours people aged 16 years and over spend on housekeeping per week (21.0 hrs/wk), divided by 7 days 

per week. 

b

 Leisure time is the time left per day after work, housekeeping, and assuming 8 hours of sleep (24 hours per day - 

4.8 hours work - 3.0 hours housekeeping - 8.0 hours sleeping = 8.2 hours leisure). 

c

 Housekeeping rate is based on the median hourly earnings for service, private household female (shown in Table 

5.17) less income tax (average of 29.1 percent for 2005). 

d

 Leisure rate is based on the median hourly earnings for all workers (shown in Table 5.17) less income tax (average 

of 29.1 percent for 2005). 

To determine the average duration of clinical illness for each severity level in TESS, a weighted 

average of the exposure durations was calculated based on the frequency distribution of clinical 

effect duration. Two scenarios were calculated: a “low-end” scenario based on the midpoint of 

the duration category and a “high-end” scenario based on the upper bound of the duration 

category. Two clinical effect duration categories (“>1 month” and “anticipated permanent”) 

were unbounded, and we assumed that the “>1 month” category stretched from 1 to 3 months 

and the “anticipated permanent” category was assumed to last 1 year for the “upper-bound” 

estimate and one-half of a year for the “lower bound.”68

In addition, data on duration of clinical effects were not available for “no effect” group. 

However, since approximately 25 percent of these cases visited health care facilities (see Table 

5.11) it was assumed that these 25 percent experienced reduced productivity for the shortest 

clinical effect duration group (<2 hours) and the remaining 75 percent experienced no reduced 

productivity. Table 5.19 provides the average clinical effect durations and indirect unit costs 

associated with the “low-end” and “high-end” scenarios. 

 

68 Although the “anticipated permanent” category may reflect conditions that last indefinitely, since we do not know 

the nature of the permanent clinical effect, it is unclear that this will result in permanent lost productivity. 
Page 141 

Table 5.19. Average Clinical Effect Duration and Indirect Cost of Illness 

by Medical Outcome 

Medical 

Outcome/Severity Scenario b

Average Duration of 

Clinical Effect (Days) c

Unit Cost for Lost 

Productivity Day d

No Effect Low-End 0.01 $1.83 a

High-End 0.02 $3.67 

Minor Effect Low-End 0.9 $179.82 

High-End 1.4 $279.88 

Moderate Effect Low-End 3.7 $717.35 

High-End 5.9 $1,146.56 

Major Effect Low-End 16.4 $3,192.25 

High-End 29.9 $5,817.81 a

 Data on duration of clinical effect were not available for “no effect” group. However, since approximately 

25 percent of these cases visited health care facilities it was assumed that these 25 percent experienced reduced 

productivity for the shortest clinical effect duration group (<2 hours) and the remaining 75 percent experienced no 

reduced productivity.

b

 The “low-end” scenario uses the midpoint of the range of clinical effect duration to calculate the average duration, 

and the “high-end” scenario uses the upper end of the range. 

c

 Average duration of clinical effect for all except the “No Effect” case is based on a weighted average of the 

durations presented in Table 5.12. The category “>1 month” was assumed to be 1-3 months (where the midpoint = 

60 days) and the category “anticipated permanent” was assumed to be 1 year (where the midpoint = 182.5 days) for 

the low-end estimate and one half year for the high-end estimate. For example, the low-end estimate of average 

duration of clinical effect is calculated by multiplying the mid-point of average duration in the first column in Table 

5.12 with the corresponding percentage of Minor Effect cases (calculating the sum of products of column 1 and 

column 2 in Table 5.12). 

d

 The unit cost is the indirect cost in terms of lost productivity associated with the average duration of clinical illness 

for a particular severity level. For example, the unit cost for lost productivity day was calculated by multiplying the 

value of a productive day ($194.80) with the average duration of clinical effect (0.01). The average duration of 

clinical effect is rounded off therefore the value for unit cost is less than the simple multiplication of average 

duration and value of a productive day. 

Premature Mortality 

A “value of a statistical life” (VSL) was used to estimate a value of the potential reduction in 

fatalities from pesticide-related illnesses. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation’s (OAR) work on 

the value of a statistical life has been widely cited throughout the Agency. Recently, OAR 

responded to a recent SAB opinion about the previous VSL estimate used ($4.8 million in 1990 

dollars) and changed the estimates (EPA,2004): 

“The mean value of avoiding one statistical death is assumed to be $5.5 million in 

1999 dollars. This represents a central value consistent with the range of values 

suggested by recent meta-analyses of the wage-risk VSL literature. The 

distribution of VSL is characterized by a confidence interval from $1 to $10 

million, based on two meta-analyses of the wage-risk VSL literature. The $1 

million lower confidence limit represents the lower end of the interquartile range 

from the Mrozek and Taylor (2002) meta-analysis. The $10 million upper 

confidence limit represents the upper end of the interquartile range from the 

Viscusi and Aldy (2003) meta-analysis (EPA,2004).” 
Page 142 

For this benefits analysis, EPA used the VSL estimate of $5.5 million (in 1999 dollars), updated 

to the base year of the analysis (2005). Using CPI data for all items from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, this estimated VSL was calculated to be $6.42 million in 2005 dollars.69

In this analysis, it is estimated that less than one pesticide-related death (0.04 to 0.05 deaths) will 

be avoided as a result of the container regulations each year (see Table 5.10). A reduction in 

0.04 deaths can be seen as four deaths avoided over a 100-year period. This can also be viewed 

as a reduction in mortality risk for every person in the United States of 1.27 x 10-10, based on the 

2004 U.S. Census estimate of 294 million people in the United States. This estimate of avoided 

mortality is applied to the year 2005 value of a statistical death to estimate a range of $240,000 

to $301,000 for annual avoided premature mortality as a result of the regulations (see Table 

5.20). 

Table 5.20. Value of Annual Avoided Pesticide-Related Cases as a Result of the Container 

Regulations (2005 dollars) a

Medical 

Outcome/ 

Severity Scenario 

Avoided 

Cases c

Outpatient 

Costs d

Inpatient 

Costs e

Lost 

Productivity f, g

Premature 

Mortality Total h

No effect Low-end 343 $3,045 -- $628 -- $3,674 

High-end 431 $3,833 -- $791 -- $4,623 

Minor effect Low-end 225 $2,688 -- $40,512 -- $43,200 

High-end 284 $3,383 -- $50,984 -- $54,367 

Moderate Low-end 40 $1,122 -- $28,941 -- $30,062 

effect High-end 51 $1,412 -- $36,422 -- $37,834 

Major effect Low-end 2 $71 $12,297 $6,606 -- $18,973 

High-end 3 $89 $15,479 $8,314 -- $23,878 

Death Low-end <1 -- -- -- $239,542 $239,542 b

High-end <1 -- -- -- $301,465 $301,465 

Total Low-end 610 $6,926 $12,297 $76,686 $239,542 $335,451

High-end 768 $8,716 $15,476 $96,510 $301,465 $422,167 a All cost estimates are rounded to the nearest dollar.

b Estimated deaths avoided as a result of the container rule are 0.04 for the lower-bound estimate and 0.05 for the 

upper-bound estimate. The value of avoided mortality is the same as the value of a reduction in four deaths or five 

deaths over a hundred-year period, respectively. c

 See Table 5.10 for derivations. 

d Outpatient costs are equal to the number of avoided cases times the per case outpatient cost (see Table 5.14). Costs 

may not add due to rounding. 

e

 Inpatient costs are equal to the number of avoided cases times the per case inpatient cost (see Table 5.16). Costs 

may not add due to rounding. 

f

 Lost productivity costs are equal to the number of avoided cases times the per unit cost of lost productivity (see 

Table 5.19). Costs may not add due to rounding. 

g

 Lost productivity estimates are based on the “low-end” estimate of indirect cost of illness, as described in the “Lost 

Productivity” subsection of Section 5.2.5.2. The value of the “high-end” estimates for lost productivity are not 

shown here, but can be calculated using the unit costs from Table 5.19. 

 

69 $5.5 million in 1999 dollars was adjusted using the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. 

All items, base period 1982-84=100, series ID CUUR0000SA0 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), as 

follows: 194.6 (April 2005 index) ÷ 166.6 (1999 index) * $5.5 million = $6.42 million. 
Page 143 

h If possible container-related cases are included the “low-end” and “high-end” benefit estimates are $1,069,249 and 

$1,345,657 respectively. 

5.2.5.3 Total Value of Avoided Pesticide Product-Related Illnesses 

In Section 5.2.5.1 above, the annual number of cases of pesticide-related illnesses avoided as a 

result of the container regulations by level of severity was estimated. The value of these avoided 

cases are calculated by applying the unit costs by severity level estimated for outpatient 

physician visits, inpatient hospitalization stays, and lost productivity to the avoided cases of 

morbidity and the value of a statistical life to the avoided premature mortality estimate. Table 

5.20 presents the annual health benefits valuation estimates for each of the endpoints and 

severity levels described above. The value of avoided pesticide-related illnesses is provided for 

the “low-end” and “high-end” estimates of cases avoided, described in Section 5.2.4 above. 

It is estimated that 610 to 768 cases could have been avoided as a result of the container design 

and residue removal regulations each year, corresponding to approximately $335,451 to 

$422,167 in annual health benefits. If the 51 “possible” cases in California are included, which 

increases the percentage of total pesticide product-related cases potentially avoided by 

4.33 percent, the annual health benefits would be an additional $1.07 million to $1.35 million 

annually (corresponding to an additional 1,946 to 2,449 cases).70

Since the compliance period for the rulemaking is either 3 or 5 years depending on the type of 

container involved, we assume that 50 percent of average annual benefits will begin to accrue in 

year 3 and the remaining 50 percent of average annual benefits will begin to accrue in year 5. 

Given the compliance schedule, the annualized benefit over a 20-year period of analysis at a 

3 percent discount rate is $264,051 for the low-end scenario and $332,311 for the high-end 

scenario. Similarly, the annualized benefit over a 20-year period of analysis at a 7 percent 

discount rate ranges from $236,635 (low-end scenario) to $297,807 (high-end scenario). If 

possible cases are included the annualized benefit for the low-end and high-end scenario are 

$841,664 and $1,059,240 respectively at the 3 percent discount rate, and $754,274 and $949,259 

respectively at the 7 percent discount rate. 

5.3 Non-Human Health-Related Benefits of the Pesticide Container Regulations 

This section describes the inputs and assumptions used to calculate the non-human health-related 

benefits associated with the pesticide container regulations. For this analysis, three direct benefit 

categories are considered: benefits associated with the disposal of non-refillable containers 

(Section 5.3.1), benefits associated with reduced environmental and ecological incidents 

(Section 5.3.2), and the benefits associated with avoided cleanup costs and property damage 

(Section 5.2.3). 

5.3.1 Non-Refillable Container Disposal Benefits 

The pesticide container regulations will directly affect the use and disposal practices of rigid 

non-refillable containers for two reasons. First, rigid non-refillable pesticide containers that fall 

 

70 See Appendix J for detailed information of the “possible” cases, defined by EPA as cases that may have possibly 

been prevented by the container regulations. 
Page 144 

within the scope of the container regulations will be required to meet residue removal 

standards.71 Second, all rigid non-refillable pesticide containers that are not exempt under the 

new labeling requirements must have labels that include the applicable instructions for removing 

pesticide residues from the container prior to container disposal (§156.146). Benefits therefore 

should be related to containers that will meet the residue removal and/or the labeling 

requirements that did not do so previously. However, the residue removal standards are 

applicable to only certain flowable concentrate formulations and it is not clear how many 

containers should be tied to these formulations. Since we cannot accurately estimate the number 

of containers associated with reside removal standards we are conservatively not including the 

containers diverted from the waste stream as a result of this standard in the benefits estimate. 

This implies that the benefits estimate will understate the true estimate of benefits from the rule. 

In the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that EPA conducted for the proposed version of the 

pesticide container rule (EPA, 1993), EPA made a number of assumptions regarding nonrefillable containers and their use that we retain in this analysis. It assumed that the number of 

non-refillable containers appropriately managed and disposed of will increase after promulgation 

of the final rule because of (1) the presence on container labels of specific rinsing information 

regarding how and when a triple rinse must be conducted due to the labeling requirements, and 

(2) an increased likelihood that landfills once hesitant to accept appropriately managed pesticide 

containers as solid waste would now do so instead of treating them as hazardous. 

Though appropriate container management and disposal would result in fewer environmental 

damages, such as fewer pesticide residues in soil, surface and ground water, and fewer healthrelated damages over time (See Section 5.3.2), due to limitations in the data available, estimates 

of all of these potential benefits cannot be made. Instead, the difference in cost between the 

disposal of non-refillable pesticide containers that, before the rule, were disposed of as hazardous 

waste, and the disposal of non-refillable pesticide containers that, after the rule, would be 

disposed of as non-hazardous waste is calculated as a quantified measure of the environmental 

benefits of the container regulations. Because hazardous waste treatment is more costly than 

non-hazardous, the resulting cost savings is a direct benefit related to the regulations. 

The benefits associated with the diversion of non-refillable pesticide containers from the 

hazardous waste stream (where waste treatment is more expensive) into the solid waste stream 

are calculated in a number of steps. Each step is discussed in the order in which it was carried 

out in the analysis. 

5.3.1.1 Step 1: Determine Which Container Types Are Subject to the Labeling 

Requirements 

There are a number of non-refillable container types that are considered in the estimation of costs 

associated with the pesticide container regulations. These include containers that hold dry and 

 

71 The residue removal requirements apply to only flowable concentrate products that are non-antimicrobial and 

non-exempt antimicrobial that are included under the Toxic Category I or II criteria and/or are classified for 

restricted use and that are dilutable and packaged in rigid containers. The final regulations require that every 

registrant test three containers from each rigid container/dilutable formulation combination to determine that the 

containers are capable for attaining at least 99.99 percent removal of each active ingredient in the fourth rinsate after 

the triple rinse (see Chapter 3). 
Page 145 

liquid pesticides, plastic and steel containers of varying sizes, water-soluble packets, bag-in-box 

containers, aerosol cans, paper and plastic bags, glass jugs, fiber drums, and “other” containers. 

Not all of these containers are subject to the labeling requirements, however, since only rigid 

containers can be triple rinsed. Table 5.21 displays the container types and sizes that are subject 

to the labeling requirements. 

Table 5.21 also displays the weights associated with the containers. Weights are needed to 

calculate the volume of containers that are no longer treated as hazardous waste. Weights for 

plastic containers are based on information gathered by the 2001 High-Density Polyethylene 

(HDPE) Container Survey, conducted by the Agricultural Container Recycling Council (ACRC, 

2001). All other container weights are transferred from the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 

1993). 

Table 5.21. Non-Refillable Containers Subject to the Labeling Requirements and Their 

Associated Weights 

Container Size Weight - Plastic (lbs.) a Weight - Steel/Other (lbs.) b

Container Type: Liquid Products 

< 1 Gallon 0.15 0.5 

1 to < 5 Gallons 0.54 1.38 

5 Gallons 3 6 

30 - 55 Gallons 23 42.5 

Container Type: Dry Products - Jugs 

Quart to < 2.5 Gallons N/A 0.6 

2.5 Gallons N/A 1.5 

a Source: ACRC (2001). 

b Source: proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, Table XIV-5). 

5.3.1.2 Step 2: Determine the Number of Containers Included in the Scope of the 

Non-Health Benefits Analysis 

The residue removal requirements apply to only flowable concentrate products that are nonantimicrobial and non-exempt antimicrobial that are included under the Toxic Category I or II 

criteria and/or are classified for restricted use and that are dilutable and packaged in rigid 

containers (see Chapter 3 for a complete discussion). As mentioned above, since we are unable 

to accurately determine the number of containers associated with the flowable concentrate 

products/formulations, we are not including the containers diverted from the waste stream as a 

result of this standard in the estimate. 

The container labeling requirements apply to all pesticide products except those that are 

considered residential/household use pesticide products.72 Non-refillable containers subject to 

the labeling requirements must meet the following criteria: 

 

72 The total universe of containers is based on the total number of containers in use from Chapter 3. 
Page 146 

• Container does not hold a dilutable product that meets the Toxic Category I or II criteria 

and/or is classified for restricted use (this includes antimicrobial containers exempt from the 

residue removal requirements); and 

• Container does not hold a residential/household use product. 

It is assumed that all containers used in the home and garden (H&G) market sector are for 

residential and household purposes only and are therefore exempt from the labeling 

requirements. The containers in the H&G market sector are therefore excluded from 

consideration under this category. The total number of non-refillables included in the universe 

of containers subject to the labeling requirements is presented in Table 5.22. 
Page 147 

Table 5.22. Non-Refillable Containers Included in the Scope of the Non-Health Benefits An

Container Type: Liquid Products 

30-55 Gallons 5 Gallons 1 To < 5 Gallons < 1 Gallon 

Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Glass 

Number of Containers Subject to the Labeling Requirements aAgriculture 309,104 115,496 58,116 28,819 27,877,458 0 1,007,023 0 0 I/C/G 1,600,000 2,320,000 14,048,000 960,000 21,072,000 1,440,000 20,560,000 160,000 240,000 H&G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,909,104 2,435,496 14,106,116 988,819 48,949,458 1,440,000 21,567,023 160,000 240,000 a The container labeling requirements apply to all pesticide products except those that are considered residential/household use (H&G m

See Table 3.4. 
Page 148 

5.3.1.3 Step 3: Estimate the Number of Non-Refillable Containers Diverted from the 

Hazardous Waste Stream to the Non-Hazardous Waste Stream After 

Promulgation of the Labeling Requirements 

To calculate this benefit category, the percentage of containers that will be appropriately rinsed 

and disposed of under the container rule needs to be estimated, as does the percentage of total 

containers that will continue to be inappropriately disposed of (without having been properly 

rinsed or with a container design that does not rinse clean). For lack of better data, these 

percentage estimates are based on educated extrapolations taken from the proposed container 

rule RIA (EPA, 1993). The proposed container rule RIA estimated its pre-regulation rinse rates 

based on information from the following sources: 

(1) The rinsing behavior observed in a late 1970s study (as reported by Taylor, undated) 

and two other surveys (Ozkan, 1991, and EPA, 1992a) related to agricultural pesticide 

use. The Taylor study suggested that 35 percent of farmer applicators triple rinse pesticide 

containers and only 18 percent of custom applicators triple rinse. The Ozkan study found 

that more than 90 percent of farmer-pesticide users in Wayandot County, Ohio, rinsed their 

empty pesticide containers at least once, though only 45 percent regularly rinsed three times. 

EPA reported that a 1988 South Dakota farmer survey of pesticide applicators in seven 

counties indicated that 55 percent of the farmers rinsed their empty containers, although 

many of them only once or twice. Across studies, it was therefore observed that between 45 

percent and 82 percent of farmer applicators do not triple rinse. Though the rinsing 

behaviors were based on observations taken from the agricultural sector, we applied these 

rinsing rates to the other markets as well.

(2) The percentage of agricultural and industrial/institutional containers not meeting the 

proposed standard (at that time a six-9s standard) after a triple rinse, as observed in a 

1992 study (EPA, 1992c). The study tested the percentage of containers not meeting a five9s standard. The study finds that 13 percent of the containers tested at small, medium, and 

large agricultural facilities and 3 percent of the containers tested at small and medium 

industrial/institutional facilities did not meet a five-9s requirement for residue removal. The 

final rule requires containers pass only four-9s standard. Based on the residue removal data 

in the preamble to the final rule that shows that only 1 of the 79 container/formulation 

combinations failed to meet the four-9s standard, a 2 percent failure rate is applied in this 

analysis.

The proposed container rule RIA acknowledged that it was likely that the proportion of farmers 

not triple rinsing was less than the upper bound of the observed range of rinsing behaviors 

(between 45 percent and 82 percent). The RIA therefore estimated that in the baseline, 50 

percent of all containers were rinsed inadequately or not rinsed at all and should be considered 

hazardous prior to the labeling and residue removal requirements. The other 50 percent of 

containers were therefore rinsed adequately and considered non-hazardous waste. After 

promulgation of these requirements, however, the proposed container rule RIA estimated that 20 

percent of all containers would remain hazardous (due to improper rinsing or no rinsing at all). 

Transferring these assumptions to the current analysis, it is therefore assumed that 30 percent of 

those containers listed in Table 5.22 that are subject to the labeling requirements will be rinsed 
Page 149 

properly after promulgation of the rule. However, non-refillable containers that comply with the 

labeling requirements may still be designed in such a way that inappropriate levels of pesticide 

residues remain in the containers even after a triple rinse. Based on the EPA 

container/formulation residue removal testing study (EPA, 1992c), a two percent failure was 

found across all container formulations to achieve the four-9s level. Therefore, an estimated 28 

percent of containers listed in Table 4.22 that are subject to the labeling requirements will no 

longer be hazardous waste when disposed of [# of containers * 0.28].73 

For example, applying this 28 percent factor to the number of eligible 5-gallon plastic containers 

used in the agricultural market (58,116) yields 16,272 containers that will no longer be hazardous 

waste (see Table 5.23). Table 5.23 presents, by container size and market sector, the number of 

non-refillable containers that will be converted from hazardous to non-hazardous waste after the 

promulgation of the pesticide container labeling requirements. 

 

73 Based on assumptions made in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993), we assume that 50 percent of all 

containers are considered hazardous prior to the labeling requirements. After promulgation of these requirements, 

however, only 20 percent of all containers will remain hazardous (due to improper rinsing, no rinsing, etc.). Because 

these containers only have to comply with the labeling requirements, a number of rigid containers holding dilutable 

pesticides may be designed in such a way that inappropriate levels of pesticide residues remain in the containers 

even after a triple rinse. The cost analysis assumed that 2 percent of container/formulation combinations for all sizes 

and all market categories would not pass the residue removal test. That assumption is applied here, subtracting 2 

percent from the 30 percent of containers no longer considered hazardous due to the labeling requirements. In other 

words, 28 percent of containers listed in Table 5.22 that are subject to only the labeling requirements will no longer 

be hazardous waste when disposed of [# of containers * 0.28]. 
Page 150 

Table 5.23. Number of Non-Refillable Containers Diverted from the Hazardous Waste Stream to the No

Stream After the Promulgation of the Labeling Requirements 

Container Type: Liquid Products 

30-55 Gallons 5 Gallons 1 To < 5 Gallons < 1 Gallon 

Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Glass 

Number of Containers Diverted from the Hazardous Waste Stream After Compliance with Labeling Requirements aAgriculture 86,549 32,339 16,272 8,069 7,805,688 0 281,966 0 0 I/C/G 448,000 649,600 3,933,440 268,800 5,900,160 403,200 5,756,800 44,800 67,200 H&G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 534,549 681,939 3,949,712 276,869 13,705,848 403,200 6,038,766 44,800 67,200 a Based on assumptions made in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993), we assume that 50 percent of all containers are conside

labeling requirements. After promulgation of these requirements, however, only 20 percent of all containers will remain hazardous (d

rinsing, etc.). Because these containers only have to comply with the labeling requirements, a number of rigid containers holding dilut

designed in such a way that inappropriate levels of pesticide residues remain in the containers even after a triple rinse. The cost analys

of container/formulation combinations for all sizes and all market categories would not pass the residue removal test. That assumption 

subtracting 2 percent from the 30 percent of containers no longer considered hazardous due to the labeling requirements. In other worcontainers listed in Table 5.22 that are subject to only the labeling requirements will no longer be hazardous waste when disposed of [# 
Page 151 

5.3.1.4 Step 4: Calculate the Benefits Associated with the Diversion of 

Non-Refillable Containers from the Hazardous Waste Stream to the 

Non-Hazardous Waste Stream 

Recall that this benefit category is based on the difference in cost between the disposal of nonrefillable pesticide containers that, before the rules, were disposed of as hazardous waste, and the 

disposal of non-refillable pesticide containers that, after the rules, would be disposed of as nonhazardous waste. Because hazardous waste disposal is more costly than non-hazardous waste 

disposal, the benefit is the resulting cost savings per ton of container waste. 

Now that the number of non-refillable containers converted from hazardous to non-hazardous 

waste after the promulgation of the labeling requirements has been estimated (Table 5.23), the 

number of containers must be converted to a total weight (in pounds) per container category. By 

multiplying the total number of containers that are no longer hazardous by each container size’s 

listed weight in Table 5.21, the total weight of containers no longer considered hazardous can be 

estimated. For example, multiplying the total number of non-hazardous 5-gallon plastic 

containers subject to the labeling requirements (3,949,754) by the assumed weight of a 

representative 5-gallon plastic container (3 pounds) equals 11,849,137 pounds, or 5,925 tons, of 

5-gallon plastic containers that can now be disposed of as non-hazardous waste in sanitary 

landfills (see Table 5.24). 

The dollar benefits associated with the diversion of waste from hazardous facilities to nonhazardous landfills are based on the difference in per ton tipping fees associated with each type 

of waste treatment. We estimated non-hazardous (solid) waste tipping fees based on average 

tipping fees in 13 states.74 The average across states was $58/ton (2005$). Hazardous waste 

tipping fees of $233/ton (2005$) were taken from the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993) 

and adjusted for inflation to 2005 dollars. The cost savings achieved by diverting containers 

from the hazardous waste stream to the solid waste stream is therefore $175/ton. 

Total non-discounted benefits across all container sizes equal $5,687,420 annually (2005$). 

Benefits begin in the fourth year after promulgation, allowing for a 3-year compliance period for 

both the labeling and residue removal requirements. Table 5.24 presents the benefits in terms of 

tipping fee cost savings for each container type and size as well as the total benefits for this 

direct benefit category. 

For the 20-year regulatory period we consider in this analysis, direct non-health benefits occur in 

each year from years 4 to 20. Discounting this stream of annual benefits, summing across years, 

and annualizing over a 20-year period yields a discounted annualized benefit of $4,471,929 using 

a 3 percent discount rate and $3,998,645 using a 7 percent discount rate. 

 

74 States included: CA, CT, IA, IL, MA, ME, MN, NH, NY, PA, RI, VT, WI. Sources: IA, IL, MI, MN, WI (Lovell, 

2001); CA (CA IWMB, 2002); CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT (Watson, 2002); PA (PA DEP, 1997). 
Page 152 

Table 5.24. Non-Discounted Benefits Associated with the Diversion of Non-Refillable Container

Hazardous Waste Stream to the Non-Hazardous Waste Stream (2005$) 

Container Type: Liquid Products

30-55 Gallons 5 Gallons 1 To < 5 Gallons < 1 Gallon 

Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Glass 

Total Weight of Containers Diverted from the Hazardous Waste Stream Total (lbs) 12,294,630 28,982,402 11,849,137 1,661,216 7,401,158 556,416 905,815 22,400 33,600 Total (tons) 6,147 14,491 5,925 831 3,701 278 453 11 17 Tipping Fee Cost Savings (Hazardous Waste Disposal vs. Solid Waste Disposal) of $175/ton (2005$) aTotal b $1,078,731 $2,542,916 $1,039,643 $145,755 $649,378 $48,820 $79,476 $1,965 $2,948 Total Non-Discounted Benefits (Summed Across Container Type and Size Categories) a Solid waste tipping fees based on average tipping fees in 13 states. The average across states was $58/ton (2005$). Hazardous waste 

(2005$) were taken from the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993) and adjusted for inflation to 2005 dollars. The cost savings achcontainers from the hazardous waste stream to the solid waste stream is therefore $175/ton. 

b Totals may not add due to rounding.
Page 153 

5.3.2 Environmental Effects Avoided Due to Container-Related Pesticide Exposures 

The failure or mishandling of pesticide containers and the resulting exposure to pesticides pose 

significant risks to the environment. Once the pesticide container rules are promulgated, 

however, the risk of such exposures will decrease due to reduced accidental spills, fewer leaks, 

less dripping, less frequent container stress failure, and proper rinsing prior to container disposal. 

The direct non-health benefit that results is therefore the damage reduction from fewer exposures 

of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including those in sensitive and critical habitats, to pesticides 

and residues. Unfortunately, a quantitative measure of the avoidance of such environmental 

damages related directly to the pesticide container regulations is very difficult to estimate. 

The extent to which pesticide-related environmental incidents occur in the United States is not 

well documented. The primary clearinghouse for the reporting of such incidents is the 

Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), a database maintained by the Ecological Fate 

and Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA. The two primary sources of 

incident reports that are submitted to the EIIS are reports filed by pesticide registrants and 

government agencies. The container rule requires that pesticide registrants or manufacturers 

report to EPA any information related to known adverse environmental effects due to releases of 

their registered pesticides. Many of these ecological incidents are probably not observed or 

reported, however. 

For example, the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (CDPR) is thought to be at the 

forefront of state agencies in terms of pesticide tracking, management, monitoring, and reporting. 

However, very few ecological incidents that occur in California are logged into the CDPR’s 

database of priority investigations—the only statewide database that tracks such events (EPA, 

2005). In California, pesticide-related releases are initially investigated by county agricultural 

commissioners. If a particular release is deemed to meet “priority investigation status,” it is 

referred to the CDPR and logged into the database of priority investigations. An annual 

summary of all priority investigations, if any, is then provided to EPA for input into the EIIS. 

For non-health incidents, the current thresholds for categorizing an environmental incident as a 

priority investigation in California include: 

Animals and Wildlife: Any pesticide incident with associated level of mortality that exceeds 

the following: 

 Non-Target Birds: 50 

 Non-Target Fish: 500 

 Listed Endangered or Threatened Species: 1 

 Domesticated, Game, or Other Non-Target Animals: 5 

As one can see from the priority investigation criteria, it is likely that many pesticide-related 

incidents occur but never warrant priority investigation status. California maintains no records 

of such incidents, and of the records it does maintain and submit to EPA, only three spill-related 

environmental incidents were reported between 1968 and the present. 

The spill/leak-related incidents are singled out in the EIIS since they are the incidents most likely 

to be avoided by the promulgation of the pesticide container regulations. Within the EIIS, there 

have been 43 spill/leak-related aquatic and terrestrial environmental incidents reported since its 
Page 154 

inception in 1992 (with reports dating back to 1968). In total, 15 states have submitted spillrelated environmental incident reports with varying degrees of severity. Incidents have ranged 

from an unknown number of species incapacitated to thousands of acute cases of animal 

mortality. Species affected include minnow, trout, catfish, largemouth bass, salmon, blue crab, 

banded water snake, American alligators, egrets, wood storks, and turkey vultures to name only a 

few. Of the spill-related incidents, however, the cause of only a handful can be categorized as 

potentially container-related. 

In fact, of the 43 spill-related incidents in the EIIS database that had sufficient description in the 

incident report, only five could be considered container related. They are summarized as 

follows: 

• Chlorpyrifos termicide leaked while a technician was repairing a tank. A significant quantity 

spilled onto the driveway. The technician washed the spilled chemical into a storm drain, 

which ran into a public duck pond resulting in a possible fish kill. The total number of 

species affected was not reported (EIIS #I001849-001). 

• In California, approximately 100,000 carp and trout were killed as the result of endrin 

pesticide containers being discarded near an artesian well (EIIS #B0000-225-01). 

• A 5-gallon can of Hydrothol 191 (endothall) was found dripping in a drain near Richvale, 

California. More than 1,000 fish were killed, mostly carp (EIIS #B0000-231-03). 

• A fish kill occurred on a creek in Sangamon County, Illinois, due to a leaking sight valve on 

a 1,000 gallon tank. The type of pesticide was not reported (EIIS #I0000659-001). 

• A fish kill occurred in a creek in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, due to a leaking 55-gallon drum of 

2,4-D and bromacil and a leaking 55-gallon drum of degreaser. Approximately 600 fish were 

killed along 1.6 miles of the creek (EIIS #I004668-001). 

The extent of national pesticide container-related environmental incidents reported in the EIIS is 

likely to be an underestimate of the actual number of container-related incidents. Therefore, 

caution should be taken in using EIIS to characterize the number and size of national containerbased pesticide-related incidents that could be avoided once the container rules are in place. 

Though this type of benefit is not quantified in the current analysis, it should be noted that such 

benefits are likely to exist in association with the pesticide container rule. 

5.3.3 Property Damage/Spill Cleanup Costs Avoided 

For the same reasons we are unable to estimate the benefits associated with avoided 

environmental incidents (a lack of data from which to relate container-related spills to property 

damage and the related costs of cleanup), we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the 

extent to which the pesticide container rules will prevent property damage or reduce the costs 

associated with unintended, container-related pesticide releases. 

Data does exist, however, that tracks hazardous material releases. One primary database is the 

Accidental Release Information Program (ARIP) database, maintained by the Chemical 

Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) within the Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER), which contains 4,946 incident records from between 1986 and 

1999. Most recently, EPA used the ARIP data and findings in support of the development of 

regulatory guidance for chemical accident prevention as mandated by the Risk Management 
Page 155 

Program Rule (written to implement section 112(r) of the amended Clean Air Act). EPA 

discontinued the ARIP program in 1999 when EPA completed its regulatory guidance effort. 

EPA administered the ARIP to learn about the causes and consequences of accidental releases of 

hazardous substances from fixed facilities and the actions that have been or could have been 

effective in preventing them from occurring. EPA used select releases collected in the 

Emergency Response Notification System database for the ARIP questionnaire, targeting those 

accidental releases at fixed facilities that resulted in off-site consequence or environmental 

damage. Unfortunately, a search of the database yielded no definitive pesticide container-related 

accidental releases. 

We queried the database to extract all potential pesticide-related releases. We limited the search 

to the following SIC Codes: 

 2879 Pesticides & Agricultural Chemicals 

 2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals 

 2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 

 2865 Cyclic Organic Crudes & Intermediates 

 2833 Medicinal Chemicals & Botanical Products 

 5261 Retail Nurseries & Lawn Supply Stores 

 5191 Farm Supplies 

 2491 Wood Preserving 

 2049 Food Preparations 

There were 142 incidents recorded in the ARIP database associated with these SIC codes. Only 

27 of these 142, however, were incidents related to “storage vessels” or “valves” that were 

caused by “equipment failure” rather than “operational error.”75 Table 5.25 lists characteristics 

of these 27 incidents. 

 

75 The cause of release for 5 of the 27 incidents was not identified in the ARIP database. We therefore included 

these incidents in the “equipment failure” category. 
Page 156 

Table 5.25. Characteristics of Potential Pesticide-Related Chemical Spills Recorded 

in the ARIP 

Spills 6 

Vapor Releases 17 

Spills and Vapor Releases 4 

Total 27 

No Environmental Effects Recorded 

(Field Left Blank) 

15 

No Environmental Effects (Field Marked 

None) 

9 

Environmental Effects (Soil 

Contamination or Other) 

3 

Total 27 

Injuries Recorded (Facility Employees, 

Contractors, General Public, and/or 

Responders) 

7 

No Injuries (Fields Marked Zero) 20 

Total 27 

Number of Facilities that Provided 

Cleanup Cost Information 

8 

Average Cleanup Cost (2000$) $22,231 

Minimum Cleanup Cost (2000$) $1,438 

Maximum Cleanup Cost (2000$) $126,432 

Primary Product or Service Pesticides & Chemicals; Organic & Inorganic Chemicals & Pesticides; 

Agricultural Chemicals; Agricultural Products; Wood Preservation; 

Nursery Items (Fertilizer, Pesticides & Garden Tools); Medicinal 

Chemicals and Botanical Products; Manufacturing of Human Health 

Products, Pesticides, & Agricultural Chemicals; Industrial Organic 

Chemicals; Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 

Chemicals Released Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Methyl Chloride, Nitrogen Dioxide, 

Chlorine, Ammonia, Toluene, Hydrogen Chloride, Carbon 

Tetrachloride, Phosphoric Acid, Creosote, Ethylene Oxide, 

Ammonium Hydroxide 

With the level of detail provided by ARIP, it is difficult to determine if a particular release would 

or would not be avoided due to the promulgation of the pesticide container regulations. We 

therefore provide the ARIP releases to demonstrate that chemical spills and other unintentional 

releases occur and that there is a cost associated with their cleanup. However, we are unable to 

draw any conclusions regarding the extent to which pesticide registrants and refillers will avoid 

cleanup costs due to the pesticide container regulations. Furthermore, it is impossible to draw 

any conclusions regarding the representativeness of the facilities surveyed by ARIP compared to 

the universe of all facilities that experience chemical releases. The criteria for selecting incidents 

to survey changed over time, and in the last few years of the survey (between 1997 and 1999), 

the ARIP survey effort scaled back its data collection efforts to only nine incidents surveyed per 

year, due to Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. We therefore cannot extrapolate the ARIP 

release information to represent a more broad estimate of potential pesticide container-related 

spills throughout the United States. 
Page 157 

5.4 Summary of the Benefits of the Final Standards 

As discussed above, the container design and residue removal standards are largely pollution 

prevention regulations that will safeguard workers and the environment by reducing the risk of 

exposure to concentrated pesticides. There are numerous types of human health-related benefits 

and non-human health-related benefits that will stem from such improvements because of 

relatively fewer expected spills, leaks, and other risks associated with exposure (e.g., handling by 

workers during disposal, discharges to the environment, and potential public exposures). 

The expected benefits resulting from the proposed container design/residue removal regulations 

include: reduced pesticide-related illnesses and injuries, the cost savings associated with the 

disposal of rigid non-refillable containers as non-hazardous rather than hazardous waste, and the 

reduction in the number of accidental pesticide spills. Due to data limitations, we were only able 

to monetize the benefits associated with the first two benefit categories. 

The largest monetary benefit of the container standards is the decrease in disposal costs of nonrefillable containers. Large numbers of non-refillable containers that are currently disposed of in 

hazardous waste landfills will now be able to be disposed of in sanitary landfills at a much 

reduced cost ($175/ton). This savings results in an annualized benefit of $4,471,929 using a 3 

percent discount rate and $3,998,645 using a 7 percent discount rate. 

The new standards will also have a positive effect on human health. It is estimated that 610 to 

768 cases of illness will be avoided as a result of the container design and residue removal 

regulations each year. Assuming a 3 percent discount rate, this results in an annualized benefit of 

$264,051 (“Low-End” scenario) to $332,311 (“High-End” scenario). At a 7 percent discount 

rate, the health benefits range from $236,635 to $297,807. If the 51 “possible” cases in 

California are included, which increases the percentage of total pesticide product-related cases 

potentially avoided by 4.33 percent, the annual health benefits could be at five times this amount. 

Therefore, the total monetized benefits of the container design and residue removal standards 

range from $4,735,980 to $4,804,240 at a 3 percent discount rate and $4,235,280 to $4,296,452 

at a 7% discount rate. 

The new container design and residual removal standards will also result in a decrease in the 

number of accidental pesticide spills that occur each year. This will have two benefits. First, 

large pesticide spills can have a significant effect on the environment. Second, by reducing the 

number of pesticide spills, the new standards will decrease response and clean up costs 

associated with these spills. We investigated several data sources to document the cause, 

environmental effect, and response and clean up costs associated with accidental pesticide spills. 

Although we were able to document that the new standards will likely prevent some future 

pesticide spills, and that these spills do have negative environmental consequences and result in 

clean-up costs, the data do not allow us to estimate the magnitude of these benefits. Though this 

type of benefit is not quantified in the current analysis, due to data limitations, these data are 

proof that such benefits are likely to result from the new standards. 
Page 158 

References 

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHCPR). 1994. Statistics from the Health Care 

Utilization Project-3 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Release http://www.ahcpr.gov

Agricultural Container Recycling Council (ACRC). 2001. Non-Refillable HDPE Container 

Survey: Totals for All Participating Companies (45). 

American Academy of Physical and Medicine and Rehabilitation (2002), Medicare fee schedule 

www.aapmr.org. 

American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC). 2002 (October). TESS 

Unintentional Exposures to Insecticides, Herbicides, Fungicides, Rodenticides, Non-Pine Oil 

Disinfectants, and Anti-Algae Paints, 2001.

American Crop Protection Association (ACPA). 1997 (July 16). ACPA Container Number 

Tabulation. Provided to EPA at meeting. 

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). 1999 (November 2). “Physician Fee 

Schedule Updates and Policy Changes for Calendar Year 2000: Final Rule.” 

http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library/teachphys/phys0006.htm. 

Bach. 1992 (March 11). Personal communication. Miles Incorporated. 

Bartenhagen, Carl. 1992 (August 18, April 7, February 19, February 13, and January 28). 

Personal communication. Monsanto. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005 (May). Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers. 

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. 

http://stats.bls.gov. 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 

(PISP). 2001a (February 15). “Pesticide-Related Illnesses/Injuries Reported by California 

Physicians, Summarized by Pesticide(s), Type of Illness and Degree of Relationship, 1999.” 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 

(PISP). 2001b (February 15). “Pesticide-Related Illnesses/Injuries Reported by California 

Physicians, Summarized by Activity and Type of Exposure, 1999.” http://www.cdpr.ca.gov

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Worker Health and Safety Branch. 

1998 (September 28). “Pesticide Safety Information Series A: Engineering Control in 

Agricultural Setting (Closed Systems, Enclosed Cabs, Water Soluble Packaging).” 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/pdf/hs713.pdf. 
Page 159 

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CA IWMB). 2002. 1995 to 2000 Summaries 

of Solid Waste Tipping Fees Surveys. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/landfills/tipfees/tfsums.htm. 

Intellimed. www.MyHealthScore.com (formerly www.mecqa.com, the Medical Cost and 

Quality Assurance Web site). 2002. Physician cost query for “outpatient visit.” October. 

Litovitz, T.L., et al., 2002 (September). “2001 Annual Report of the American Association of 

Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System.” American Journal of Emergency 

Medicine, 20(5). 

Lovell, David L. 2001 (December). Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Tipping Fees, Surcharges 

and Taxes in WI and Neighboring States. Memorandum to Representative Spencer Black. 

Wisconsin Legislative Council. 

Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association, Inc. (MACA, now the Mid America CropLife 

Association). 1992 (July). MACA-75 (Amended) Manufacturer Specification and User 

Guidelines: For Liquid Pesticides and Other Agri-Chemicals not Subject to U.S. DOT 

Specification Packaging. Sioux City, IA: Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association, Inc. 

Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association, Inc. (MACA, now the Mid America CropLife 

Association). 1986 (December). MACA-75 Manufacturer Specification and User Guidelines: 

For Liquid Pesticides and Other Agri-Chemicals not Subject to U.S. DOT Specification 

Packaging. Sioux City, IA: Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association, Inc. 

Ozkan, H. Erdal. 1991. Personal letter to Janice Jensen, Pesticide Management and Disposal 

Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Ohio 

State University, Columbus, OH. 

Paulson, Don. 2002 (October 15). Personal communication. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). 1997. Average Landfill 

Tipping Fees for Municipal Solid Waste in Pennsylvania 1985-1996. http://www.dep.state.pa.us

Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1994 (June). “Health Care Costs and Productivity Losses 

Averted Due to Superfund: Draft Final Report for the US Environmental Protection Agency.” 

Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1989 (September). “Pesticide Container Design Impact 

Analysis: Standards for Pesticide Bulk Storage and Transfer.” Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Snyder Industries, Inc. 1992 (February 3). Facsimile from Bill Anderson. Lincoln, NE. 

Tax Foundation. 2002 (April). “Special Report: America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day.” 
Page 160 

Taylor, A.G. Undated (likely 1987 or 1988). An Overview of Pesticide Disposal Issues in 

Illinois. Prepared for presentation at the Pesticide and Pest Management Conference, Sheraton 

International Hotel, Rosemont, IL. 

Tolley, G., D. Kenkel, and R. Fabian (eds). 1994. Valuing Health for Policy: An Economic 

Approach. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. 1999. United 

Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Eleventh Edition. p. 98. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Bureau of Census. 2000. Census 2000.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1997. Bureau of the Census. Economic Census, 1997. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 1996. “Overview of Hazardous Materials 

Regulations.” http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubtrain/regs.htm.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Deadrick, Pam. 1992 (March 16, March 12, and 

February 22). Personal communication. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005 EPA Staff Research on Container and 

Containment Regulation. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004 “Benefits of the Proposed Inter-State Air Quality 

Rule,” http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/tsd0175.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002a (May). 

Issue Paper: “Antimicrobial Exemption from the Pesticide Container and Containment Rule.” 

Internal use document. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002b (August). 

“Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates.” EPA-733-R-02-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002c (August). 

“Draft Response to Comment Document for the Antimicrobial Exemption.” 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a (October). Economic Profile of the U.S. 

Pesticide Industry. Revised Draft document submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b (September). Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses. Chapter 7. EPA 240-R-00-003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999 (October). “Standards for Pesticide 

Containers and Containment; Proposed Rule Supplemental Notice.” Federal Register 64:56917-

56944.
Page 161 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. Fitz, Nancy. 

1998a (September). “Overview of Packaging/Stewardship Trends in the United States.” 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998b (July). “Characterization of 

Antimicrobial Pesticides.” Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. “Consumer Labeling Initiative: Notice of 

Project Initiation.” Federal Register (61:12011). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. “Standards for Pesticide Containers and 

Containment.” Federal Register (59:6712) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 1993 (September). 

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Container Design and Residue Removal Regulations 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as Amended, 1988. Washington, 

DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide 

Management and Disposal Staff. Fitz, Nancy. 1992a. Facsimile to DPRA Incorporated 

including information on a 1988 South Dakota Farm Survey.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 1992b. “Container 

Study: Report to Congress.” EPA 540/09-91 116, May. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water. 1992c. “Economic Impact 

Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pesticide 

Manufacturing Industry.” Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 1992d 

(September). “States of the States Report: Pesticide Storage, Disposal and Transportation.” 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticide Programs. 1983. Label 

Improvement Program–Storage and Disposal Label Statements. PR Notice 83-3.Washington, 

DC. Cited in EPA (1993) “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Container Design and Residue 

Removal Regulations Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as 

Amended, 1988.” 

Watson, Duncon. 2002. “Comparing the Bottom Line.” 

http://www.tmclark.com/recycle/bottomline.html.
Page 162 

Appendix A. Compliance Costs for the Pesticide Container Standards 

The inputs used to estimate fixed and unit variable compliance costs associated with the pesticide 

container rule are based upon information taken from four sources: 

(3) The Proposed Container Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA, 1993). The 

assumptions used in that analysis were based on informal surveys of and consultations with 

pesticide registrants, refillers, and industry experts. The proposed container rule RIA also 

went through a review and comment period. The cost assumptions from the proposed EPA 

container rule are used as the primary source of cost information for the current analysis.

(4) An informal survey of registrants, refillers, and industry experts. Where possible, cost 

assumptions transferred from the proposed EPA container rule RIA are updated with up-todate information collected from an informal survey of registrants, refillers, and industry 

experts.

(5) Public comments. Public comments to the 1994 proposed rule, 1999 Supplemental Notice 

(EPA, 1999), and 2004 comment period provided information and data in support of the 

assumptions made and data used in the economic analysis.

(6) Best professional judgment. In cases where new information was not available, but a 

revision of the proposed EPA container rule assumptions seemed warranted, we used best 

professional judgment to estimate certain cost inputs.

The following section describes the source of each cost input and presents, in tabular form, the 

value of each cost assumption organized by the particular container standard, the size of the 

establishment, and the establishment’s market sector. 

Costs associated with the container standards are characterized in three ways. There are 

compliance period costs, capital costs, and recurring costs. 

• Compliance period costs are associated with actions regulated entities must undertake to 

come into compliance with a particular regulation. It is assumed that affected entities will 

wait until the end of the compliance period to take these actions. The compliance periods for 

the various regulation categories are: 

 - Non-refillable containers: 3 years; 

 - Refillable containers: 5 years; 

 - Refilling or repackaging: 5 years; and 

 - Labeling: 5 years. 

• Capital costs can be thought of as a one-time purchase of equipment and/or materials related 

to the compliance of a particular regulation. It is assumed that any capital equipment that 

must be acquired is purchased at the end of the compliance period. 

• Recurring costs are those that regulated entities will incur on an annual or intermittent basis 

once the regulations are promulgated. Therefore, costs start in the first year after the end of 

the compliance period. 
Page 163 

Not all pesticide container standards have costs associated with them. Table A-1 displays each 

of the container standards and lists whether there is a cost associated with compliance. If a cost 

is estimated related to the container standards, Table A-1 describes whether that cost is fixed or 

variable. 

There are two reasons why a particular container standard would not have a cost associated with 

compliance. First, the container regulations state that pesticides that are considered Department 

of Transportation (DOT) hazardous materials must be packaged in containers that meet the DOT 

standards for hazardous materials. Therefore, any costs that regulated entities incur in 

complying with this standard for pesticides that are DOT hazardous materials are attributed to 

the DOT standards and not the container regulations. In other words, we consider the DOT 

standards for hazardous material containers to be in the compliance baseline for DOT hazardous 

materials. Second, it is assumed that there are containers available on the market today that 

comply with many of the regulations listed in Table A-1. This assumption is consistent with the 

proposed EPA container rule RIA which assumed that nearly all containers on the market met 

container closure and dispensing standards, and that most of the containers in use were DOTcompliant and that nearly all containers in production were DOT-compliant. These assumptions 

were confirmed for the final EPA container rule EA through additional discussions with 

pesticide registrants, refillers and industry experts. Compliance with the DOT-related standards 

was high for the proposed rule, and, given the increasing availability and use of DOT-compliant 

containers, the final rule assumes that those containers that were out of compliance have either 

been replaced or will be replaced with compliant containers within the compliance period at no 

extra cost.76

For those regulations where costs are associated with compliance, there are two inputs that many 

of the regulations share: labor rates and an inflation factor. First, many of the requirements, such 

as the administrative requirements (recordkeeping), container inspection, and marking of 

containers, involve labor costs. For this analysis, a base hourly wage of $15.54 is used for 

administrative labor and $48.22 is used for professional labor. These wages were calculated by 

averaging the hourly wage for each labor class across the agricultural chemical, industrial 

organic chemical, and miscellaneous chemical product industries. Using these average wages, 

we applied a 25 percent fringe adjustment to the hourly rate and a 50 percent overhead 

adjustment to the wage plus fringe. This results in an hourly rate of $29.13 for administrative 

labor and $90.42 for professional labor. The industry-specific occupational wage estimates are 

taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics (BLS, 2000). 

All costs and cost inputs presented in this report are in 2005$. 

 

76 Two DOT non-hazardous material packing standards had costs associated with them in the proposed EPA 

container rule RIA (the nonrefillable container marking and refillable container drop test standards). For the 

nonrefillable container marking requirement, the proposed rule estimated costs to mark containers with an EPA 

registration number and other statements. For the refillable container drop test requirement, the proposed rule RIA 

estimated costs to replace containers that were not in compliance with the drop test standard. The final EPA 

container rule EA estimates no compliance costs with these requirements because it is assumed that nearly all 

pesticide containers meet the DOT standards.
Page 164 

Table A-1. Compliance Costs Associated with the Container Standards 

Container Standard 

Cost Associated 

with Compliance? 

Cost Type/ 

Reason for No Cost 

DOT Packaging Standards - 

Hazardous Material 

No. Costs attributed to the DOT 

standards, not the container 

regulation standards. 

DOT Packaging Standards – 

Non-Hazardous Material 

No. Containers that meet the 

standards are available on the 

open market at no extra cost. 

Closure Standards No. Containers that meet the 

standards are available on the 

open market at no extra cost. 

Standards for Container 

Dispensing Capability 

No. Containers that meet the 

standards are available on the 

open market at no extra cost. 

Residue Removal Standards Yes. Fixed. 

Administrative Requirements - 

Recordkeeping 

Yes. Fixed. 

Standards for Container Marking Yes. Variable. 

Standards for Openings Yes. Variable. 

Bulk Container Standards Yes. Variable. 

Inspection and Cleaning Standards Yes. Variable. 

Language Changes Yes. Fixed. 

A.1 Non-Refillable Container Costs 

A.1.1 Residue Removal Standard 

The cost of complying with the final standards for the removal of residues from non-refillable 

containers is attributed to the cost of ensuring that each non-refillable container design type and 

pesticide formulation combination meets the residue removal standard. The container 

regulations propose that every registrant test three containers from each rigid container/dilutable 

formulation combination to determine that the containers are capable of attaining at least 99.99 

percent removal of each active ingredient in the fourth rinsate after a triple rinse. In the proposed 

container rule RIA, EPA estimated that it costs $3,425 to conduct the residue removal test using 

three containers, which is transferred to the current analysis.77

In addition to the testing cost, it is necessary to know how many rigid container/dilutable 

formulation combinations there are per establishment to calculate the total residue removal 

compliance cost. It is assumed that the average establishment, regardless of size or market 

sector, uses three rigid container types per formulation, based on an assumption EPA made in its 

proposed container rule RIA. In an informal survey of pesticide registrants for the final rule 

economic analysis (EA), we determined that this was a reasonable assumption. Of nine 

responses across small, medium, and large registrants, four registrants indicated that on average 

 

77 Values quoted from the proposed container rule RIA have been updated to 2005$ to make them comparable with 

values in this economic analysis. 
Page 165 

they used three containers to package each of their formulations (from a range of 1 to 12 

container types per formulation). 

To develop the representative number of formulations for large and small registrants, the analysis 

begins by examining the active registrations for large companies, based on company registration 

information from EPA’s Pesticide Product Information System (PPIS) database and Dun & 

Bradstreet data for determining company size. We downloaded the necessary container 

regulation Section 3 Product Information Files from the PPIS Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PPISdata/) and then uploaded the files into a Microsoft Access 

database. We removed inactive registrations (and corresponding company data) from the 

database, and as a result, identified 1,804 registrants holding 16,407 active registrations (or 

formulations). 

Based on the large pesticide registrant profile (see Appendix D), we matched approximately 

4,600 registrations with the 146 large pesticide registrants identified in the industry profile. As a 

result, we calculated that each large registrant had on average 32 active registrations. We 

distributed the approximately 11,700 remaining active registrations (approximately 16,400 - 

4,600) among the small registrants using best professional judgment by assigning on average 

more registrations to large-small companies (20) than medium-small companies (9) and smallsmall companies (3). Table A-2 summarizes the estimated number of registrations per company 

in each size category based on the approach described. The table also lists the assumptions made 

on the number of active registrations per registrant size category for the proposed rule, which 

was significantly higher due to less specific data available on the number of active registrations.

Table A-2. Estimated Number of Active Registrations (Formulations) per Registrant by 

Size Category: Current Versus Proposed Rule 

Size Category 

Estimated Number of 

Active Registrations 

(Formulations) per 

Registrant 

Proposed Rule Estimate 

of the Number of Active 

Registrations 

(Formulations) per 

Registrant a

Large Registrants 32 b 430 

Large-Small Registrants 20 430 

Medium-Small Registrants 9 60 

Small-Small Registrants 3 16 

a Estimates taken from the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993).

b

 Calculated by dividing the total number of active registrations (4,575) by the 

estimated number of registrants in each size category (146) and rounding the result up 

to the nearest integer (31.3 to 32).

As shown in Table A-3, by multiplying the number of active registrations per registrant by the 

number of registrants in each size category (see Table D-3), the total number of active 

registrations (15,438) and the percent of active registrations per size category can be calculated. 

This number is less than the actual number of active registrations (16,407) due to rounding in the 

per registrant size category. 
Page 166 

Table A-3. Estimated Number of Active Registrations per Registrant Size Category 

Size Category Estimated Number 

of Active 

Registrations per 

Registrant a

Number of 

Registrants in 

Size Category b

Number of 

Active 

Registrations per 

Size Category 

Percentage of 

Active 

Registrations per 

Size Category 

Large Registrants 32 146 4,672 30% 

Large-Small Registrants 20 166 3,320 22% 

Medium-Small Registrants 9 495 4,455 29% 

Small-Small Registrants 3 997 2,991 19% 

Total c (Registrants or Active 

Registrations) 

NA 1,804 15,438 100% 

a See Table A-2. 

b

 See Table D-3. 

c

 May not add due to rounding. The estimated 15,438 products are less than the estimated total number of 

registrations based on EPA data due to rounding in per registrant estimates. 

However, not all active registrations are subject to the residue removal standard. Only products 

that are subject to the full set of non-refillable container standards and that are flowable 

concentrate products in rigid containers are subject to the residue removal standard. The 

products that are subject to the full set of non-refillable container standards are those products 

that are not specifically exempt and that are: (1) classified in Toxicity Category I or II, and/or 

(2) are restricted use products (RUPs). Of the products that meet these criteria, only products 

that are formulated as flowable concentrates and that are packaged in rigid containers (i.e., not in 

bags) are subject to the residue removal standard. 

An analysis of total number of products formulated as flowable concentrates that are Toxicity 

Category I and II and RUPs provides an estimate of the number of active registrations that are 

subject to the residue removal standard. Based on an analysis of EPA product registration data 

on the number and type of registered products, an estimated 105 (rounded up to 110) active 

registrations (products) are subject to the residue removal standard (Table A-4). The analysis 

first identified from EPA product registration data the total number of registered Toxicity 

Category I, II, III, and IV products, restricted use products, and antimicrobial products (column 

one of Table A-4). The analysis then estimated the percentage of these products that are subject 

to the residue removal standard (column two of Table A-4) by selecting from the EPA product 

registration data only those products formulated as flowable concentrates (346) and studying 

their labels to determine which of these products are Toxicity Category I and II and RUPs. 

Based on this analysis, an estimated 3 percent of Toxicity Category I, 3 percent of Toxicity 

Category II, and 6 percent of RUPs in Toxicity Category III/IV are subject to the residue 

removal standard (Table A-4). None of the identified flowable concentrate products are 

antimicrobial products. 
Page 167 

Table A-4. Estimated Number of Active Products Subject to the 

Residue Removal Standard 

Product Category 

Number of 

Products in 

Category a

Percentage of Products 

Subject to Residue 

Removal Standard b

Number of Products 

Subject to Residue 

Removal Standard c

Toxicity Category I (non-antimicrobial) 1,434 3% 43 

Toxicity Category II (non-antimicrobial) 1,585 3% 48 

Restricted Use Product in Toxicity 

Category III/IV (non-antimicrobial) 

225 6% 14 

Antimicrobial Products that are subject to 

non-refillable container standards d

1,350 0% 0 

Total 4,594 NA 105 e

a Based on information from EPA pesticide product databases. 

b

 Information on the percentage of active products subject to the residue removal standard was estimated by 

identifying all active flowable concentrate registrations and studying their labels to determine which products are 

Toxicity Category I and II and/or RUPs. This column represents the estimated percentage of the registered products 

that are Toxicity Category I and II and RUP flowable concentrates in rigid containers. c The number of products subject to the residue removal standard is calculated by multiplying the number of 

products in each category by the corresponding percentage of the sample subject to the residue removal standard. 

d

 None of the 346 active registered flowable concentrate products are antimicrobial products. 

e The number of products subject to the residue removal standard is rounded to 110 products in the analysis. 

Based on this information, Table A-3 can be amended to include the estimated number of active 

registrations (formulations) subject to the residue removal standard per registrant (Table A-5). 

This information is calculated by distributing the estimated 110 products subject to the residue 

removal standard among the four registrant size categories according to the same percentages as 

in Table A-3, and dividing the resulting value by the number of registrants in that size category. 

The result is a significant reduction in the number of active registrations subject to the residue 

removal standard. For example, for the average large registrant, the estimated number of active 

registrations subject to the residue removal standard drops from 32 to 0.23 (rounded up to 0.25) 

when considering only those products specifically subject to the residue removal standard. This 

value suggests that not every large registrant has an existing registration that will be subject to 

the residue removal standard. However, on average, across all registrants, each registrant has 

one-quarter of an existing registration subject to the residue removal standard. Table A-6 

provides a comparison of the different estimates of the number of active registrations, 

considering all active registrations (column three of Table A-6), and considering only active 

registrations subject to the residue removal standard (column two of Table A-6). 
Page 168 

Table A-5. Estimated Number of Active Products Subject to the Residue Removal 

Standard by Registrant Size Category 

Size Category 

Percentage of 

Active 

Registrations per 

Size Category a

Number of Active 

Registrations Subject 

to Residue Removal 

Standard per Size 

Category b

Number of 

Registrants in 

Size Category c

Number of Active 

Registrations 

Subject to Residue 

Removal Standard 

per Average 

Registrant d

Large Registrants 30% 33 146 0.23 

Large-Small Registrants 22% 24 166 0.14 

Medium-Small Registrants 29% 32 495 0.06 

Small-Small Registrants 19% 21 997 0.02 

Total (Registrants or 

Active Registrations) 

NA 110 1,804 NA 

a

 See Table A-3. 

b

 Equal to the percent of active registration per size category times the total number of active registrations (110). 

This analysis assumes that the number of active registrations subject to the residue removal standard is distributed 

by registrant size category in the same proportion as all active registrations. c

 See Table D-3. 

d

 Equal to the number of active registration subject to the residue removal standard divided by the number of 

registrants in each size category. 

Table A-6. Comparison of the Estimated Number of Active Registrations (Formulations) 

per Average Registrant by Size Category 

Size Category 

Estimated Number of 

Active Registrations 

(Formulations) 

Subject to the Residue 

Removal Standard 

per Registrant a

Estimated Number of 

Active Registrations 

(Formulations) per 

Registrant c

Large Registrants 0.25 32 

Large-Small Registrants 0.20 20 

Medium-Small Registrants 0.10 9 

Small-Small Registrants 0.05 3 

Total Registrants NA NA 

The proposed container rule RIA assumed that the number of new formulations per registrant per 

year that require testing was two for all entity sizes except small-small registrants, for which the 

RIA assumed one new formulation that requires testing each year. No new data are available 

with which to update the assumption about the number of new products per year. However, 

since there are so few existing registrations that are subject to the residue removal standard, this 

assumption must be adjusted to reflect the changes in the scope of the requirements from the 

proposed to the final rule. In the absence of data, the final rule EA makes the assumption that 

the number of new formulations subject to the residue removal standard per registrant per year is 

the same as the number of existing formulations subject to the residue removal standard per 

registrant. That is, for the final rule, it is assumed that there are 0.25 new formulations per 

registrant per year that require testing (or one every 4 years) for the large registrants; 0.20 new 

formulations per registrant per year that require testing (or one every 5 years) for the large-small 
Page 169 

registrants; 0.10 new formulations per registrant per year that require testing (or one every 10 

years) for medium-small registrants; and 0.05 new formulations per registrant per year that 

require testing (or one every 20 years) for the small-small registrants (Table A-7). 

Table A-7. Non-Refillable Container Residue Removal Compliance Cost Inputs 

and Assumptions 

Establishment Type 

Testing 

Cost 

(2005$)a

Container 

Types per 

Formulation a

Existing 

Formulations b

New 

Formulations b

Percent 

Retested c“Me-Too” 

Scenario d

Large-Small Establishments 

Agriculture $3,425 3 0.2 0.2 30% 75%

I/C/G $3,425 3 0.2 0.2 30% 75%

Home & Garden $3,425 3 0.2 0.2 30% 75%

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agriculture $3,425 3 0.1 0.1 30% 75%

I/C/G $3,425 3 0.1 0.1 30% 75%

Home & Garden $3,425 3 0.1 0.1 30% 75%

Small-Small Establishments 

Agriculture $3,425 3 0.05 0.05 30% 75%

I/C/G $3,425 3 0.05 0.05 30% 75%

Home & Garden $3,425 3 0.05 0.05 30% 75%

Large Establishments 

Agriculture $3,425 3 0.25 0.25 30% 75%

I/C/G $3,425 3 0.25 0.25 30% 75%

Home & Garden $3,425 3 0.25 0.25 30% 75% a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993: pg. IX-13). 

Costs were updated to 2005 dollars, and other assumptions were revised based on new data and discussions with 

industry experts. 

b

 Revised number of existing formulations per establishment based on analysis of the PPIS active registration 

database. The same value is estimated for new formulations. 

c

 The percent retested is based on residue removal testing studies of different container/formulation 

combinations. The retesting value is equal to the difference between the number of flowable concentrate 

container/formulation types failing the four-9s and five-9s standard. 

d

 The “Me-Too” Scenario refers to the percentage of formulations that will be tested—i.e., 25 percent of the 

container/formulation combinations are assumed not to be tested as a result of using test data from different 

container/formulation combinations that passed the protocol to demonstrate that these container/formulation 

combinations pass as well. 

Not all container/formulation combinations subject to the residue removal standard will be 

tested, however. In the proposed container rule RIA, EPA made this assumption because test 

data conforming to the residue removal protocol on a different non-refillable 

container/formulation combination may be used to demonstrate that a non-refillable container 

meets the residue removal standard. This is referred to as the “me-too” scenario. Because EPA 

did not know the extent to which “me-toos” applied, they assumed a lower range of 50 percent of 

all container/formulation combinations will be tested and an upper range of 100 percent of all 

such combinations will be tested. For this analysis, the midpoint of the range, 75 percent, is used 

since the extent to which “me-toos” will apply is not known. 
Page 170 

It is also assumed that a certain number of container/formulation combinations will fail the initial 

residue removal test, requiring a second test using a container carefully selected from the open 

market and expected to rinse more readily. Based on a study conducted for EPA, EPA assumed 

in the proposed container rule RIA that 13 percent of small, medium, and large agricultural 

containers and 3 percent of small and medium industrial/commercial/government containers 

would not pass a triple-rinse test where 99.999 percent (five-9s standard) of a given formulation 

would be removed after rinsing (EPA, 1992b). The proposed rule requires containers to pass 

only a four-9s standard (99.99 percent removed after rinsing). The preamble to the final rule 

summarizes the residue removal data from tests conducted using a standard testing procedure to 

test currently used formulations and container designs. The data show that all 26 of the flowable 

concentrate container formulations tested met the four-9s standard. However, 7 of the 26 

container/formulation combinations tested (or 27 percent) failed to meet the five-9s standard. 

Because of the relatively large difference between the number of tests that meet the four-9s and 

the five-9s standards, we assume the difference (30 percent, rounded up from the 27 percent 

failure rate in the study) as the failure rate in the EA. In other words, the EA for the final rule 

assumes a 30 percent retesting rate due to failure in the first test for all registrant company sizes 

and market segments. It is assumed that all container/formulation combinations pass the retest. 

Table A-7 displays the unit cost inputs and associated assumptions that comprise the residue 

removal standard compliance costs in this analysis. Table A-8 presents the compliance and 

annual costs associated with the residue removal standard. The costs associated with the testing 

of existing container/formulation combinations are considered to be compliance period costs 

incurred at the end of the third year (at the end of the compliance period for non-refillable 

containers), and the annual testing of new container/formulation combinations are annual costs 

incurred in each year after the end of the compliance period (years 4 through 20). 

To demonstrate how costs in Table A-8 are calculated from the information in Table A-7, the 

cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural establishments are used. Initial testing costs 

of the existing formulations, and incurred in the compliance period, are calculated by multiplying 

the number of container types per formulation (3) by the number of existing formulations (0.2). 

Multiplying the number of existing formulation/container combinations (0.6) by the testing cost 

($3,425), and adjusting that result by the “me-too” adjustment factor (75 percent of 

container/formulation combinations tested), yields an initial testing cost of $1,541. The retesting 

cost for existing container/formulation combinations are calculated by multiplying those 

combinations (0.6) by the percent retested factor (30 percent). This result (0.18) is then 

multiplied by the testing cost ($3,425). The resulting retest cost incurred by large-small 

agricultural establishments in the compliance period is $617. The same calculations apply for 

the initial testing and retesting costs for new container/formulation combinations (annual costs). 
Page 171 

Table A-8. Non-Refillable Container Residue Removal Compliance Costs (2005$) 

Establishment Type 

Initial Test Cost - 

Existing 

(Compliance)a

Initial Test 

Const - 

New (Annual)a

Re-test Cost - 

Existing 

(Compliance)b

Re-test Cost - 

New 

(Annual)b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agriculture $1,541 $1,541 $617 $617 

I/C/G $1,541 $1,541 $617 $617 

Home & Garden $1,541 $1,541 $617 $617 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agriculture $771 $771 $308 $308 

I/C/G $771 $771 $308 $308 

Home & Garden $771 $771 $308 $308 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agriculture $385 $385 $154 $154 

I/C/G $385 $385 $154 $154 

Home & Garden $385 $385 $154 $154 

Large Establishments 

Agriculture $1,927 $1,927 $771 $771 

I/C/G $1,927 $1,927 $771 $771 

Home & Garden $1,927 $1,927 $771 $771 

a

 Initial test costs are calculated as follows: (Testing Cost) * (# Containers/Formulation) * (# of 

Formulations [Existing or New]) * (% “Me-Toos”). 

b

 Retest costs are calculated as follows: (Testing Cost) * (# Containers/Formulation) * (# of 

Formulations [Existing or New]) * (% Retested). 

A.1.2 Administrative Requirements - Recordkeeping 

For each pesticide product that a registrant handles, the container standards require the registrant 

to generate and maintain a number of records (listed in §165.86 of the container regulations) for 

as long as a particular non-refillable container design type is used to distribute or sell the 

pesticide product and for 3 years thereafter. Therefore, the costs associated with this 

recordkeeping are attributed to the administrative labor costs and the capital cost of acquiring a 

file cabinet to store the records. File cabinet costs are based on the average price of a fourdrawer legal file cabinet surveyed across a number of office supply stores ($229.65). The labor 

time assumptions are based on estimates used by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA. Since 

no new data are available to update these recordkeeping labor time estimates, they are left in 

place. It is assumed that these data are reasonable, however, based on the anticipated amount of 

recordkeeping required by the container regulations. 

Table A-9 displays the cost inputs and assumptions that comprise the labor-related recordkeeping 

costs. Hours represent the total amount of time it takes to fulfill the recordkeeping requirements. 

For existing container/formulation combinations, the labor time is spent at the end of the 

compliance period (3 years for non-refillable container requirements). For new 

container/formulation combinations, the labor time is spent in each year (years 4 through 20) 

after the end of the compliance period. Note that the labor time assumptions change between 

establishment size categories, since the number of formulations handled by each establishment 

depends on the size of that establishment (see Table A-6 for the number of formulations by 

establishment type). The more container/formulation combinations, the longer it takes to 
Page 172 

complete the recordkeeping requirements. It is also assumed that administrative personnel will 

fill out the required paperwork. Therefore, the administrative cost of labor is applied in this 

analysis. 

Table A-10 presents the capital, compliance, and annual costs for the residue removal standard. 

The cost associated with the acquisition of a file cabinet ($229.65) is considered a capital cost 

that establishments incur at the end of the 3-year compliance period for the non-refillable 

container regulations. Generating the paperwork necessary for existing container/formulation 

combinations is a compliance period cost also incurred at the end of the 3-year compliance 

period. The annual generation and maintenance of paperwork for new container/formulation 

combinations is an annual cost that establishments incur each year between years 4 through 20. 

To demonstrate how recordkeeping costs in Table A-10 are calculated from the information in 

Table A-9, the cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural establishments are used. 

Multiplying the administrative cost of labor ($29.13) by the number of hours assumed that it will 

take a large-small agricultural establishment to fulfill its recordkeeping requirements for existing 

container/formulation combinations (40 hours), the compliance period cost for the non-refillable 

container requirements is estimated to be $1,165.23 for large-small agricultural establishments. 

Using the same procedure to calculate recordkeeping costs for new container/formulation 

combinations, the administrative cost of labor ($29.13) is multiplied by the recordkeeping labor 

time for new container/formulation combinations (4 hours). It is estimated to cost large-small 

agricultural establishments $116.52 annually to fulfill the recordkeeping requirements for new 

container/formulation combinations. 
Page 173 

Table A-9. Non-Refillable Container Recordkeeping Cost Inputs and Assumptions 

Establishment Type

Recordkeeping Labor 

Time for all 

Cont./Form. Combs. -

Existing (hours)a

Recordkeeping Labor 

Time for all 

Cont./Form. Combs. - 

New (hours)a

Labor Cost/Hour -

Administrative (2005$)b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agriculture 40c 4 $29.13

I/C/G 40 4 $29.13

Home & Garden 40 4 $29.13

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agriculture 36 3 $29.13

I/C/G 36 3 $29.13

Home & Garden 36 3 $29.13

Small-Small Establishments 

Agriculture 24 2 $29.13

I/C/G 24 2 $29.13

Home & Garden 24 2 $29.13

Large Establishments 

Agriculture 40 4 $29.13

I/C/G 40 4 $29.13

Home & Garden 40 4 $29.13

a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pg. 

IX-13). 

b

 The occupational wage estimates are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational 

Employment statistics available on the BLS Web site, http://www.bls.gov/oes/2000, and updated 

from 2002$. 

c

 Hours represent the time it takes to generate and maintain the records associated with the nonrefillable container recordkeeping regulations in §165.86 of the FIFRA container regulations. 
Page 174 

Table A-10. Non-Refillable Container Recordkeeping Costs 

Establishment Type

File Cabinet Cost 

(Capital) a

Recordkeeping Cost - 

Existing (Compliance) b

Recordkeeping Cost - 

New (Annual) b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $1,165.23 $116.52 

I/C/G $229.65 $1,165.23 $116.52 

Home & Garden $229.65 $1,165.23 $116.52 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $1,048.71 $87.39 

I/C/G $229.65 $1,048.71 $87.39 

Home & Garden $229.65 $1,048.71 $87.39 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $699.14 $58.26 

I/C/G $229.65 $699.14 $58.26 

Home & Garden $229.65 $699.14 $58.26 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $1,165.23 $116.52 

I/C/G $229.65 $1,165.23 $116.52 

Home & Garden $229.65 $1,165.23 $116.52 

a

 File cabinet costs are based on the average price of a four-drawer legal file cabinet surveyed across a number of 

office supply stores. 

b

 Recordkeeping costs (compliance period or annual) are calculated as follows: Labor Time * Labor Cost. (See 

Table A-9.) 

A.2 Refillable Container Costs 

A.2.1 Administrative Requirements 

If a registrant distributes or sells a pesticide product in refillable containers (either directly or to a 

refiller for repackaging), the regulations require that the registrant create certain documents and 

maintain a number of records. These documents include, for each pesticide product, a 

description of acceptable containers and a written residue removal procedure. (See §§165.164 

and 165.190.) The registrant must maintain copies of the documents for the current operating 

year and 3 years after. (See §§165.176(a) and 165.194.) The registrant must also provide copies 

of the documents to independent refillers (§165.192). If the product will be repackaged by an 

independent refiller, the registrant must enter into a contract with the refiller and keep a copy of 

the contract (§§165.182 and 165.194). This kind of arrangement is currently standard operating 

practice because it is specified in EPA’s Bulk Pesticide Enforcement policy. Therefore, the costs 

associated with the contract are not included as part of this economic analysis. It is worth noting 

that the administrative requirements are actually located in the repackaging regulations, but are 

included in the refillable container part of the cost analysis because they are borne by refillers. 

The costs associated with the administrative requirements are attributed to administrative labor 

costs and the capital cost of acquiring a file cabinet to store the record.78 File cabinet costs are 

 

78 This file cabinet is separate from the one used to store records associated with the non-refillable container 

requirements. 
Page 175 

based on the average price of a four-drawer legal file cabinet surveyed across a number of office 

supply stores ($229.65). The labor time assumptions are based on estimates used by EPA in the 

proposed container rule RIA. Since no new data are available to update these recordkeeping 

labor time estimates, these values are left in place. 

Table A-11 displays the cost inputs and assumptions that comprise the labor-related 

administrative costs. Hours represent the total amount of time it takes to fulfill the refillable 

container administrative requirements. For existing container/formulation combinations, the 

labor time is spent at the end of the compliance period (5 years for refillable container and 

repackaging requirements). For new container/formulation combinations, the labor time is spent 

in each year (years 6 through 20) after the end of the compliance period. Note that the labor time 

assumptions change between establishment size categories, since the number of formulations 

handled by each establishment depends on the size of that establishment (see Table A-6 for the 

number of formulations by establishment type). The more refillable container/formulation 

combinations, the longer it takes to complete the administrative requirements. Since no new data 

are available to refute or validate these assumptions, they are left in place. It is also assumed that 

administrative personnel will fill out the required paperwork. The administrative cost of labor is, 

therefore, applied in this analysis. 

Table A-12 presents the capital, compliance, and annual costs for the residue removal standard. 

We consider the cost associated with the acquisition of a file cabinet ($229.65) a capital cost that 

establishments incur at the end of the five-year refillable container regulations compliance 

period. Generating the documents necessary for existing refillable container/formulation 

combinations is a compliance period cost also incurred at the end of the five-year compliance 

period. The annual generation and maintenance of paperwork is annual cost establishments incur 

each year between years six through 20. 

To demonstrate how administrative costs in Table A-12 are calculated from the information in 

Table A-11, the cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural establishments are used. 

Multiplying the cost of administrative labor ($29.13) by the number of hours it is assumed that it 

will take a large-small agricultural establishment to: (1) develop a description of acceptable 

refillable containers for use with each formulation (4 hours), and (2) revise or generate the 

written residue removal procedures for existing refillable containers (24 hours), it is estimated 

that the compliance period cost for the refillable container recordkeeping requirements will be 

$815.66 for large-small agricultural establishments. Using the same procedure to calculate 

recordkeeping costs for new refillable container/formulation combinations, the administrative 

cost of labor ($29.13) is multiplied by the equivalent recordkeeping labor time categories for 

new container/formulation combinations (1 hour + 2.4 hours). It is estimated that it costs largesmall agricultural establishments $99.04 annually to fulfill the recordkeeping requirements for 

new refillable container/formulation combinations. 
Page 176 

Table A-11. Refillable Container Administrative Cost Inputs and Assumptions 

Administrative Labor Time (hours) 

Establishment Type 

List of 

Acceptable 

Containers - 

Existing a

List of 

Acceptable 

Containers - 

New a

Written Res. 

Rem. Procedure - 

Existing a

Written Res. 

Rem. 

Procedure - 

New a

Labor Cost/hr – 

Administrative b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 4 1 24 2.4 $29.13 

I/C/G 4 1 24 2.4 $29.13 

Home & Garden 4 1 24 2.4 $29.13 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 3 0.5 16 1.5 $29.13 

I/C/G 3 0.5 16 1.5 $29.13 

Home & Garden 3 0.5 16 1.5 $29.13 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 2 0.5 8 1 $29.13 

I/C/G 2 0.5 8 1 $29.13 

Home & Garden 2 0.5 8 1 $29.13 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural 4 1 24 2.4 $29.13 

I/C/G 4 1 24 2.4 $29.13 

Home & Garden 4 1 24 2.4 $29.13 

a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pg. IX-13). 

b

 The occupational wage estimates are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment 

statistics (BLS, 2000). 
Page 177 

Table A-12. Refillable Container Administrative Costs (2005$) 

Establishment Type File Cabinet Cost (Capital) a

Recordkeeping Cost 

- Existing 

(Compliance) b

Recordkeeping Cost - New 

(Annual) b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $815.66 $99.04 

I/C/G $229.65 $815.66 $99.04 

Home & Garden $229.65 $815.66 $99.04 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $553.48 $58.26 

I/C/G $229.65 $553.48 $58.26 

Home & Garden $229.65 $553.48 $58.26 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $291.31 $43.70 

I/C/G $229.65 $291.31 $43.70 

Home & Garden $229.65 $291.31 $43.70 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $229.65 $815.66 $99.04 

I/C/G $229.65 $815.66 $99.04 

Home & Garden $229.65 $815.66 $99.04 

a

 File cabinet costs are based on the average price of a four-drawer legal file cabinet surveyed across a number of 

office supply stores. 

b

 Recordkeeping costs (compliance period or annual) are calculated as follows: Labor Time (Design Standard 

Documentation + List of Acceptable Containers + Written Residue Removal Procedure) * Labor Cost. 

A.2.2 Standard for Container Marking 

Section 165.116 of the container regulations states that each refillable container must be durably 

marked with a serial number or other identifying code that will distinguish the individual 

container from all other containers. It is assumed that ink is the preferred method of applying the 

serial number and that all registrants already have the equipment (for example, stencils or 

printers) to apply the ink. This assumption is based on information presented in EPA’s proposed 

container rule RIA. The RIA quoted a source (Bach, 1992) who stated that 

producers/formulators who package pesticides in refillable drums or barrels are already 

stenciling information on their containers before shipping and most, if not all, have stenciling 

equipment. It is assumed that this is still the case; most refillable containers in the current 

analysis are drum or barrel sized and larger. The container marking costs in this analysis, 

therefore, are the cost of acquiring the ink, the labor time it takes to apply the serial number to 

the container, and the number of containers that the serial number must be applied to. Because 

there is no new information to replace the assumptions used in the proposed container rule RIA, 

with the exception of the hourly wage of labor, all of the cost inputs and assumptions associated 

with this cost category are taken from the proposed container rule RIA. 

EPA’s contacts with industry experts and equipment and/or supply vendors determined that the 

cost of a gallon of ink was $34.25; one gallon of ink could mark 70,000 containers; it takes 
Page 178 

approximately five minutes to add a serial number to each refillable container; and that a plastic 

refillable container lasts 5 years while a steel refillable container lasts 15 years. These 

assumptions are used to determine the two types of costs associated with the marking of 

refillable containers: the cost associated with marking existing refillable containers and, because 

refillable containers wear out, the cost of marking new containers that will need a serial number 

application over the course of the container regulations. 

The costs associated with marking existing refillable containers are considered a compliance 

period cost, incurred by establishments at the end of the 5-year compliance period for the 

refillable container regulations. Though all plastic refillable containers, and one-third of steel 

refillable containers, will wear out and need replacement during the compliance period, it is 

assumed that the total inventory of refillable containers subject to the container marking 

regulations will not change by the end of the compliance period. By the end of the compliance 

period, therefore, all refillable containers will be subject to the container marking regulations and 

will need a serial number application. Though the marking of these existing containers will be 

phased in over the course of the 5-year compliance period, for consistency with other compliance 

period costs in the analysis, it is assumed that establishments incur the cost of marking existing 

refillable containers at the end of the compliance period in year 5. 

The cost of marking new containers that will replace existing containers as they wear out after 

the compliance period are considered annual costs that establishments will incur yearly (in years 

6 through 20). However, because only one-fifth of plastic containers and one-fifteenth of steel 

containers will require replacement each year, the annual unit marking costs are adjusted by the 

same factors. 

Table A-13 displays the cost inputs and assumptions that comprise the container marking unit 

costs. Table A-14 presents the compliance period and annual costs associated with marking 

individual containers. To demonstrate how container marking costs in Table A-14 are calculated 

from the information in Table A-13, the cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural 

establishments are used. The unit cost associated with the ink needed to mark each container is 

calculated by dividing the cost of a gallon of ink ($34.25) by the number of containers it is 

estimated to mark (70,000), resulting in a cost of $0.00049 per container. The labor cost 

associated with the physical act of marking the containers is calculated by multiplying the time it 

takes to mark the container (five minutes, or 8.33 percent of an hour) by the administrative rate 

of labor ($29.13/hour), which equals $2.43 per container. The full ink and labor unit costs are 

applied to the containers subject to marking at the end of the compliance period, one-fifth of 

these unit costs are applied to the annual cost of marking plastic refillable containers, and onefifteenth of these unit costs are applied to the annual cost of marking steel refillable containers. 

The annual cost per entity range from $1 for small-small agricultural establishments to $3,807 

for large agricultural establishments (see Table A-14). 
Page 179 

Table A-13. Refillable Container Marking Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$)

Establishment 

Type 

Ink 

($/gal.) a

# Containers 

Marked/gal. a

Stencil 

Time/ 

Container 

(hour) a

Labor Cost/hr - 

Administrative b

Refillable 

Container 

Lifespan - 

Plastic a

Refillable 

Container 

Lifespan - 

Steel a

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

I/C/G c $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Home & Garden $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

I/C/G c $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Home & Garden $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

I/C/G c $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Home & Garden $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

I/C/G c $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

Home & Garden $34.25 70,000 0.0833 $29.13 5 15 

a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pg. IX-13). 

b

 The occupational wage estimates are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment 

statistics (BLS, 2000). 

c

 Container marking is not required for refillable containers used for antimicrobials used in the swimming pool 

market, such as sodium hypochlorite. This adjustment is made to the number of refillable containers subject to the 

container marking regulations presented in the compliance profile and explained in Chapter 3 by considering the 

containers of swimming pool antimicrobials separately. 
Page 180 

Table A-14. Refillable Container Marking Costs (2005$)

Establishment Type

Unit Stencil 

Labor Cost - 

Plastic 

(Compliance/ 

Annual) a

Unit Stencil 

Labor Cost - 

Steel 

(Compliance/ 

Annual) a

Unit Ink Cost - 

Plastic 

(Compliance/ 

Annual) b

Unit Ink 

Cost – Steel 

(Compliance

/ Annual) b

Annual Cost 

per Entity d

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $27

I/C/G c $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $3

Home & Garden $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $0

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $5

I/C/G c $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $0

Home & Garden $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $0

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $1

I/C/G c $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $0

Home & Garden $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $0

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $3,807

I/C/G c $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $356

Home & Garden $2.43 $2.43 $0.00049 $0.00049 $0

a

 Unit labor costs (compliance period costs) associated with refillable container markings are calculated as follows: 

Labor Time to Mark Each Container * Labor Cost. To calculate the annual labor cost of marking refillable 

containers, we adjust the compliance period unit cost by a factor to account for the life span of each container: 

Labor Time to Mark Each Container * Labor Cost b

 Unit ink costs (compliance period costs) associated with 

refillable container markings are calculated as follows: Ink Cost per Gallon ÷ # of Containers Marked per Gallon. 

To calculate the annual ink cost of marking refillable containers, we adjust the compliance period unit cost by a 

factor to account for the life span of each container: (Ink Cost per Gallon ÷ # of Containers Marked per Gallon) 

c

 Container marking is not required for refillable containers used for certain antimicrobials, including refillable 

containers filled with sodium hypochlorite, a common antimicrobial used in the swimming pool industry. This 

adjustment is made to the number of refillable containers subject to the container marking regulations presented in 

the compliance profile and explained in Chapter 3. 

d Average annual container marking compliance cost per firm. Annual cost is calculated by calculating the sum of 

the present discounted value of costs incurred from years 5 to 20, and then annualizing it using a 3 percent 

discount rate. The details of the calculations are presented in Chapter 4 in sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. 
Page 181 

A.2.3 Standards for Openings 

The container regulations limit access to the interior of liquid minibulk containers by requiring 

that each opening of a liquid minibulk container other than a vent have a one-way valve, a 

tamper-evident device, or both. EPA believes that one-way valves and tamper-evident devices 

will give repackagers reasonable assurance of the previous contents of the containers. Most 

agricultural minibulks and small volume returnable containers supplied by or purchased from 

registrants are equipped with either a one-way valve or a tamper-evident device (EPA, 1992b) 

and are therefore expected to be in compliance in the baseline. Agricultural minibulks obtained 

on the open market, rather than from registrants, usually lack tamper-evident devices or one-way 

valves, so refillers must add them (or something similar). The standards for openings are not 

applicable to bulk tanks. 

The compliance rate for the standards for the openings for affected refillables is based on 

assumptions that EPA made for the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993)79. It is assumed 

that 65 percent minibulk containers are compliant in the agricultural market and 10 percent are 

compliant compliance for minibulk containers in the I/C/G market (assumes that tote bins are 

minibulks, but small volume returnables in the I/C/G market are not minibulks). 

Because the compliance period for this regulation is 5 years, many refillable containers will 

reach the end of their life span by the time the rule is implemented. It is assumed that these 

containers will be replaced by compliant containers that are available on the open market at no 

extra cost. Using the same refillable life span assumption that was used to estimate container 

marking costs, it is assumed that plastic refillable containers must be replaced every 5 years and 

steel refillable containers every 15 years. As a result, no plastic refillable containers will incur 

the cost of modifying their container openings for the express purpose of complying with the 

regulation. Further, assuming that containers, which meet Container Rule standards, are 

available on the market for no extra cost, there will be no compliance costs associated with 

plastic containers. 

Only one-third of existing steel refillable containers, however, will be replaced during the 

compliance period (5-year compliance period divided by the 15-year life span). To come into 

compliance with the regulation, two-thirds of existing steel refillable containers will need to add 

tamper-evident devices. It is assumed that all of these containers will require the tamper-evident 

modification. EPA estimated that the cost of such a modification, including labor and materials, 

was $109.60. Establishments incur this cost at the end of the 5-year compliance period for the 

refillable container regulations. 

Table A-15 presents the cost inputs and assumptions used to calculate the costs for this 

regulation. Table A-16 presents the one-time unit variable compliance cost of this regulation. 

To demonstrate how opening standard unit costs in Table A-16 are calculated from the 

information in Table A-15, the cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural establishments 

are used. There are no unit costs associated with the opening standards for plastic refillable 

containers because 100 percent of plastic refillable containers will be replaced by compliant 

 

79 Refer to the Proposed Container Rule RIA (EPA, 1993) Tables VII-8 and VII-9 and the table footnotes for 

information to substantiate the assumptions used in this analysis. 
Page 182 

containers during the compliance period (5-year compliance period/5-year plastic refillable 

lifespan = 100% plastic refillable compliance). There are unit costs associated with the opening 

standards for steel refillable containers, however. Only 33 percent of steel refillable containers 

will be replaced with compliant containers during the compliance period (5-year compliance 

period/15-year steel refillable lifespan = 33.33% steel refillable compliance). The unit cost of 

complying with the container opening standard for steel refillables is therefore calculated by 

multiplying the modification costs for existing containers ($109.60) by the percentage of steel 

refillable containers not in compliance with the opening standard (1 - 33.33% = 66.67%). The 

resultant unit cost is $73.07. To compute the cost of the opening standard to the average 

pesticide refiller in each size category and market sector, the average cost per steel container 

($73.07) is multiplied by the number of steel containers the average refiller is assumed to have 

for each market sector and size category. The average cost per entity ranges from $1 for smallsmall agricultural establishments to $4,084 for large agricultural establishments. The details of 

the calculations are presented in Chapter 4, sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. 
Page 183 

Table A-15. Cost Inputs and Assumptions for Refillable Container Openings (2005$) 

Establishment 

Type 

Compliance 

Period (yrs) 

Refillable 

Container 

Lifespan - 

Plastic a

Refillable 

Container 

Lifespan - 

Steel a

% of 

Containers 

Not Replaced 

During 

Compliance 

Period - 

Plastic b

% of 

Containers 

Not Replaced 

During 

Compliance 

Period 

- Steel b

Modification 

Costs for 

Existing 

Containers a

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

I/C/G c 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Home & Garden 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

I/C/G c 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Home & Garden 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

I/C/G c 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Home & Garden 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

I/C/G c 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

Home & Garden 5 5 15 0% 67% $109.60 

a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pg. IX-13). 

b

 Calculated by dividing the length of the compliance period (5 years) by the assumed lifespan of a refillable 

container (plastic – 5 years, steel – 15 years). c

 Container marking is not required for refillable containers used for certain antimicrobials, including refillable 

containers filled with sodium hypochlorite, a common antimicrobial used in the swimming pool industry. This 

adjustment is made to the number of refillable containers subject to the container marking regulations presented in 

Chapter 3. 
Page 184 

Table A-16. Refillable Container Openings Costs (2005$) 

Establishment Type

Opening Standard Unit 

Cost - Plastic 

(Compliance) a

Opening Standard 

Unit Cost - Steel 

(Compliance) b

Annual Cost per 

Entity d

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $0.00 $73.07 $29

Industrial/Commercial/Government c $0.00 $73.07 $3

Home & Garden $0.00 $73.07 $0

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $0.00 $73.07 $5

Industrial/Commercial/Government c $0.00 $73.07 $1

Home & Garden $0.00 $73.07 $0

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $0.00 $73.07 $1

Industrial/Commercial/Government c $0.00 $73.07 $0

Home & Garden $0.00 $73.07 $0

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $0.00 $73.07 $4,084

Industrial/Commercial/Government c $0.00 $73.07 $428

Home & Garden $0.00 $73.07 $0

a

 Because it is assumed that all plastic refillable containers will be replaced with compliant containers by the end 

of the 5-year compliance period at no extra cost, there are no compliance period unit costs associated with plastic 

refillable containers under this regulation. 

b

 The unit cost of modifying a refillable steel container’s opening is calculated as follows: Modification Cost * (1 - 

% of Containers Replaced During Compliance Period). c

 Container marking is not required for refillable containers used for certain antimicrobials, including refillable 

containers filled with sodium hypochlorite, a common antimicrobial used in the swimming pool industry. This 

adjustment is made to the number of refillable containers subject to the container marking regulations presented in 

the compliance profile and explained in Chapter 3. 

d Average annual container opening compliance cost per firm. Annual cost is calculated by calculating the sum of 

the present discounted value of costs incurred from years 5 to 20, and then annualizing it using a 3 percent 

discount rate. The details of the calculations are presented in Chapter 4 in sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. 

A.2.4 Bulk Container Standards 

The bulk container standards (§165.120) require that bulk containers at independent refillers’ 

establishments and their appurtenances be designed to resist extreme changes in temperature and 

be resistant to corrosion, puncture, or cracking, and that they also be capable of withstanding all 

operating stresses. It is assumed that the bulk containers currently used by refillers, and those 

that exist on the market today, comply with these basic design requirements. The bulk container 

standards also require that liquid bulk containers be equipped with a vent or other similar device, 

that external sight gauges be removed from bulk containers and replaced with another type of 

gauge, and that the containers be equipped with a shutoff valve that can be locked closed. 

After conversations with industry experts, EPA assumed in its proposed container rule RIA that 

all dry bulk containers satisfy the bulk container standards and 75 percent of agricultural liquid 
Page 185 

plastic bulk containers, 20 percent of agricultural liquid steel bulk containers and 5 percent of all 

liquid bulk containers in the I/C/G market are in compliance with the bulk container standards. 

For the current analysis, it is assumed that a float gauge will be chosen to comply with the bulk 

container regulations. EPA estimated that the cost of external sight gauge removal was $68.50 

per bulk tank and that the cost of float gauge installation was $787.25 (updated to 2005$). These 

costs are retained in this analysis. Table A-17 displays these one-time per-container compliance 

costs. It is assumed that establishments incur these costs at the end of the 5-year compliance 

period for refillable container regulations. The annual cost per entity ranges from $1 for the 

small-small agricultural establishment to $8,495 for the large I/C/G establishment. The annual 

cost are calculated as the sum of the present value of the costs incurred from year 5 to year 20 , 

annualized using a 3 percent discount rate. The details of the annualization method are presented 

in Chapter 4, sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. The analysis assumes that all new bulk containers 

purchased will be in compliance with the regulations. 

Table A-17. Bulk Container Standards Compliance Costs 

Establishment Type

Cost of External Sight 

Gauge Removal 

(Compliance) a

Cost of Float 

Gauge Installation 

(Compliance) a

Annual Cost per 

Entity b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $68.50 $787.25 $24

Industrial/Commercial/Government $68.50 $787.25 $61

Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $68.50 $787.25 $4

Industrial/Commercial/Government $68.50 $787.25 $11

Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $68.50 $787.25 $1

Industrial/Commercial/Government $68.50 $787.25 $2

Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $68.50 $787.25 $3,325

Industrial/Commercial/Government $68.50 $787.25 $8,495

Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A

a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pg. IX-13). 

b Average annual bulk container standards compliance cost per firm. Annual cost is calculated by calculating the 

sum of the present discounted value of costs incurred from years 5 to 20, and then annualizing it using a 3 percent 

discount rate. The details of the calculations are presented in Chapter 4 in sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. 

A.3 Refilling Compliance Costs 

The standards for establishments that repackage pesticide products into refillable containers 

(refillers) require that these entities inspect, clean, and record information about the refillable 

containers that they refill (§§165.160–165.176, and §§165.200–165.218). The cost to do this is 

primarily associated with the labor time it takes to conduct the inspections, cleaning, and 
Page 186 

recordkeeping. Total costs also include the fixed capital cost of acquiring a file cabinet to store 

the required paperwork, the costs of which are the same as file cabinets acquired to store records 

associated with both the refillable and non-refillable container requirements ($229.65). 

Using our best professional judgment, based on estimates made by EPA in the proposed 

container rule RIA as a baseline (EPA, 1993, pg. IX-13), we estimated the labor time associated 

with inspecting, cleaning, and recordkeeping of a refillable container each time it is refilled. We 

estimated that it takes one minute to inspect the refillable container, 10 minutes to clean it, and 

two minutes to conduct the recordkeeping.80 This is a reasonable assumption on the median time 

take given that small containers are likely to take about one minute for inspection majority of the 

containers are small. It is assumed that these are administrative tasks; therefore, the 

administrative rate of labor ($29.13/hour) is used to calculate costs. Unlike the majority of costs 

calculated in this analysis, the unit costs associated with the refilling regulations are calculated 

every time a container is refilled. The refilling rate assumptions, and associated discussion, are 

presented in Chapter 4. 

Table A-18 presents the labor time assumptions for each of the refilling requirements and the 

hourly wage of administrative labor. Table A-19 presents the fixed capital cost of acquiring the 

file cabinet and the unit variable costs of complying with the inspection, cleaning, and 

recordkeeping requirements. The cost of the file cabinet is a one-time compliance period cost 

that refilling establishments will incur at the end of the 5-year compliance period for refiller 

regulations. The unit costs of inspection, cleaning, and recordkeeping of the containers that 

refilling establishments refill are considered annual costs that are incurred in years 6 through 20. 

To demonstrate how refilling compliance costs in Table A-19 are calculated from the 

information in Table A-18, the cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural establishments 

are used. The unit cost associated with the inspection, cleaning, and recordkeeping of each 

container that is refilled is calculated based on the time it takes to complete each task (1, 10, and 

2 minutes per refill, respectively) multiplied by the administrative cost of labor ($29.13). The 

resulting unit (per refill) costs are therefore $0.49 for container inspection, $4.86 for container 

cleaning, and $0.97 for container recordkeeping. The annual cost per entity ranges from $14 for 

the small-small agricultural pesticide registrants to $10,000 for the large swimming pool 

companies. Annual cost is calculated by calculating the sum of the present discounted value of 

costs incurred from years 5 to 20, and then annualizing it using a 3 percent discount rate. The 

details of the annualization proceedure are presented in Chapter 4 in sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. 

 

80 The recordkeeping involves recording the container’s EPA registration number, amount of the pesticide product 

distributed or sold in the refillable container, the date of the repackaging, and the serial number of the refillable 

container. 
Page 187 

Table A-18. Refilling Requirement Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$) 

Establishment Type

Inspection Time per 

Container Refill 

(min) a

Cleaning Time per 

Container Refill 

(min) a

Recordkeeping 

Time per Container 

Refill (min) a

Labor Cost/hr - 

Administrative b

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Large-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Medium-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Small-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Large 1 10 2 $29.13 

Agricultural Pesticide Registrants 

Large-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Medium-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Small-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Large 1 10 2 $29.13 

Industrial/Commercial/Government - Pesticide Registrants 

Large-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Medium-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Small-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Large 1 10 2 $29.13 

Swimming Pool Supply Companies - Antimicrobial Applicators 

Large-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Medium-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Small-Small 1 10 2 $29.13 

Large 1 10 2 $29.13 

a

 Using our best professional judgment, based on estimates made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA as a 

baseline (EPA, 1993, pg. IX-13), we estimated the labor time associated with inspecting, cleaning, and 

recordkeeping of a refillable container each time it is refilled. 

b

 The occupational wage estimates are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment 

statistics (BLS, 2000). 
Page 188 

Table A-19. Refilling Requirement Costs (2005$)

Establishment Type

File Cabinet 

Cost 

(Compliance) a

Unit Variable 

Cost of 

Inspection (per 

refill) b

Unit Variable 

Cost of Cleaning 

(per refill) b

Unit Variable 

Cost of 

Recordkeeping 

(per refill) b

Annual Cost 

per Entity c

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

Large-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $871

Medium-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $267

Small-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $43

Large $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $7,255

Agricultural Pesticide Registrants 

Large-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $45

Medium-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $19

Small-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $14

Large $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $4,434

Industrial/Commercial/Government - Pesticide Registrants 

Large-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $40

Medium-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $18

Small-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $14

Large $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $3,828

Swimming Pool Supply Companies - Antimicrobial Applicators 

Large-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $34

Medium-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $23

Small-Small $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $15

Large $229.65 $0.49 $4.86 $0.97 $10,000

a

 File cabinet costs are based on the average price of a four-drawer legal file cabinet surveyed across a number of 

office supply stores. 

b

 The unit costs of complying with the refilling requirements are calculated as follows: Labor Time (per refill) * 

Labor Cost. 

c Average annual refilling requirement cost per firm. Annual cost is calculated by calculating the sum of the 

present discounted value of costs incurred from years 5 to 20, and then annualizing it using a 3 percent discount 

rate. The details of the calculations are presented in Chapter 4 in sections 4.5.6 through 4.5.8. 

A.4 Cost of Label Requirements 

The container regulations, in addition to all of the compliance requirements detailed above, will 

also modify the labeling requirements in 40 CFR Part 156 (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides 

and Devices) by adding Subpart H, entitled “Container Labeling,” and by modifying §156.10 

(Labeling Requirements). The new labeling regulations will require that specific statements be 

placed on the label or container of all pesticide products and will also provide detailed residue 

removal instructions on the labels of some products. However, the final regulations exempt 

household products from the residue removal instructions. 

The costs to comply with the labeling requirements are associated with the costs for a label 

change on virtually all formulated pesticide products, since much of the required information is 
Page 189 

not currently found on pesticide labels. Label changes must be made by the end of the 3-year 

compliance period for the labeling regulations. 

Labeling cost inputs are based on the assumptions made in the proposed container rule RIA. In 

that analysis, EPA received label change cost data from a number of independent small, medium, 

and large pesticide formulators. Averaging across the responses received, EPA estimated that 

the label change costs for small facilities were $1,918 per label change and $5,069 per label 

change for medium and large facilities (in 2005$). These costs represent the cost of the artwork 

or typesetting, two proof readings, and printing plates. The purchase of the labels themselves 

was considered an ordinary cost of doing business and was therefore not included in the label 

change costs. Also, the cost of disposing unused, non-compliant labels was not included in the 

label change costs because EPA assumed that each facility would be able to use up existing label 

inventory during the compliance period. Because there is no information to replace the 

assumptions used in the proposed container rule RIA, all of the cost inputs and assumptions 

associated with this cost category are taken from the proposed container rule RIA. 

In the proposed container rule RIA, EPA assumed that because many pesticide labels routinely 

undergo changes every 1 to 3 years, facilities will change 50 percent of all their labels during the 

compliance period.81 For labels that undergo a routine change, EPA assumed that the additional 

language required by the labeling regulations would be incorporated at the same time. The entire 

cost of the label change, therefore, was not associated with the labeling requirements. Instead, 

EPA assumed that only one-third of the cost of the artwork changes was attributed to the labeling 

requirements (the cost of adding text to an already planned label change). The remaining 50 

percent of the labels were assumed by EPA to require changing during the compliance period for 

one reason only: to come into compliance with the labeling requirements. Therefore, EPA 

attributed the full costs of changing the labels directly to the labeling requirements. 

There are two slight differences between the current analysis and the proposed container rule 

RIA. First, in the current analysis, the label change costs for small facilities from the proposed 

container rule RIA are transferred to the small-small facilities, and the label change costs for 

medium and large facilities are transferred to medium-small, large-small, and large 

establishments. Second, the compliance period for the final labeling requirements is 3 years as 

opposed to the 2-year compliance period assumed in the proposed container rule RIA. Though 

the compliance period is now longer, there is not sufficient information to alter the proposed 

rule’s assumption that 50 percent of all label changes that occur during the compliance period are 

routine (with only one-third of the total label change cost considered a cost of compliance), and 

that the other 50 percent are the result of the need to come into compliance with the regulation 

(with 100 percent of the total label change cost considered a cost of compliance). This 

assumption is therefore retained and applied to the current analysis. 

The number of label changes that establishments must make is based on the number of 

formulations they package. It is assumed, as in the proposed container rule RIA, that each 

formulation requires one label change. The number of existing formulations per facility is the 

same as that used throughout the current analysis (see Table A-2). Table A-20 displays the cost 

 

81 The proposed container rule RIA assumed a 2-year compliance period, though the proposed labeling requirements 

did not specify a definite compliance schedule or date. 
Page 190 

inputs and assumptions used to calculate the label change costs, and Table A-21 displays the 

total facility-level compliance cost. 

It is assumed that facilities incur the label change costs at the end of the compliance period for 

the 3-year labeling regulations. It is also assumed that once registrants make all of the labeling 

changes to existing labels by the end of the compliance period, establishments will incur no new 

labeling costs in the future; the artwork or typesetting and printing plates will have been 

modified to meet the labeling language requirements and will not need future modifications as a 

result of the labeling regulations. Also, facilities will be able to incorporate this labeling text into 

labels of new products at no additional cost. 

To demonstrate how certification costs in Table A-21 are calculated from the information in 

Table A-20, the cost inputs associated with large-small agricultural establishments are used. The 

facility-level cost associated with routine label changes for existing formulations is calculated by 

multiplying the number of formulations (20) by the percentage of label changes considered 

routine (50 percent). The resulting number of existing formulations (10) is then multiplied by 

the cost of a routine label change ($479.50 per label change). Routine label changes therefore 

cost large-small agricultural establishments $4,795. The facility-level cost associated with 

necessary label changes for existing formulations is calculated similarly; the other half of 

existing formulations (10) is multiplied by the cost of a necessary label change ($5,069 per label 

change). Necessary label changes therefore cost large-small agricultural establishments $50,690. 
Page 191 

Table A-20. Labeling Requirement Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$) 

Establishment Type

Label Cost - Routine 

Change a

Label Cost - 

Necessary Change a

% of Label 

Changes 

Considered 

Routine a

Existing 

Formulations b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $479.50 $5,069 50% 20 

I/C/G $479.50 $5,069 50% 20 

Home & Garden $479.50 $5,069 50% 20 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $479.50 $5,069 50% 9 

I/C/G $479.50 $5,069 50% 9 

Home & Garden $479.50 $5,069 50% 9 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $205.50 $1,918 50% 3 

I/C/G $205.50 $1,918 50% 3 

Home & Garden $205.50 $1,918 50% 3 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $479.50 $5,069 50% 32 

I/C/G $479.50 $5,069 50% 32 

Home & Garden $479.50 $5,069 50% 32 

a

 Cost inputs based on assumptions made by EPA in the proposed container rule RIA (EPA, 1993, pp. X-1 through 

X-7). Only one-third of the total label change cost are considered routine cost of compliance. 

b

 Revised number of existing formulations per establishment based on analysis of the PPIS active registration 

database. See Table A-2. 
Page 192 

Table A-21. Labeling Requirement Costs (2005$) 

Establishment Type

Total Cost - Routine Change 

(Compliance) a

Total Cost - Necessary Change 

(Compliance) b

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $4,795 $50,690 

I/C/G $4,795 $50,690 

Home & Garden $4,795 $50,690 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $2,175 $22,810.50 

I/C/G $2,175 $22,810.50 

Home & Garden $2,175 $22,810.50 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural $308.25 $2,877 

I/C/G $308.25 $2,877 

Home & Garden $308.25 $2,877 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural $7,672 $81,104 

I/C/G $7,672 $81,104 

Home & Garden $7,672 $81,104 

a

 Facility-level routine labeling costs are calculated as follows: # of Existing Formulations * % of Label Changes 

Considered Routine * Routine Label Change Cost. 

b

 Facility-level necessary labeling costs are calculated as follows: # of Existing Formulations * % of Label 

Changes Considered Necessary * Necessary Label Change Cost. 

A.5 Waiver Costs 

In addition to the costs associated with the container and labeling regulations, there are costs 

associated with the waiver applications that registrants may choose to submit to be exempted 

from particular regulations. For facilities that do submit a waiver, EPA assumed in the proposed 

container rule RIA that it took a facility manager 4 hours to complete the waiver. We assume 

this is a reasonable amount of time to compose and submit a waiver for one or all regulations 

eligible for exemption. This labor time multiplied by the assumed hourly wage of professional 

labor equaled the facility-level cost of completing a waiver. EPA assumed in the proposed 

container rule that this cost was the same across all market sectors and facility sizes. These 

assumptions are retained in the current analysis, using the updated professional labor wage of 

$90.42/hour. The total cost facilities incur when applying for a waiver is therefore labor time 

(4 hours) multiplied by labor cost ($90.42/hour), which equals $361.69. It is assumed that 

facilities will apply for waivers, and therefore incur waiver costs, in the first year that the 

container rules are promulgated. 
Page 193 

Appendix B. Compliance Profile Estimation Details 

B.1 Assumptions and Procedure for Converting Pesticide Volume and Weight into 

Number of Refillable Containers in Use 

The number of refillable containers in the agricultural market is calculated by converting the 

formulated volume (in gallons) and formulated weight (in pounds) of pesticides reported in the 

1996 American Crop Protection Association (ACPA) Container Survey (ACPA, 1997) into the 

number of refillable containers in use. We assumed the following in order to convert pesticide 

volume and weight used into the estimated number of refillable containers in use for the 

agricultural market: 

Assumed representative non-bulk container sizes per category (Paulson, 2002): 

Liquid refillables 

• 5–25 gallon plastic/steel: 15 gal; 

• 26–60 gallon plastic/steel: 45 gal, based on average between common sizes of 30 and 60 

gallons; 

• 61–125 gallon plastic/steel: 85 gal, based on mid-point across range of sizes between 60 and 

110 gallons; 

• 126–250 gallon plastic: 180 gal, based on mid-point across range of sizes between 140 and 

220 gallons; and 

• 126–250 gallon steel: 225 gal, based on average between common sizes of 200 and 250 

gallons. 

Dry refillables 

• <100 pound non-bulks: 75 lbs, based on mid-point across range of sizes between 50 and 100 

pounds; and 

• 101–2,500 pound non-bulks: 1,100 lbs, based on mid-point across common range of sizes 

between 1,000 and 1,200 pounds. 

Assumed refill rates (Paulson, 2002): 

• Small and large liquid refillables are estimated to be refilled on average 2–2.5 and 1.5–2 

times annually, respectively. As a result, the refill rate for 5–25 gallon containers was 2.25 

times annually and for 26–250 gallon container sizes was 1.75 times annually. 

• Dry non-bulk refillables are estimated to be refilled on average 1.5–2 times annually, with 

1.75 used in the analysis. 

• Bulk liquid and dry containers are assumed to be refilled on average 1–1.5 times annually, 

with 1.25 used in the analysis. 

These estimates include the assumption that not all containers are refilled to capacity. 

Assumed representative bulk container sizes (Paulson, 2002): 

• Liquid: 2,500 gallons; and 

• Dry: 2,501 pounds. 
Page 194 

We used the following procedure to estimate the number of agricultural refillable containers in 

use: 

(7) Estimate the number of new, non-bulk containers: Divide the formulated amount in use 

based on the 1996 ACPA Container Survey by the assumed average non-bulk container size 

for that category and round the estimate to the nearest hundred. For example, there are an 

estimated 34,700 new “5–25 gallon plastic” refillables in existence based on a formulated 

volume of 519,842 gallons divided by the representative container size of 15 gallons (34,656 

rounded to 34,700). New refillables are assumed to be filled initially by a pesticide registrant 

at the manufacturing or formulating facility.

(8) Estimate the number of existing non-bulk containers: Refillables repackaged with 

pesticide product are assumed to be refilled primarily by agricultural pesticide refillers. 

Pesticide product refilled into existing refillables is assumed to pass through the bulk 

containers considered in the 1996 ACPA Container Survey. Therefore, the ratio of 

formulated volume (or weight) for a given container size category versus the total non-bulk 

container formulated volume (or weight) was multiplied by the total liquid (or dry) 

formulated volume (or weight) in use and divided by the representative container size times 

the annual refill rate. For example, we estimated there are 93,200 existing “5–25 gallon 

plastic” refillables in use based on the following equation: 

(519,842/7,589,197)*45,923,755/(15*2.25) 

(total volume in 5-25 gallon plastic category/total non-bulk volume) * 

total liquid volume in use/(representative container size*refill rate) 

(9) Sum the new and existing refillables for each size category: For example, the total 

number of “5–25 gallon plastic” refillables in use was estimated to be 127,900 (34,700 new 

plus 93,200 existing containers).

(10) Estimate the number of bulk containers: There does not appear to be an observable 

increasing or decreasing trend in the formulated volume and weight of annual pesticide use 

over the 1989 through 1996 ACPA Container Survey period. Therefore, no net change in the 

number of bulk containers is assumed to have occurred since the 1996 survey.

The 1996 ACPA Container Survey bulk container formulated amount represents the amount 

of pesticides distributed from pesticide manufacturers and formulators to retailers through 

stationary bulk containers in 1996.82 The method in which the pesticide is transported from 

the manufacturer or formulator to the retailer (i.e., via tank car or tanker truck) is not 

important to the analysis. The number of containers taken out of circulation annually is 

unknown. Based on this information, we divided the 1996 bulk container formulated amount 

by the representative bulk container size (2,500 gallons or 2,501 pounds) multiplied by the 

 

82 The 1996 APCA Container Survey defined bulk containers as containers larger than 250 gallons. 
Page 195 

refill rate mid-point estimate (1.25 times annually). As a result, the total estimated number of 

liquid and dry bulk containers in use was 14,700 and 5,600, respectively. 

The estimated numbers of liquid (>500 gallons) and dry (>4,000 pounds) retail bulk tanks (as 

defined in this economic analysis) are 13,400 (12,060 plastic and 1,340 steel) and 175, 

respectively. These estimates were considered reasonable by EPA and Don Paulson (2002) 

and are consistent with the estimates used for the economic analysis of the containment 

rule.83 Of the remaining 1,300 liquid minibulk tanks (251-500 gallons), we assume that 90 

percent (or 1,170) are plastic and 10 percent (or 130) are steel. There are 5,425 dry minibulk 

containers assumed in the analysis (5,600 - 175). 

B.2 Number of Refillables in Use by the Pool Industry: A Separate Discussion and 

Consideration 

Sodium hypochlorite is an antimicrobial that is exempt from certain container requirements (see 

Chapter 3). Public commenters on the 1994 proposed container rule (EPA,1994) and 1999 

Supplemental Notice (EPA, 1999), including pool supply companies, industry associations, and 

an antimicrobial manufacturer, specifically addressed the impact that the container regulations 

would have on refillable containers currently used to distribute sodium hypochlorite for 

swimming pool/spa use. It is assumed that the estimated number of refillable containers in use in 

the industrial/commercial/government (I/C/G) and home and garden (H&G) markets does not 

include the refillables used in the swimming pool industry. This assumption is based on the 

comments received and EPA’s understanding of the source data used to derive container 

estimates for the proposed container rule RIA and subsequent updates to the estimates for this 

analysis. 

Currently, based on comments to the 1999 Supplemental Notice submitted by relevant trade 

associations (i.e., the Chlorine Institute, National Spa and Pool Institute, and Swimming Pool 

Chemical Manufacturers Association), we estimate that more than 38 million gallons of sodium 

hypochlorite are estimated to be distributed each year in refillable containers ranging in size from 

jugs (1 and 2.5 gallons) to drums (30 and 55 gallons) to minibulks (220 and 330 gallons). The 

comments also suggest that the average number of refillings and is eight. A smaller refilling rate 

of four was assumed for larger containers. This refilling rate was used with the data on volume 

from the comments (38 million gallons of sodium hypochlorite in use for pools in spas annually) 

to arrive at the total number of containers.

 

83 A separate economic analysis is written for the requirements for bulk containment structures. The containment 

regulations apply only to stationary bulk containers at retail facilities, custom applicators, and custom blenders, 

while the bulk container standards apply only to bulk containers at independent refillers. 
Page 196 

Appendix C. Regulation-Specific Cost Schedules

Table C-1. Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with the Residue Removal Standards for Non-Refilla

Under the Current Rule b 

Establishment Year c

 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 I/C/G $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 Home & Garden $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 I/C/G $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 Home & Garden $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 I/C/G $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 Home & Garden $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 Large Establishments Agricultural $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 I/C/G $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 Home & Garden $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 
Page 197 

Table C-1 (Continued). Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with the Residue Removal Standards for 

Containers Under the Current Rule b

Establishment Year 

 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 I/C/G $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 Home & Garden $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 $2,158 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 I/C/G $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 Home & Garden $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 $1,079 Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 I/C/G $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 Home & Garden $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 $539 Large Establishments Agricultural $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 I/C/G $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 Home & Garden $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 $2,697 a Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. b Compliance with the Residue Removal Standards involves only fixed costs. c The compliance period for non-refillables is 3 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the end of the third y
Page 198 

Table C-2. Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with Recordkeeping Requirements for Non-Refillable Co

Container Rule b 

Establishment Year c

 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $1,165 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 I/C/G $1,165 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 Home & Garden $1,165 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $1,049 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 I/C/G $1,049 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 Home & Garden $1,049 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $699 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 I/C/G $699 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 Home & Garden $699 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 Large Establishments Agricultural $1,165 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 I/C/G $1,165 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 Home & Garden $1,165 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 
Page 199 

Table C-2 (Continued). Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with Recordkeeping Requirements for Non-R

Under the Container Rule b

Establishment Year 

 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 I/C/G $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 Home & Garden $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 I/C/G $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 Home & Garden $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 I/C/G $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 Home & Garden $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 Large Establishments Agricultural $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 I/C/G $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 Home & Garden $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 a Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. b Compliance with the Other Administrative Requirements (recordkeeping) involves only fixed costs. c The compliance period for non-refillables is 3 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the end of the third y
Page 200 

Table C-3. Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with the Container Marking Standards for Refillable Co

Container Rule b 

Establishment Year c

 5 6 7 8 9 10 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $166 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 I/C/G $15 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $31 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 I/C/G $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $7 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 I/C/G $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large Establishments Agricultural $23,231 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 I/C/G $2,072 $356 $356 $356 $356 $356 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Page 201 

Table C-3 (Continued). Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with the Container Marking Standards for R

Under the Container Rule b

Year Establishment 

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 I/C/G $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NMedium-Small Establishments Agricultural $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NSmall-Small Establishments Agricultural $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NLarge Establishments Agricultural $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,I/C/G $356 $356 $356 $356 $356 $356 $356 $Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Na Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. b Compliance with the Container Marking Standards involves only variable costs. c The compliance period for refillables is 5 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the end of the fifth year. 
Page 202 

Table C-4. Undiscounted Costs a of Complying with the Standards of Openings (for Liquid-Minibulk Co

Refillable Containers Under the Container Rule b 

Establishment Year c

 5 6 7 8 9 10 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $519 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $54 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large Establishments Agricultural $72,555 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $7,605 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Page 203 

Table C-4 (Continued). Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with the Standards of Openings (for Liquid-M

Only) for Refillable Containers Under the Container Ruleb

Establishment Year 

11 12 13 14 15 16 

Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A aCosts are rounded to the nearest dollar. bCompliance with the Standards for Openings (for liquid minibulk containers only) involves only variable costs. cThe compliance period for refillables is 5 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the end of the fifth year. 

that compliant containers can be purchased at no extra cost at the end of the compliance period. 
Page 204 

Table C-5. Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with the Bulk Container Standards for Refillable 

Under the Container Ruleb 

Establishment Yearc

 5 6 7 8 9 10 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $423 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $1,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $43 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large Establishments Agricultural $59,063 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $150,914 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Page 205 

Table C-5 (Continued). Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with the Bulk Container Standards for Refi

Under the Container Ruleb

Establishment Year

 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Gardend N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A aCosts are rounded to the nearest dollar. bCompliance with the Bulk Container Standards involves only variable costs. cThe compliance period for refillables is 5 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the end of the fifth year. 

assumes that bulk containers purchased after the five-year compliance period will be in compliance at no extra cost. 

dCompliance costs for Home & Garden establishments are not applicable because the number of bulk containers in Home & Garden 
Page 206 

Table C-6. Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with Administrative Requirements for Refillable 

Under the Containment Ruleb 

Establishment Yearc

 5 6 7 8 9 10Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $1,133 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128I/C/G $1,133 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AMedium-Small Establishments Agricultural $841 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73I/C/G $841 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASmall-Small Establishments Agricultural $550 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58I/C/G $550 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ALarge Establishments Agricultural $1,133 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128I/C/G $1,133 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 207 

Table C-6 (Continued). Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with Administrative Requirements for Refillab

the Containment Ruleb

Establishment Year 

 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $12I/C/G $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $12Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $7I/C/G $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $7Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $5I/C/G $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 $5Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/Large Establishments Agricultural $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $12I/C/G $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $128 $12Home & Garden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/aCosts are rounded to the nearest dollar. bCompliance with the Other Administrative Requirements (preparing certain documents and recordkeeping) involves only 

fixed costs. 

cThe compliance period for refillables is 5 years. The analysis assumes that costs are incurred beginning at the end of the fifth year. 
Page 208 

Table C-7. Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with the Labeling Requirements for All Containers Under 

Establishment Yearc

 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $55,485 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $55,485 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $55,485 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $24,968 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $24,968 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $24,968 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $3,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $3,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $3,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Large Establishments Agricultural $88,776 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $88,776 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $88,776 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Page 209 

Table C-7 (Continued). Undiscounted Costsa of Complying with the Labeling Requirements for A

Under the Container Ruleb 

Establishment Year 

 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Small-Small Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Large Establishments Agricultural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I/C/G $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Home & Garden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 aCosts are rounded to the nearest dollar. bCompliance with the Labeling Requirements involves only fixed costs. cThe compliance period for non-refillables is 3 years. The analysis assumes that labeling costs are incurred beginning at the end of the 

analysis also assumes no costs after the compliance period because existing labels will be in compliance and new labeling text will be ithe labels of new products at no additional cost. 
Page 210 

Appendix D. Profile of Industries Regulated by the Pesticide Container 

Regulations 

This appendix provides descriptive and quantitative information about the three regulated entities 

estimated to be affected by the current container regulations: (1) registrants, (2) agricultural 

pesticide refillers, and (3) swimming pool supply companies. Relevant details on the economic 

and financial characteristics associated with all regulated entities are discussed. This information 

is necessary to assess the potential impacts of regulatory compliance costs associated with the 

container regulations. 

Two industry sectors considered in the 1999 Supplemental Notice were pesticide formulators and 

agrichemical dealers. These regulated entities correspond with pesticide registrants and 

agricultural pesticide refillers, respectively, in this analysis. 

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate which regulated entities are responsible for which pesticide 

container regulations, and provide a brief overview showing how each of the regulated entities 

identified and characterized in Chapter 3 will be affected by the container rule. 

Another purpose of this appendix is to identify the small entities that are potentially affected by 

the container regulations. A small entity is defined as: 

• A small business as defined in the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR §121.201—the SBA defines small businesses by category of business using North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes; 

• A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 

• Any small, not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

This economic analysis evaluates an alternative definition of small entities or businesses 

potentially affected by the container regulations. As discussed by EPA in the 1999 Supplemental 

Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment (EPA, 1999), the alternative 

definition disaggregates the SBA-defined small businesses into three size categories: small-small 

(SS), medium-small (MS), and large-small (LS) businesses. EPA is concerned that using an 

overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the container regulations 

may result in significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when 

combined with information about potential impacts on facilities that meet the SBA size standard 

for small business but are not typical of a small business in that industry sector. 
Page 211 

D.1 Pesticide Registrants 

According to §165.42, §165.92, and §165.142 of the container regulations, registrants that 

distribute or sell a pesticide product in non-refillable or refillable containers, and/or distribute or 

sell pesticide products to a refiller (that is not part of the same entity) for repackaging into 

refillable containers, constitute a business that must comply with the standards. Pesticide active 

ingredient (PAI) manufacturers may or may not be subject to the container regulations because 

§165.46, §165.96, and §165.146 of the container regulations indicate that the standards do not 

apply to manufacturing use products. However, many PAI manufacturers are vertically 

integrated to pesticide formulating facilities through direct ownership or wholesale distribution 

of PAIs to independent formulators. Also, registrants are responsible for complying with the 

label requirements in 40 CFR Part 156. 

Pesticide registrants are basically required to ensure that all non-refillable and refillable 

containers meet the container construction and design standards, develop and provide 

information to refillers, and ensure that labels include the specified information. Pesticide 

registrants are responsible for procedural and handling activities for approximately 10 percent of 

the refillables in the agricultural market (Paulson, 2002) and all of the refillables in the I/C/G 

market.84 Inadequate data are available to differentiate pesticide registrants that are or are not 

engaged directly in pesticide refilling activities. 

The total universe of affected pesticide registrants used in this analysis was derived based on the 

number of unique companies holding active Section 3 and/or Section 24(c) pesticide 

registrations. EPA queried the Pesticide Product Information System (PPIS) database in July 

2002 and determined that 1,956 companies with unique EPA company numbers held more than 

16,000 Section 3 and 24(c) pesticide registrations. The PPIS database contains information for 

all pesticide products registered in the United States, including registrant name and address, 

chemical ingredients, toxicity category, product names, distributor brand names, site/pest uses, 

pesticidal type, formulation code, and registration status. 

The registrant universe was reduced by consolidating companies that have recently merged and 

combining companies that are considered subsidiaries or part of a larger “parent” company. 

Companies were consolidated in four ways: 

• We matched unique companies with EPA company numbers to company information and 

financial data from the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) database. The D&B data included 

information on the company total number of employees; most recent sales and revenue 

information; and primary business classifications—NAICS code and Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) code where possible. In order to link registrants in the PPIS sample data 

set with the D&B database, we identified each company’s Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) number. The D&B DUNS number is a unique identifier for a single business entity, 

which also links together the corporate family structure. Using the corresponding DUNS 

 

84 Don Paulson recently retired from Ciba/Novartis and currently is a consultant to Syngenta and CropLife America, 

formerly the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA). Mr. Paulson was very active in the ACPA packaging 

task force in the 1990s and co-surveyed the number of agricultural pesticide containers for ACPA with Tom Gilding 

between 1989 and 1996. 
Page 212 

numbers, we “rolled up” or consolidated companies to the Global Ultimate DUNS number or 

“parent” level. 

• In some cases company information in D&B did not reflect recent mergers; therefore, we 

consolidated the registrant universe manually by adjusting for known company mergers. For 

example, Aventis CropScience was acquired by Bayer CropScience in June 2002. 

• We matched and consolidated company names for all EPA company numbers based on the 

likelihood that the company numbers actually reflect one company and/or based on EPA 

recommendations. 

As a result, the set of 1,956 unique company numbers in EPA’s PPIS database was reduced to 

1,804 unique companies. These 1,804 companies represent the pesticide registrant universe for 

this analysis. Table D-1 illustrates this process numerically. 

Table D-1. Estimated Number of Pesticide Registrants Affected by the 

Pesticide Container Regulations 

Pesticide Registrants 

Estimated Number of 

Entities 

Number of unique companies in EPA’s PPIS database 

holding Section 3 and/or Section 24(c) registration(s) 

1,956 a

Total number of duplicate companies 243 b

Consolidated number of duplicate companies 91 

Total 1,804

a

 As of July 2002. 

b

 Number of all companies with unique EPA company numbers that were consolidated based 

on the following criteria: (1) matching of EPA company numbers with Dun & Bradstreet 

DUNS and Global Ultimate DUNS numbers; (2) consolidation as a result of recent mergers 

and acquisitions; or (3) matching of company names associated with unique EPA company 

numbers. 

D.1.1 Pesticide Registrants’ NAICS Codes 

A company’s total employees and revenue information is required to break down the estimated 

total number of affected pesticide registrants into entity size categories according to SBA and 

EPA alternative definitions of company size specifications and to determine the impact of the 

container regulations on pesticide registrants. The company size specifications are based on the 

SBA definition for the primary NAICS code for pesticide registrants. 

To confirm the primary NAICS code designation for pesticide registrants, we counted the 

number of pesticide registrants associated with each NAICS codes, which were available from 

D&B for 804 (out of an estimated 1,804 total) pesticide registrants. The eight most common sixdigit NAICS codes designated in D&B for the set of registrants (399 out of 804) are presented in 

Table D-2. A total of 184 six-digit NAICS codes are associated with at least one of the 804 

registrants. 
Page 213 

Table D-2. Most Common NAICS Codes Associated with Sample of 804 Pesticide 

Registrants 

NAICS 

CODE 

Count of 

NAICS 

Code U.S. Industry Title SBA Threshold

325320 a 88 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing 

500 employees 

422690 84 1997 NAICS - Otr Chem & Allyd Prdct Whlslrs 100 employees 

422910 65 1997 NAICS - Farm Supplies Wholesalers 100 employees 

325612 62 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 500 employees 

325998 30 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and 

Preparation Manufacturing 

500 employees 

325188 27 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1,000 employees 

453998 22 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except 

Tobacco Stores) 

$6 million in revenue 

325412 21 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 750 employees 

a

 NAICS code 325320 was considered the primary NAICS code associated with pesticide registrants in the proposed 

container rule RIA (EPA, 1993). The 325- NAICS series is used to designate types of “Chemical Manufacturing” 

industries. 

D.1.2 Analysis of Large Pesticide Registrants 

Company information on some pesticide registrants is unknown or unavailable. However, D&B 

data are more likely to be available for large companies than for small companies, based on the 

way D&B collects company financial information and on the availability of the required data. 

To estimate the total number of large pesticide registrants, we assumed that D&B data are 

available for all large firms.85 A total of 146 companies were considered to be large based on the 

company’s defined NAICS code and associated SBA definitions. This estimate was derived by 

collecting information from the D&B database for companies at the parent company level as of 

November 2002. In some cases a company identified with a unique DUNS number is ultimately 

part of a larger “parent” company, a corporation that owns more than 50 percent of another 

company, at the Global Ultimate DUNS number level. We identified the parent company in 

D&B using the Global Ultimate DUNS number associated with each company listing. Global 

Ultimate DUNS numbers in the D&B database are the highest parent company level containing 

revenue and employee number information. 

Additionally, we made modifications to the large pesticide registrant universe based on 

knowledge of the industry. For example, at the time of analysis in fall 2002, D&B contained 

financial information for both Aventis and Bayer CropScience. Bayer CropScience recently 

acquired Aventis, and these companies are now consolidated. This and other modifications 

 

85 D&B data for certain large pesticide registrants may not be readily available, and all parent companies considered 

to be large may not have been identified. In addition, mergers and acquisitions may slightly reduce the number of 

large registrants considered in the analysis. Given this uncertainly, it is assumed that the estimated number of large 

pesticide registrants is reasonable. 
Page 214 

condensed the number of large pesticide registrants slightly. Table D-3 illustrates the results of 

the large pesticide registrant economic profile. The average revenue for a large pesticide 

registrant is estimated to be $6,882 million with an average number of employees of 

approximately 19,300. 

D.1.3 Analysis of Small Pesticide Registrants 

We generated a random sample of firms from the PPIS database to determine the breakdown of 

the remaining 1,658 firms, which are SBA-defined small firms. A randomly selected set of 

1,000 unique companies identified in PPIS as holding one or more Section 3 registrations was 

used for determining the number and financial characteristics of small pesticide registrant 

entities. Because PPIS data do not contain information on the financial aspects of the registrants, 

we matched the 1,000 randomly selected firms with company information and financial data 

from D&B. 

We identified DUNS numbers for 853 of the 1,000 firms in the PPIS sample data set using firm 

name, address, and primary line of business. The additional identifiers, beyond firm name, were 

necessary in many cases where D&B listed several companies with the same name. Of the 853 

registrants in the PPIS sample data set, only 615 companies had sufficient information on total 

revenue and number of employees to be included in this analysis. 

We queries the D&B database using the DUNS numbers of the 615 potentially affected entities 

to retrieve the ultimate parent company name (i.e., Global Ultimate DUNS number), annual 

sales, total employees, and primary NAICS code.86

Based on total employees and financial data from D&B, we determined the entity size and 

average sales revenue of pesticide registrants in the PPIS sample data set as illustrated in Table 

D-3. We identified a total of 568 unique parent companies, of which 449 or 79 percent were 

considered small businesses by SBA definitions. Of the SBA-defined small pesticide registrants, 

approximately 60 percent (270) were small-small, 30 percent (134) were medium-small, and 10 

percent (45) were large-small, based on EPA’s alternative small business definitions. 

 

86 All financial information in this industry profile is summarized at the global ultimate parent company level. The 

global ultimate parent is the highest-level firm within the company’s structure. For example, a major pesticide 

manufacturer may be headquartered in Chicago, but have facilities in Memphis and St. Louis. The company 

information from PPIS may list the Memphis or St. Louis facility locations, and/or the D&B database may include 

company financial information from facility level up to the global ultimate parent company level. D&B data may 

make it possible to determine that all three of these locations are owned by the same parent company. 
Page 215 

Table D-3. Economic Profile of Pesticide Registrants by Entity Size 

PPIS Registrant Data a Pes

Entity Size 

Category Definition 

Total 

Companies 

Percentage of 

Small 

Companies 

Total Revenue 

for All 

Companies 

(million) 

Average 

Revenue per 

Company 

(million) 

Average 

Number of 

Employees 

per Company Total Entities 

SBA-Defined Sizes Large 501 or more 

employees 

146 NA $1,075,106 $7,364 19,266 146 

Small 500 or fewer 

employees 

449 c NA $4,239 $9.44 39 1,658 

Total NA NA NA NA NA 1,804 d EPA Alternative Small Business Sizes eLarge-Small 100 to 500 

employees 

45 10.0% $2,370 $52.68 217 166 

Medium-Small 20 to 99 

employees 

134 29.8% $1,307 $9.76 44 495 

Small-Small 1 to 19 

employees 

270 60.1% $561 $2.08 8 997 

Total 449 NA $4,239 $9.44 39 1,658 

a Sufficient Dun & Bradstreet company information and financial data were assumed to be available for all SBA-defined large pesticide reg

1,804 unique pesticide registrants identified as having one or more Section 3 or Section 24(c) pesticide registrations. The total number of pthis criteria and were considered to be large companies was 146. For SBA-defined small businesses, a random sample of 1,000 unique pestdevelop the economic profile. A total of 565 unique parent companies were identified as having sufficient financial information at the Globlevel to be included in the analysis, of which 449 or 79 percent were considered small businesses by SBA definitions. 

b Calculated as the average revenue per company multiplied by the total number of entities for the respective size category.

c SBA-defined small businesses identified out of a random sample of 1,000 unique companies with one or more active Section 3 or Section 

d Number of all companies with unique EPA company numbers that were consolidated based on the following criteria: (1) matching of EPA 

DUNS and Global Ultimate DUNS numbers; (2) as a result of recent mergers and acquisitions; (3) matching of company names associated w

numbers; or (4) recommended by EPA to be consolidated based on nearly identical name matching and/or prior knowledge. 

e EPA discussed alternative definitions of small businesses for some industry sectors in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pest

Containment (EPA, 1999). EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of container r

significant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information about potential impacts on thossize standard for small business but are not typical of a small business in that industry sector. 
Page 216 

The relative percentages for the EPA alternative small business categories from the sample of 

449 small pesticide registrants with sufficient D&B data were applied to the total universe of 

1,658 small registrants from the PPIS database. As a result, the SBA-defined small pesticide 

registrant universe was estimated to include 997 small-small registrants, 495 medium-small 

registrants, and 166 large-small registrants, based on the EPA alternative small business 

definitions. 

The D&B data for the 449 unique small companies with sufficient financial data were used to 

determine size (by SBA definition) and to estimate average or typical annual revenue to generate 

the economic profile for potentially affected small pesticide registrant entity size categories 

(SBA-defined and EPA alternative definitions for small businesses). The data from the random 

sample of small pesticide registrants are summarized in Table D-3 and the economic profile is 

applied to the total universe of 1,658 small pesticide registrants. 

D.1.4 Container Profile for Registrants by Market Sector and Size Category 

The procedure for mapping pesticide containers and associated regulatory requirements to 

pesticide registrants is shown in Table D-4. To the extent that certain antimicrobials are exempt 

from consideration, the number of containers associated with each pesticide registrant size 

category and ultimately with individual representative entities will vary. The container profile is 

used to estimate the average number of containers for a given size category and type that can be 

associated with a given pesticide registrant size (by SBA large and small definitions and by EPA 

alternative definitions for small businesses) and market sector (agricultural, 

industrial/commercial/government, and home and garden). 

The procedure described in steps 3 and 4 of Table D-4 was duplicated for all non-refillable and 

refillable container types and sizes. In the pesticide container regulations cost analysis (Chapter 

4), the number of containers associated with each representative entity size category of pesticide 

registrants is used in combination with the regulation compliance rates (see Chapter 3) to derive 

costs of compliance and anticipated SBA small business impacts. 
Page 217 

Table D-4. Procedure Used to Establish Market-Specific Regulated Entities 

Step 1. Distribute the pesticide registrants across market sectors (agricultural, I/C/G, and H&G) based 

on volume of pesticides used by each sector according to the Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2000 and 

2001 Market Estimates (EPA, 2002b). 

Example: 2001 total pesticide use is as 

follows: 40% agricultural, 30% I/C/G, and 

30% H&G. Accordingly, the number of 

pesticide registrants by size and market sector 

is as follows: 

SS MS LS Large

Agricultural 399 198 66 58 

I/C/G 299 148 50 44 

H&G 299 148 50 44 

From EPA’s pesticide use and sales report, we know the 

amount of pesticide product used in each market sector. The 

total amount of pesticide product considered includes 

conventional pesticides, other pesticides, and an EPA estimate 

of 29.8 percent of the antimicrobial products (wood 

preservatives, chlorine/hypochlorites, and specialty biocides) 

subject to the container regulations. The total number of SS, 

MS, LS, and large pesticide registrant entities is distributed 

among market sectors, based on the relative amount of the 

assumed pesticide product subject to the container regulations 

used by each sector in 2001. Total 997 495 166 146 

Step 2. Derive total revenue by pesticide registrant size category and determine the revenue ratio for 

each pesticide registrant size category by market sector to the total revenue for that market sector. 

Sum the total revenue for SS, MS, LS, and large pesticide 

registrants based on PPIS sample data set analysis results for 

average revenue by pesticide registrant size category. 

Multiplying the average revenue by the total number of 

registrants in each category yields the total. 

Example: Total revenue for SS, MS, LS, and 

large firms in the PPIS sample data set were 

$2,070 million, $4,829 million, $8,753 

million, and $1,075,106 million, respectively. 

Total Revenue 

(million)

Revenue Ratio

SS $2,070 0.2% 

MS $4,829 0.4% 

LS $8,753 0.8% 

Large $1,075,106 98.6% 

Determine the revenue ratio for each pesticide registrant size 

category based on the total revenue per size category compared 

to the revenue for the total universe of registrants. The 

revenue ratios for the registrant size categories are applicable 

to each market sector. 

Total $1,090,757 100.0% 

Step 3. Distribute the containers that are affected by the container regulations in each size/type category 

into entity size categories for each market sector (agricultural, I/C/G, and H&G). 

Example: The 199,434 potentially affected 

30–55 gallon plastic non-refillable containers 

in the agricultural market sector are distributed 

as follows: 

SS MS LS Large

For each liquid and dry product pesticide container size 

category, apply the revenue ratio to allocate the containers to 

SS, MS, LS, and large entities for each market sector. Repeat 

example procedure to the right for every container category 

(size, type, material). 

Agricultural 378 883 1,600 197K 

Step 4. Determine the number of containers per representative pesticide registrant by entity size for each 

market sector. 

Example: Using the above example, the 

number of plastic 30-55 gal. containers for the 

Agricultural (market sector) firms is as 

follows: 

SS MS LS Large

Calculate the number of containers for an average (or 

representative) pesticide registrant for each size category in 

each market sector by dividing the number of each type of 

container in each market sector (step 3) by the number of 

companies in each market sector (step 1). Repeat example 

procedure to the right for every container category (size, type, 

material). Agricultural 1 4.5 24 3,389 

Numbers may not add due to rounding. 
Page 218 

D.2 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 

The agricultural pesticide refiller entity is analogous to agricultural chemical dealers who 

generally supply pesticide products to farmers or other end users in refillable containers for 

large-scale application. Agricultural pesticide refillers are subject to the repackaging 

requirements each time a pesticide is repackaged into a refillable container. Generally, this 

regulated entity is responsible for inspecting, rinsing, and properly labeling containers prior to 

reuse, and maintaining appropriate records. 

Agricultural pesticide refillers repackage and supply the majority of pesticides to farmers and 

other agricultural end users. It is estimated that 90 percent of agricultural pesticide product 

distributed in refillable containers is distributed or sold by agricultural pesticide refillers, and the 

remaining 10 percent is distributed or sold directly by registrants (Paulson, 2002). Agricultural 

pesticide refillers are generally represented under NAICS 422910 (Farm Supplies and Wholesale 

Sector), which consists of “establishments primarily engaged in wholesaling farm supplies, such 

as animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, plant seeds and plant bulbs” (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1997). 

This analysis considers only agricultural pesticide refillers, even though the regulations do not 

prohibit refilling by companies other than registrants in non-agricultural markets. To represent 

current business practices, we assumed that all pesticides in the I/C/G market are repackaged by 

the registrants and that there are no refillables used in the H&G market/ 

We extracted the revenue and employee data directly from the D&B database for all 

establishments with NAICS 422910 designations to generate the industry profile for agricultural 

pesticide refillers. It is assumed that the financial information extracted from D&B for the 

NAICS 422910 market sector is representative of the agricultural pesticide refiller entities 

subject to the container regulations. As a result, we pulled 24,360 records from the D&B 

database, with 21,599 establishments having sufficient financial data to be included in the 

analysis. We consolidated these data by Domestic Ultimate DUNS number in order to aggregate 

facilities by parent company designation, resulting in a total of 12,511 unique companies 

identified. In a few instances where discrepancies arise in revenue and employee information at 

the Domestic Ultimate DUNS level, we used the maximum values for the D&B data fields 

“Employees Total” and “Sales Volume (US$)” associated with each Ultimate DUNS number. 

We then broke down the D&B sample data set into small and large entity size according to the 

SBA small business definition for NAICS 422910 (i.e., SBA defines a small business for NAICS 

422910 as having 100 employees or fewer). As illustrated in Table D-5, 99 percent of the 12,511 

unique parent companies we identified were considered small by the SBA definition. Based on 

the EPA alternative small business definitions presented in Table 3.3, approximately 83 percent 

were small-small, 14 percent were medium-small, and 2 percent were large-small (see 

Table D-5).87

 

87 Regulated facilities in this analysis are companies rather than individual facilities. 
Page 219 

Table D-5. Economic Profile of Agricultural Pesticide Refillers by Entity Size 

D&B Sample Data Set for NAICS 422910 

Entity Size 

Category Definition 

Total 

Companies 

Percent of 

Total 

Companies 

Total 

Revenue for 

All 

Companies 

(million) 

Percent of 

Total 

Revenue 

Average 

Revenue per 

Company 

(million) 

Average 

Number of 

Employees 

per Company

SBA-Defined Sizes Large 101 or more 

employees 

114 0.9% $21,842 47.1% $191.60 448 

Small 100 or fewer 

employees 

12,397 99.1% $24,670 52.9% $1.99 6 

Total 12,511 100.0% $46,416 100.0% $3.71 10 EPA Alternative Small Business Sizes dLarge-Small 50 to 100 

employees 

187 1.5% $4,246 9.2% $22.71 71 

Medium-Small 10 to 49 

employees 

1,784 14.3% $12,006 25.9% $6.73 19 

Small-Small 1 to 9 

employees 

10,426 83.3% $8,341 18.0% $0.80 3 

Total 12,397 99.1% $24,670 52.9% $1.99 6 a The percentage of total companies in the D&B sample data set was applied to the estimated number of agricultural pesticide refillers used b The average revenue of agricultural pesticide refillers for each entity size category was multiplied by the total number of entities for the g

c EPA estimate based on state estimates where available; otherwise, SIC 5191.02 + 5191.14 from the American Business Information Lists 

The same total number is estimated as presented in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment 

d EPA discussed alternative definitions of small businesses for some industry sectors in the 1999 Supplemental Notice on Standards for Pe

Containment (EPA, 1999). EPA is concerned that using an overly broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the contasignificant economic impacts on smaller entities that will be camouflaged when combined with information about potential impacts on thosize standard for small business but are not typical of a small business in that industry sector. 
Page 220 

Based on information collected by EPA (see footnote c to Table D-5), it was determined that no 

one NAICS code was unique to agrichemical dealers or agricultural pesticide refillers. 

Therefore, the economic profile for the sample of 12,511 companies was applied to the total 

universe of 16,795 agricultural pesticide refillers. The estimated number of agricultural pesticide 

refillers potentially affected (16,795 companies) is based on the information presented in the 

1999 Supplemental Notice (EPA, 1999) and the proposed container rule RIA. This estimate is 

considered to be a reasonable estimate for the current total number of entities potentially 

affected. 

The number and types of refillable containers associated with agricultural pesticide refillers that 

are subject to the repackaging regulations are assumed to be approximately 90 percent of the 

total for each container size category (Paulson, 2002). We duplicated the procedure described in 

steps 3 and 4 of Table D-4 to determine the number of refillable containers associated with a 

representative agricultural pesticide refiller in each SBA and EPA alternative size category. The 

total number of containers that fall within the scope of the container regulations is presented by 

market sector in Chapter 4 (Table 4.7). 

D.3 Swimming Pool Market 

EPA has determined that certain antimicrobial products are exempt from the container 

regulations (EPA, 2002a). Container requirements for antimicrobial products that are subject to 

the rule will primarily affect pesticide registrants. However, applicators of sodium hypochlorite 

used to disinfect pool and spa water (i.e., swimming pool supply companies) have been 

identified as regulated entities that will be required to comply with some refillable container and 

repackaging requirements. Refillable containers for the products must comply with the adopted 

DOT standards and bulk container standards (if applicable), but not the marking or one-way 

valve/tamper-evident device requirements. Swimming pool supply companies must meet certain 

refilling requirements, but not all. Refillables are required to be inspected and cleaned (unless 

specified conditions in §165.170 are met) and must be properly labeled. Swimming pool supply 

companies must maintain certain records, but not all. Copies of the residue removal procedures 

for refilling and description of acceptable containers must be on file, but a record of certain 

information recorded each time a container is refilled (e.g., product, amount) is not required. 

The partial set of repackaging (refilling) requirements and compliance rates are detailed in 

Chapter 3. 

A readily available data source that could be used to characterize the swimming pool chemical 

industry impacts associated with the container regulations does not exist. There is no current 

NAICS code that is specifically devoted to the swimming pool supply industry. Additionally, 

the Chlorine Institute, National Spa and Pool Institute, and the Swimming Pool Chemical 

Manufacturers Association were unable to provide adequate information. Based on EPA data, 

we generated a list of 472 company names associated with registered sodium hypochlorite 

products. The primary NAICS code associated with these companies is 453998 (All Other 

Miscellaneous Store Retailers [except Tobacco Stores] – 7.6 percent), and 235990 (All Other 

Special Trade Contractors – 5.9 percent). To keep SBA small/large business distinctions from 

becoming too complex, we used establishment records with the most common NAICS code 

designation to characterize the swimming pool chemical industry. 
Page 221 

We consolidated the establishment records with the same Domestic Ultimate DUNS number to 

estimate the number of potentially affected swimming pool supply companies (322) at the parent 

company level. All parent companies having sufficient revenue and employee data were divided 

into small and large businesses based on the SBA small business size standard for NAICS 

453998, which is no more than $6 million in revenue. Once the D&B parent companies were 

grouped into small and large SBA defined size categories, we divided the SBA small businesses 

into the three EPA alternative small business size categories based on the criteria presented 

earlier in Table 3.3. 

Table D-6 illustrates the number of affected swimming pool supply companies, by size, and the 

financial information associated with the average company for each given entity size category. 

The total number of swimming pool supply companies subject to the refilling requirements is 

322, with nearly all (94.7 percent) of those entities considered SBA small businesses. 

Information is not readily available to estimate which swimming pool chemical companies use 

refillable containers for sodium hypochlorite. Therefore, it is assumed that all swimming pool 

chemical companies identified will likely be subject to the repackaging requirements. The 

number of refillable containers associated with representative swimming pool supply companies 

were found for each size category based on steps 3 and 4 described in Table D-4. The total 

number of containers that fall within the scope of the container regulations is presented by 

market sector in Chapter 4 (Table 4.7). 
Page 222 

Table D-6. Economic Profile of Swimming Pool Supply Companies a by Entity Size 

D&B/InfoUSA Data Set for 472 Selected Companies with Registered Sod

Entity Size 

Category Definition Total Companies

Percentage of 

Total 

Companies 

Total Revenue for 

all Companies 

(millions) 

Percentage 

of Total 

Revenue 

R

SBA-Defined Sizes cLarge Revenues greater than $6.0 million 17 5.3% $41,445 98.9% $2Small Revenues up to $6.0 million 305 94.7% $455 1.1% EPA Alternative Small Business Sizes dLarge-Small 50 or more employees 14 4.4% $72 0.17% Medium-Small 10 to 49 employees 117 36.3% $298 0.71% Small-Small 1 to 9 employees 174 54.0% $86 0.21% Total e 322 NA $41,900 NA $a Currently, only refillable containers used in the pool chemical industry are considered. These are primarily used for repackaging sodium 

and residential pool servicing. 

b Based on EPA analysis of sodium hypochlorite pesticide registrations. c The SBA small business size standard is no more than $6 million in revenue for NAICS 453998. The analysis divided the SBA small bus

alternative small business size categories regardless of employee or revenue totals once the regulated entity passed the SBA-defined small 

d EPA has not previously proposed alternative definitions of small businesses for swimming pool supply companies. However, EPA is con

broad definition of small business in the economic analysis of the container regulations may result in significant economic impacts on sma

camouflaged when combined with information about potential impacts on those facilities that meet the SBA size standard for small busine

business in that industry sector. 

e No employee or revenue data were available for 140 companies out of the initial 472 companies considered. As a result, these companies 

summary table. In addition, 10 companies in the data collected were also removed from consideration because they proved to be duplicatewere found to have the same Domestic Ultimate parent company). 
Page 223 

Appendix E. 1994 Proposed Rule Container Standards Costs and Benefits 

E.1 Estimated Cost of Proposed Rule Container Standards 

Three regulatory options are evaluated in the proposed container and labeling standards: 

(1) Regulatory Option 1, a low stringency option, (2) Regulatory Option 2, representing EPA’s 

proposed minimum standards, and (3) Regulatory Option 3, a more stringent option. Under all 

three options, non-refillable containers must meet general integrity standards; must be marked 

with the EPA registration number of the pesticide and the name, symbol, or code of the 

material(s) from which the container is constructed; must be designed so that the container pours 

in a continuous, coherent stream (doesn’t glug), drippage is eliminated, and the container 

recloses securely; and must have one of four standardized closures to encourage and expedite the 

use of closed handling systems (if the container is used to hold a pesticide labeled for use in the 

production of an agricultural commodity). In addition, under Regulatory Option 1, each 

container/formulation combination must meet a five-9s (99.999 percent) residue removal 

standard following a prescribed protocol for testing and analyzing the rinsate from a fourth rinse. 

Under Regulatory Options 2 and 3, a more stringent residue removal standard of six-9s (99.9999 

percent) must be met. Under Regulatory Option 3, non-refillable containers with a capacity of 

greater than 5 gallons that are used to contain liquid pesticides are prohibited; any such container 

must be a refillable container and must meet the standards for refillable containers. And finally, 

certain certification and recordkeeping requirements are consistent among all three regulatory 

options. We analyzed two different scenarios under all three regulatory options, with Scenario 1 

assuming that 50 percent of all non-refillable/dilutable formulation combinations will be tested 

for the residue removal standard, whereas Scenario 2 represents a works-case analysis in that 100 

percent of all container/formulation combinations are assumed to be tested for the standard. 

Additional requirements for refillable containers include, under Regulatory Option 1, no drop 

tests; under Regulatory Option 2, all minibulk refillable containers must undergo a drop test of 

2.6 feet to 3.9 feet, depending on whether the pesticide contained is dry or liquid; and under 

Regulatory Option 3, all minibulk refillable containers refillable containers must undergo drop 

tests per DOT standards, as well as a vibration test, lifting device test, stacking device test, 

hydrostatic test, and leakage test. Additional requirements for registrants include certification, 

recordkeeping requirements, and provision of certain materials to refilling establishments, 

including written residue removal procedures and a written list of acceptable refillable containers 

for each product. Requirements for refilling establishments relative to refillable containers are 

the same under all three regulatory options, including obtaining specified 

authorization/information from the registrant(s), container inspection procedures, repackaging 

procedures, and recordkeeping/inspection requirements. 

Table E-1 and Table E-2 summarize the estimated costs of the proposed container standards for 

representative formulator and refiller facilities by market, respectively. Both the annual cost and 

annual cost as a proportion of annual sales are summarized for all three regulatory options and 

for both scenarios in the Tables. Table E-3 summarizes the total costs of the proposed container 

standards. Costs are aggregated by regulatory option and scenario for all facilities for both the 

container and labeling standards. 
Page 224 

Table E-1. Summary of Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) a and ARRs as a Percentage 

of Sales for Representative Formulating Facilities in Each Market Sector Under 

Regulatory Options 1, 2, and 3 b and Scenarios 1 and 2 c for the Proposed Pesticide 

Container Standards (2005$) 

Regulatory Option 1 Regulatory Option 2 Regulatory Option 3 

Market/Representative ARR ARR/sales ARR ARR/sales ARR ARR/sales

Formulator Facility Type ($000) (%) ($000) (%) ($000) (%) 

Scenario 1 

Agricultural Market 

Small Agricultural Facility $33 0.6 $35 0.64 $94 1.71

Medium Agricultural Facility $126 0.46 $135 0.49 $223 0.81

Large Agricultural Facility 1 $726 0.19 $796 0.21 $913 0.24

Large Agricultural Facility 2 $801 0.21 $871 0.23 $988 0.26

Large Agricultural Facility 3 $3,331 0.87 $3,401 0.89 $3,518 0.92

Large Agricultural Facility 4 $822 0.21 $892 0.23 $1,009 0.26

Industrial Market 

Small Industrial Facility $45 0.82 $46 0.84 $304 5.55

Medium Industrial Facility $184 0.67 $190 0.69 $703 2.56

Institutional Market 

Small Institutional Facility $40 0.72 $41 0.75 $197 3.6

Medium Institutional Facility $133 0.49 $139 0.51 $451 1.65

Household Market 

Small Household Facility $37 0.67 $38 0.7 $38 0.7

Medium Household Facility $128 0.47 $134 0.49 $134 0.49

Scenario 2 

Agricultural Market 

Small Agricultural Facility $72 1.3 $77 1.4 $135 2.47

Medium Agricultural Facility $228 0.83 $248 0.91 $336 1.23

Large Agricultural Facility 1 $1,313 0.34 $1,452 0.38 $1,569 0.41

Large Agricultural Facility 2 $1,389 0.36 $1,528 0.4 $1,645 0.43

Large Agricultural Facility 3 $3,919 1.02 $4,058 1.06 $4,175 1.09

Large Agricultural Facility 4 $1,409 0.37 $1,549 0.4 $1,653 0.43

Industrial Market 

Small Industrial Facility $75 1.37 $79 1.44 $337 6.15

Medium Industrial Facility $279 1.02 $292 1.07 $805 2.94

Institutional Market 

Small Institutional Facility $70 1.28 $74 1.35 $230 4.19

Medium Institutional Facility $228 0.83 $241 0.88 $553 2.02

Household Market 

Small Household Facility $67 1.23 $71 1.3 $71 1.3

Medium Household Facility $223 0.81 $236 0.86 $236 0.86

a

 One method for analyzing uneven cost streams is to calculate their equivalent, constant-level cost per year. This 

equivalent cost is referred to as the annual revenue requirement (ARR) because the present value of such an annual 

revenue stream would just offset or equal the present value of the cost stream.
Page 225 

Table E-1 (Continued). Summary of Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) a and ARRs as 

a Percentage of Sales for Representative Formulating Facilities in Each Market Sector 

Under Regulatory Options 1, 2, and 3 b and Scenarios 1 and 2 c for the Proposed Pesticide 

Container Standards (2005$)

b

 Regulatory Option 1: 

• Five-9s residue removal standard for non-refillables 

• No drop test required for refillables 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Regulatory Option 2: 

• Six-9s residue removal standard for non-refillables 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Regulatory Option 3 

• Six-9s residue removal standard for non-refillables 

• Non-refillables greater than 5 gallons prohibited for liquid pesticides 

• Extensive container integrity tests for container design 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. c

 Scenario 1: 50% of container/formulation combinations tested for residue removal. Scenario 2: 100% of 

container/formulation combinations tested for residue removal. 

Table E-2. Summary of Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) a and ARRs as a Percentage 

of Sales for Representative Agricultural Refilling Facilities in Regulatory Options 1, 2, and 

3 b for the Proposed Pesticide Container Standards (2005$) 

Regulatory Option 1 Regulatory Option 2 and 3 

Representative Agricultural Refilling 

Facility ARR ($) ARR/Sales (%) ARR ($) ARR/Sales (%) 

Small Refilling Facility $314 0.013 $637 0.026 

Medium Refilling Facility $618 0.008 $1,263 0.016 

Large Refilling Facility $1,491 0.005 $2,999 0.01 

a

 One method for analyzing uneven cost streams is to calculate their equivalent, constant-level cost per year. This 

equivalent cost is referred to as the annual revenue requirement (ARR) because the present value of such an annual 

revenue stream would just offset or equal the present value of the cost stream. 

b

 Regulatory Option 1: 

• No drop test required for refillables 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Regulatory Option 2: Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Regulatory Option 3: 

• Extensive container integrity tests for container design 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 
Page 226 

Table E-3. Total Cost (Annual Revenue Requirement or ARR) of the Proposed Pesticide 

Container and Labeling Standards 

Container Standards Labeling Standards 

Regulatory Option/ 

Scenario a

Formulating 

Industry 

(million $) 

Refilling 

Industry 

(million $) 

Formulating 

Industry 

(million $) 

End User b

(million $) 

Total ARR 

(million $) 

Regulatory Option 1 

Scenario 1 $21.4 $2.6 $5.1 $8.2 $37.3 

Scenario 2 $30.4 $2.6 $5.1 $13.6 $51.6 

Regulatory Option 2 

Scenario 1 $22.2 $4.7 $5.1 $8.2 $40.1 

Scenario 2 $32.2 $4.7 $5.1 $13.6 $55.5 

Regulatory Option 3 

Scenario 1 $87.8 $4.7 $5.1 $8.2 $105.8 

Scenario 2 $97.8 $4.7 $5.1 $13.6 $121.1 

a

 Regulatory Option 1: 

• Five-9s residue removal standard for non-refillables 

• No drop test required for refillables 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Regulatory Option 2: 

• Six-9s residue removal standard for non-refillables 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Regulatory Option 3: 

• Six-9s residue removal standard for non-refillables 

• Non-refillables greater than 5 gallons prohibited for liquid pesticides 

• Extensive container integrity tests for container design 

• Other EPA-proposed requirements. 

Scenario 1: 50% of container/formulation combinations tested for residue removal. Scenario 2: 100% of 

container/formulation combinations tested for residue removal 

b

 For end users only, Scenarios 1 and 2 are not defined as in Footnote a. Rather, Scenario 1 assumes a 60% 

compliance rate by end users for triple rinsing certain container that have a triple rinse requirement for the first time, 

and Scenario 2 assumes a 100% compliance rate for triple rinsing the same universe of containers. Household end 

users account for approximately 85% of the total cost under each scenario, and institutional end users account for 

approximately 15%. 

E.2 Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule Container Standards 

The RIA for the proposed container and labeling standards estimates both direct and indirect 

benefits (See Chapter 5 for details). The direct benefits (see Table E-4) include: (1) health- and 

environment-related benefits resulting from a reduction in the incidents of container failure and 

the risks posed by accidental spills of pesticide, leaks, dripping, and the residue remaining in 

pesticide containers; (2) a quantitative estimate of disposal-related benefits resulting from lower 

costs for non-refillable container disposal as non-hazardous waste after triple rinsing (versus 

disposal as hazardous waste); and (3) several additional categories of qualitative benefits (e.g., 

increased worker productivity and reduced property damage). 

The estimated indirect benefits are associated with the switch from use of non-refillable 

containers to refillable containers, which are expected (not required) as a result of the container 

standards. The types of indirect cost savings estimated as a result of the switch to refillable 

containers include: (1) container cost savings, (2) container disposal cost savings, and 

(3) substantial labor savings associated with triple rinsing of used non-refillable pesticide 
Page 227 

containers. The sum of indirect benefits is estimated to range from $36.4 million to $109.1 

million with a midpoint of $72.8 million. 

Table E-4. Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Container and Labeling Standards 

Benefits Estimated in the 

Proposed Container Rule 

RIA Type of Benefit Estimated Benefits 

Health- and EnvironmentRelated Effects EPA estimated that 1,650 to 2,250 acute illness 

incidents caused by container design/residue removal 

problems could potentially be avoided annually 

throughout the United States. In addition, a potentially 

significant number of unreported acute pesticide 

poisoning incidents and environmental incidents may 

be avoided. 

Non-Refillable Container 

Disposal Effects 

$5,649,880 to $6,904,800 

Direct Benefits 

Other Container 

Design/Residue Removal 

and Labeling Effects 

In addition to these quantitative benefit estimates, 

several additional categories of benefits were 

qualitatively presented, including potential reductions 

in liability/insurance costs, increased worker 

productivity, creation of a lower at-risk work 

environment, and the potential for reduced property 

damage from pesticide accidents and improved 

pesticide management. 

Refillable Container 

Cost-Saving Effects 

$29,535,145 to $88,605,435 

Refillable Container 

Disposal Cost-Saving 

Effects 

$545,945 - $1,637,835 

Indirect Benefits 

Refillable Container 

Labor-Saving (Rinsing) 

Effects 

$6,280,765 - $18,842,295 
Page 228 

Appendix F. Nationwide and State Regulations and Standards for Pesticide 

Containers 

This section will examine the following nationwide regulations or standards: 

• U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) (i.e., 

49 CFR Parts 107-179); 

• United Nation (UN) Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN, 1999); 

• Mid America CropLife Association: MACA-75 Manufacturer Specifications and User 

Guidelines for Liquid Pesticides and Other Agri-Chemicals Not Subject to U.S. DOT 

Specification Packaging (MACA, 1992); and 

• Existing EPA policy applicable to pesticide containers. 

UN recommendations and the MACA-75 specifications, which are voluntary, are included 

because research has shown that the majority of container manufacturers produce containers 

meeting one or both of these standards. These are viewed by major container manufacturers as 

necessary rather than optional standards. 

Regulations affecting containers and packaging that have been specifically excluded are the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations (40 CFR §261.7(b)(3)). Because 

the container regulations address the usage rather than disposal of containers, there is very little 

overlap with the RCRA regulations. The only overlap occurs at the time of container disposal. 

It is EPA’s intent that containers that are triple rinsed as provided in the container regulations 

will meet the requirements for “empty” under RCRA at 40 CFR §261.7(b)(3). While there is no 

specific final residue removal standard for refillable containers, users will likely meet one of the 

removal requirements at §261.7(b) if their container holds a hazardous waste and they wish to 

avoid regulation under RCRA. 

This appendix is organized into seven sections. The first three sections (F.1, F.2, and F.3) 

present a brief overview of the three major regulations/standards (DOT HMR, UN 

recommendations, and MACA-75 specifications, respectively). Section F.4 describes the 

container population affected by each of the three major regulations/standards. Section F.5 

presents the requirements of the major regulations/standards as they compare with the container 

regulations. Section F.6 presents a summary of existing EPA policies and regulations that affect 

the baseline container regulation compliance rate. The final section (F.7) presents a summary of 

existing state regulations and standards for pesticide containers. 

F.1 Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

The DOT HMR apply to the interstate (and in some cases, intrastate) transportation of hazardous 

materials in commerce (DOT, 1996). In general, the DOT HMR specify requirements for 

packaging, classification, handling, transport, hazard communication, and incident reporting of 

hazardous materials. The HMR are enforced by the Federal Highway Administration, the 

Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

The DOT HMR hazard class definitions are generally aligned with nine risk classes used in the 

UN recommendations described in the next subsection. Under this classification system, 
Page 229 

pesticides primarily fall under Hazard Class 6, Division 6.1, although some may also meet the 

criteria for flammable materials (RTI, 1989). Hazard Class 6 uses a definition related to oral, 

dermal, and inhalation toxicity, similar to that for the UN recommendations. The HMR also 

contain 20 UN performance-oriented packaging standards for non-bulk containers. These 

requirements contain general standards for specific types of packaging such as plywood drums, 

plastic drums and jerricans,88 fiber drums, and steel jerricans. In addition, there are testing 

standards that apply to all non-bulk packaging types. These requirements follow the UN 

recommendations for non-bulk containers and include the following tests: drop, leakproofness, 

hydrostatic pressure, and stacking. Non-bulk packaging used for hazardous materials in the 

United States must also be capable of withstanding a vibration standard that is not included in the 

UN recommendations. 

The HMR prescribe various performance levels in packaging hazardous materials based on the 

level and nature of hazards posed by the material to be packaged. All packaging, regardless of 

type, must be designed so that under normal conditions of transport, no contents will be released. 

Also, the containers must be designed so that the effectiveness of the packaging will not be 

substantially altered by temperature. 

The DOT HMR requirements apply regardless of whether the container is refillable. If a 

container is refillable, it must also meet the reuse provisions found at 49 CFR §173.28, which 

require inspections before reuse, and the following provisions for non-bulk containers: retesting 

of liquid packaging for leakproofness, durable marking, and minimum thickness criteria for 

metal and plastic drums and jerricans. The DOT HMR also contain requirements regarding the 

reconditioning and remanufacturing of non-bulk packaging. 

Portable tanks are subject to 49 CFR §173.32, which addresses “Qualification, maintenance and 

use of portable tanks other than Specification IM portable tanks.” These provisions contain 

recordkeeping, retesting, and container/material compatibility requirements, some of which are 

required by tank specification (e.g., DOT Specifications 56, 57, and 60). There are special 

requirements for containers constructed before May 15, 1950, as well as provisions addressing 

deteriorated, damaged, and unused tanks. There are also additional requirements for these tanks 

at 49 CFR §§173.32a, 173.32b, and 173.32c addressing the approval of Specification IM 

portable tanks, the periodic testing and inspection of these tanks, and requirements regarding 

their use. 

F.2 United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 

The UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods were developed by the UN 

Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (1999). While these 

recommendations address dangerous goods that are shipped internationally, they also affect 

containers shipped domestically. Many packaging manufacturers are beginning to follow 

portions of these recommendations for containers shipped domestically. Additionally, some 

companies ship both domestically and internationally, and the containers used meet both the UN 

recommendations and the DOT HMR discussed in the previous subsection. The DOT design 

 

88 A jerrican, as defined by the DOT HMR, is a metal or plastic “packaging” of rectangular or polygonal crosssection (49 CFR 171.8). 
Page 230 

specification packaging system was accepted in international transport under transitional 

provisions which expired on December 31, 1990; after that date, the packaging for most 

hazardous materials in international transport were required to conform to the UN standards (55 

FR 52404). As of October 1996, UN performance-oriented packaging standards added to the 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) by HM-181 were fully in effect (Deadrick, 1992; 

55 FR 52408 and 52473-52474). 

The UN recommendations classify dangerous goods into nine risk classes. For each class, there 

is a set of criteria; any substance meeting those criteria is considered in that class. Class 6—

Poisonous (toxic) and Infectious Substances—is the class where many pesticides would fall.89 A 

material is a Class 6 poison if it is “liable to either cause death or serious injury or to harm 

human health if swallowed, inhaled or by skin contact” (UN Committee of Experts on the 

Transport of Dangerous Goods, 1999, p. 97). Division 6.1 specifically addresses poisonous 

(toxic) substances; Chapter 2.6 in the guidance document on the UN recommendations (UN 

Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, 1999), which addresses Division 

6.1, includes a section that allows shippers of pesticides to determine which of three Packing 

Groups is appropriate for their material. Many of the pesticides listed are insecticides because 

they tend to be more toxic to humans than either herbicides or fungicides. The three Packing 

Groups—I, II & III—are based on toxicity classifications: the lethal dose to 50 percent of the 

sample population (LD50s) for oral and dermal activity and the lethal concentration to 50 percent 

of the population (LC50)for inhalation activity. Packing Group I contains the most toxic 

materials. The criteria for these groups are shown in Table F-1. 

Table F-1. Grouping Criteria for Administration Through Oral Ingestion, 

Dermal Contact, and Inhalation of Dusts and Mists 

Packing Group 

Oral Toxicity LD50 

(mg/kg) a

Dermal Toxicity 

LD50 (mg/kg) a

Inhalation Toxicity by 

Dusts and Mists 

LC50 (mg/l) b

I ≤5 ≤40 ≤0.5 

II >5-50 >40-200 >0.5-2 

III c Solids: >50-200 

Liquids: >50-500 

>200-1,000 >2-10 

Source: UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (1999). 

a

 Lethal dose to 50% of the sample population. 

b

 Lethal concentration to 50% of the sample population. 

c

 Tear gas substances should be included in Packing Group II even if their toxicity data correspond to Packing 

Group III values. 

 

89 Some may meet the criteria for a flammable substance and be placed in either Class 3 - Flammable liquids or 

Class 4 - Flammable solids, or possibly Class 8 - Corrosives (RTI, 1989; EPA, 2005). 
Page 231 

The UN recommendations contain standards for two different container size groups: 

• Non-bulk packaging, which has a net mass of 882 lbs (400 kgs) or less, and whose capacity 

is 119 gals (450 L) or less, and 

• Intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), which are rigid or flexible portable packagings with a 

capacity of not more than 500 gals and are not included in non-bulk packaging.90

The recommendations for both non-bulk containers and IBCs include permanent marking, 

construction standards, and performance testing—including drop, leakproofness, hydraulic 

pressure, and stacking tests. IBCs must also meet bottom lift and top lift testing. There are also 

special tests that flexible containers (e.g., bags) must meet (UN Committee of Experts on the 

Transportation of Dangerous Goods, 1999). 

F.3 Mid America CropLife Association (MACPA): MACA-75 Manufacturer 

Specification and User Guidelines for Portable Agrichemical Tanks

The Mid America CropLife Association has adopted the MACA-75 standards for the 

conglomerate of regional crop protection associations represented at the national level. MACPA 

was formerly known as the Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association (MACA); hence the 

MACA-75 standards have retained their title by recognition of the association’s former name. 

These specifications were developed by MACA’s Bulk Pesticide Task Force Committee, 

because MACA recognized that the majority of pesticides sold were not considered DOT 

hazardous material.91 The lack of regulation could result in certain tanks (especially minibulks) 

being used to transport pesticides even though the tanks were not of a design or construction that 

allowed for safe movement over the highway (MACA, 1986). The eventual consequences of this 

lack of regulation could be environmental pollution, severe government regulation, bad publicity, 

and potentially large civil liabilities to the pesticide industry. To avoid these consequences, 

MACA developed the MACA-75 tank specifications, which apply to containers of 60 to 660 

gallons. While MACA is only one of several regional agricultural chemical associations across 

the country, its tank specifications and user guidelines have become accepted nationally and are 

the standards used by many container manufacturers (MACA, 1992, 1986; Bartenhagen, 1992; 

Snyder Industries, 1992). 

The MACA-75 specifications include general construction requirements regarding minimum 

strength, openings that allow for internal visual inspection, and handling characteristics (tiedown/loading design features). Standards are also included to address appurtenances, closures, 

plumbing connected to the tank, and emergency pressure relief devices. Tanks designed under 

MACA-75 specifications must meet a series of qualification tests, including vibration, 

leakproofness, drop, lifting device, base support structure, stacking, and hydrostatic testing. 

 

90 In the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN, 1999) no lower limit is given for IBCs, 

but the definition of IBCs states “other than those [non-bulk packagings] specified in Chapter 6.1.” Thus, it would 

appear that the IBC’s lower capacity limit is 450 L. 

91 At the time the MACA standards were developed, DOT used a different classification system from the nine 

hazard classes introduced by HM-181. Then, pesticides considered DOT hazardous materials were mostly classified 

as Class B poisons, flammable liquids, or combustible liquids. EPA felt that the number of pesticides covered was 

20-25 percent of all pesticides; HM-181 has probably increased the number of pesticides included. Herbicides still 

comprise a major portion of those pesticides not covered because they tend not to be as toxic to mammals as many 

insecticides. 
Page 232 

F.4 Container Population Affected by the container regulations and the Three Major 

National Regulations/Standards 

To better understand the compliance baseline, we compared the affected pesticides and pesticide 

container populations of the three major regulations/standards (i.e., DOT HMR, UN 

Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, and MACA-75 Guidelines) to the 

container regulations. Table F-2 summarizes the affected container population for the three 

major sets of regulations/standards. 

Both the DOT HMR and UN recommendations cover pesticide containers that (1) are 

transported, and (2) hold pesticides that are highly toxic (i.e., LD50 of 200 mg/kg or less for 

solids and 500 mg/kg or less for liquids) or meet the DOT HMR/UN criteria for a flammable or 

corrosive material. The DOT HMR regulate these containers, either through direct regulation or 

exemption, regardless of container size or whether the container is refillable. The MACA-75 

specifications primarily affect containers that (1) contain liquid agricultural pesticides of lower 

toxicity (e.g., most herbicides, and certain fungicides and insecticides that are not considered 

DOT hazardous materials) that are not DOT HMR flammable or corrosive materials, (2) are of 

sizes 60 to 660 gallons, and (3) are used in the agricultural market. Thus, based on this 

combination of requirements, recommendations, and voluntary standards, those containers that 

are currently not subject to marking, construction, or performance standards include: 

• Containers of 60 gallons or less, holding liquid pesticides that are used in the agricultural 

market and are not DOT hazardous materials; 

• Containers holding dry pesticides that are used in the agricultural market and are not DOT 

hazardous materials; 

• Containers of any size holding liquid and dry pesticides that are used in non-agricultural 

markets and are not DOT hazardous materials; and 

• Bulk containers containing any pesticides that are not transported. (Some states have 

standards for stationary bulk containers.) 

These containers are subject to the full effects of the final container regulations in that they are 

effectively starting from a “no standards” baseline and will become subject to the full 

requirements of the regulations. 
Page 233 

Table F-2. Scope of Container Regulations Versus Scope of Other National Regulations and Sta

Container Regulations 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on the 

Transport of Dangerous Goods

Pesticides Affected Other than manufacturing use 

products (MUPs), plant-incorporated protectants, and exempt antimicrobial 

products, all pesticide products are subject to the non-refillable container 

regulations. A product is subject to all non-refillable container requirements if it satisfies at least one of the following criteria: (1) It meets the criteria of Toxicity Category I. (2) It meets the criteria of Toxicity Category II. (3) It is a restricted use product. If it doesn’t meet any of these criteria, the product is subject to only the basic DOT requirements in the nonrefillable container regulations. Other than MUPs, plant-incorporated protectants, and exempt antimicrobial 

products, all pesticide products are subject to all of the refillable 

container and repackaging regulations. 

Pesticides that meet the definition of a hazardous material in 49 CFR §171.8 

Those meeting UN risk class definitions 1–9 (i.e., most in class 6, Division 6.1 Toxic Substances). Includes pesticides with oral LD50 <500 mg/kg for 

liquids and 200 mg/kg for solids. DOT Packing Group I and II 

pesticides are primarily included. 

Some pesticides may also meet criteria of flammable or corrosive material. 
Page 234 

Table F-2 (Continued). Scope of Container Regulations Versus Scope of Other National Regulations a

Container Regulations 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on the 

Transport of Dangerous Goods

Unaffected The following three categories of 

pesticide products are not subject to the non-refillable container, refillable container, and repackaging regulations: (1) Manufacturing use products; (2) Plant-incorporated protectants; and(3) Antimicrobial pesticide products that satisfy all four of these criteria: • The product is an antimicrobial 

pesticide, as defined in the container regulations Section 2(mm), or it has antimicrobial properties, as defined in the container regulations Section 2(mm)(1)(A), and is subject to a tolerance or a food additive regulation. 

• Its label includes directions for 

use on a site in at least one of the 10 antimicrobial product use categories identified as “household, industrial or institutional.” 

• It is not a hazardous waste when 

it is intended to be disposed, as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 

• It is not specifically included in 

the regulations by EPA. 

Pesticides that do not meet the hazardous 

material definition in 49 CFR §171.8. 

Those pesticides that do not meet UN risk class definitions 1-9. 

Container Type/Size Refillable All containers filled and refilled with 

eligible product more than once. 

No distinction between refillable and nonrefillable containers with regard to specific No distinction between refillable and non-refillable containers 
Page 235 

Table F-2 (Continued). Scope of Container Regulations Versus Scope of Other National Regulations a

Container Regulations 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on the 

Transport of Dangerous Goods

NonRefillable Containers that are designed and constructed for one-time filling only 

with eligible pesticide. 

requirements; however, DOT refers to “reuse” of containers. 

with regard to specific requirements. 

Non-Bulk No regulatory distinction between 

non-bulk and bulk with regard to requirements. 

Packaging that has: (1) a maximum capacity of 450 L (119 gallons) or less as a receptacle for a liquid; (2) a maximum net mass of 400 kg (882 pounds) or less and a maximum capacity of 450 L (119 gallons) or less as a receptacle for a solid; or (3) a water capacity 

of 454 kg (1,000 pounds) or less as a receptacle for a gas as defined in §173.115. (§171.8) 

Net mass ≤400 kg Capacity ≤450 L (6.1.1.1) 

Bulk No regulatory distinction between 

non-bulk and bulk with regard to requirements. 

Bulk packaging means a packaging, other than a vessel or a barge, including a transport vehicle or freight container, in which hazardous materials are loaded with no intermediate form of containment and which has: (1) A maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a liquid; (2) A maximum net mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) and a maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a solid; or (3) A water capacity greater than 454 kg (1,000 pounds) as a receptacle for a gas as defined in §173.115. (§171.8) 

IBC defined as rigid or flexible portable packagings other than those specified in Division 6.1 that (A) have a capacity of: (i) Not more than 3,000 L for solids and liquids of Packing Groups (PG) II and II; (ii) Not more than 1.5 m3 for 

solids of PG I when packed in flexible, rigid plastics, composite, fiberboard, and wooden IBCs; (iii) Not more than 3.0 m3 for 

solids of PG I when packed in metal IBCs; and (iv) Not more than 3.0 m3 for 

radioactive material of Class 7. (1.2.1) 
Page 236 

F.5 Detailed Comparison of the Pesticide Container Regulations and the Three Major 

Regulations/Standards 

The container regulations under consideration include several components. This section details 

13 major components of the container regulations and compares them to the relevant 

requirements of the DOT HMR, UN recommendations, and MACA-75 specifications. Each 

component is discussed separately below. 

F.5.1 Design Standards 

The container regulations adopt the DOT HMR packaging standards for pesticides classified as 

DOT hazardous materials. Pesticides that are not classified as DOT hazardous materials are 

required to be packaged in accordance with the specified design and construction standards that 

would apply to a DOT Packing Group III material. Under the container regulations, sale or 

distribution of pesticides in containers not meeting the DOT standards for design, construction, 

and markings is prohibited, and registrants are held responsible for, but are not required to report, 

the design standards. 

The container regulations incorporate a provision similar to the DOT limited quantity exceptions 

that provide exceptions parallel to those in the DOT HMR. The integrity use and compatibility 

standards of the DOT HMR are incorporated into the container regulations with the exception of 

additional requirements in the container regulations for bulk refillable containers for 

appurtenances and listing of compatible containers for pesticide formulations. 

The UN recommendations and the MACA-75 specifications are much more specific. The UN 

recommendations contain detailed construction requirements by container/material grouping. 

These requirements address which construction materials can be used; the design of openings 

and closures; seams; and, in some cases, minimum allowable material thickness. MACA-75 

specifications are somewhat more general, but the requirements are more detailed than the 

container regulations and address minimum strength, handling characteristics, and 

draining/cleaning capability. 

F.5.2 Permanent Markings 

All of the current regulations/standards examined require some form of permanent marking on 

each container; however, each regulation/standard varies somewhat in the information required. 

The container regulation requirements for non-refillables and refillables refer to and adopt the 

DOT standards. Additionally, container regulations require a serial number or other identifying 

code for each non-refillable container. 

The information requirements that are common between the refillable container requirements 

and the regulatory/standards baseline are: manufacturer name or symbol, year of manufacture, 

and name or symbol (code) of materials the container is made from. The UN IBC 

recommendation calls for a marking that signifies conformity to design type. Serial number and 

capacity rating are required only under the EPA requirements and MACA-75 specifications. 
Page 237 

F.5.3 Dispensing Capability 

The container regulations stipulate that containers with a capacity greater than 20 liters (5.3 

gallons) need to be designed to eliminate the splash and leakage during normal pouring of the 

contents, closing or resealing of the container, and storage and cleaning of the container. 

The other three regulations/recommendations primarily mention dispensing capability in terms of 

cleaning and storing. MACA-75 recommends that tanks be designed so that, when necessary, 

they can be totally drained. 

F.5.4 Closures 

Safe use of pesticide containers extends to closed systems (also known as closed transfer 

systems). All four nationwide standards are similar in that they each discuss regulations/ 

recommendations for proper container closures. Each standard specifies in some fashion that 

containers must be equipped with closures that will be secure and leakproof. However, EPA’s 

regulations are the most specific about specific closure sizes (see Table F-3 for more details). 

F.5.5 Residue Removal Design Standard 

Only the MACA-75 guidelines specify a standard for residue removal for non-refillable 

containers. The MACA-75 standard applies to bulk tanks and states that containers should be 

designed to allow the product to completely drain out of the tank. With regard to non-refillable 

containers, the container requirements specify that each rigid/dilutable container/formulation 

combination must achieve a certain laboratory performance standard (a reduction of the original 

active ingredient concentrate to .01 percent in a fourth rinse or equivalent to 99.99 percent 

removal). This specification, of course, does not guarantee that these containers will be rinsed to 

this level by the end user in the field before container disposal.

While the UN recommendations, the DOT HMR, and the MACA-75 specifications all address 

residue removal from refillable containers, the container regulations are the most specific 

regarding how much must be removed and how it should be removed. The UN 

recommendations state only that the container should be “purged” of its former contents before 

refilling; no procedures are specified. The DOT HMR state that before the container is refilled, 

it must “be free from incompatible residue.” The MACA-75 specifications recommend that each 

portable tank be kept in dedicated service to one product “in order to reduce contamination and 

content-disposal problems.” If the container must be used for another product, the container 

must be examined “to determine presence of previous product and then “all of the residue from 

the former loading” must be cleaned out. 

The container regulations require that the every registrant test three containers from each rigid 

container/dilutable formulation combination to determine that the containers are capable of 

attaining at least 99.99 percent removal of each active ingredient in the fourth rinsate after a 

triple rinse. 

F.5.6 Production Testing 

The container regulations do not specify production testing requirements. However, by adopting 

DOT HMR design standards, the container regulations indirectly include production testing for 
Page 238 

performance of drop, leakproofness, hydrostatic pressure, stacking, and cooperative tests (as 

applicable) for each new or different packaging. 

For non-bulk containers, DOT HMR (or the container regulations) and UN recommendations 

require sampling of 3–6 containers, whereas the MACA-75 guidelines do not specify. For bulk 

containers, the container and DOT regulations require representative samples of all design types, 

while the UN recommendations and MACA-75 specifications suggest using one container. The 

DOT HMR (or container regulations) filling requirements are the same as the UN 

recommendations and similar to the MACA-75 specifications. Drop testing requirements for 

DOT (or container regulations) are similar to the UN recommendations, while the MACA-75 

specifications only state that the standard is two feet. 

F.5.7 Production Retesting 

Rather than directly specifying, the container regulations adopt DOT HMR standards for an 

interval for repeating production testing. The product retesting intervals for DOT HMR bulk is 

every year, but varies according to the container specifications. For example, each IBC must be 

tested in accordance to the leakproofness test and visually inspected every 2.5 years. Under the 

UN recommendations, retesting of a particular container design must be conducted at intervals 

established by a “competent authority.” The MACA-75 specifications do not address product 

retesting for the container design. 

The non-bulk DOT HMR is the only set of requirements requiring a leakproofness test before 

reuse of each container. The MACA-75 specifications and the UN recommendations specify 

rerunning a leakproofness test on tanks at least every 2 years and 2.5 years, respectively. The 

DOT HMR specifications for non-bulks require that each tank must be fully retested every 2 

years. 

F.5.8 Reconditioning 

Only the UN recommendations and the DOT HMR have specific reconditioning standards. 

Under the UN recommendations, containers (including non-bulks) must be capable of passing all 

appropriate performance tests, and each one must undergo the leakproofness test before it can be 

reused for transport. The DOT HMR contain specific requirements for reconditioning metal 

drums and require that all other reconditioned containers be capable of meeting all non-bulk 

performance standards. A reconditioned container must have a permanent mark representing a 

certification that the reconditioned container conforms to the DOT HMR standards for that 

container design. 

F.5.9 Waiver 

None of the nationwide standards except the container regulations specify a procedure for 

obtaining a waiver for all or parts of the regulation or standard. The container regulations 

include procedures for allowing a waiver of compliance for portions of the regulation based on 

the registrant’s capacity to demonstrate that the container meets or exceeds DOT standards for 

hazardous materials.
Page 239 

F.5.10 Recordkeeping 

EPA container records requirements are more extensive than those of the baseline. The 

regulations require several types of recordkeeping. The first addresses the documentation that 

the container used meets each aspect of the non-refillable container design standards. For nonrefillables, the period extends for as long as the container design type is used with the registered 

pesticide product, plus 3 years. The second type of recordkeeping requirement involves records 

kept by the registrants regarding repackaging. The registrants are required to keep copies of the 

contracts or authorizations, residue removal procedures for refilling, and list of acceptable 

containers for the current operating year and for 3 years after. 

The third type of recordkeeping involves refillers keeping copies of the documents identified in 

the previous paragraph for the registrants for the current operating year and for 3 years after (as 

with the registrant recordkeeping). The fourth type of recordkeeping involves information the 

refillers have to record when they repackage and when they receive refillable containers. 

Refillers must record three pieces of information when a pesticide is repackaged. No 

recordkeeping is required when a refillable container is received. These records must be kept for 

3 years. 

The UN recommendations, the DOT HMR, and the MACA-75 specifications have no 

requirements analogous to the second type of recordkeeping. Relative to the first type, however, 

the UN recommendations for IBCs do include recordkeeping provisions but only to the extent 

that a report should be kept of each inspection. This report should be retained at least until the 

date of the next inspection. Testing records also are recommended. The MACA-75 standards 

are similar, stipulating written records of the annual inspections. The results of the 2-year test 

for leakproofness must also be kept by tank serial number. The DOT HMR currently require 

records only for non-bulk packaging. These records are limited to information regarding the 

design qualification testing, including documenting the types of tests conducted; dates; locations; 

packaging specifications; test specifics (e.g., drop heights, hydrostatic pressures); results; and 

test operators’ names or name of the person responsible for testing each packaging at each 

location where that packaging was manufactured; and at each location where design qualification 

tests are conducted. This information must be retained for as long as the packaging is produced 

and for at least 2 years thereafter. Similar information must be kept for periodic retesting. This 

information must be kept until such tests are performed successfully again and for at least 2 years 

from the date of each test. 

F.5.11 Refilling 

The container regulations contain a great amount of detail regarding refilling, including specific 

guidelines for registrants and refillers. For example, registrants who directly sell or distribute 

pesticide products in refillables or sell or distribute pesticide products to refillers for repackaging 

are held responsible for providing instructions and documentation for refilling. Refillers who 

package or repackage pesticide products into refillable containers for distribution or sale must 

comply with the residue removal procedure for refilling developed by registrants and repackage 

any quantity of a pesticide product into a refillable container up to the rated capacity of the 

container. In addition, refillers must inspect the exterior and interiors of the containers to ensure 

that the container meets the necessary criteria with respect to container integrity, required 

markings, and openings; and clean each refillable container according to the pesticide product’s 
Page 240 

residue removal procedure for refilling before repackaging the product, unless certain criteria are 

met. 

With regard to refilling, the UN and DOT regulations are much less detailed than the container 

regulations. They both specify that each package must be inspected before reuse. The MACA-75 

specifications also refer to refilling recommendations only in terms of inspection. They 

recommend that fillers examine the tank to determine the presence of any residue of the previous 

product to prevent contamination and clean out residue of the former lading if the tank must be 

refilled with another product. 

An inspection prior to refilling is required under the container regulations and under each of the 

regulations/standards included in the baseline. The container regulations and the MACA-75 

standards are the most detailed with regard to how the inspection should be conducted. The 

MACA-75 standards also specify a thorough exterior/interior inspection annually (or at the 

beginning of each use season), and on a 2-year basis, an inspection that includes retesting for 

leakproofness. The UN recommendations for non-bulk containers include inspection before each 

filling, and, for certain container types, (e.g., rigid metal and plastic containers) inspections every 

2.5 years to the “satisfaction of the competent authority” with regard to external conditions of the 

container and proper functioning of service equipment. Every 5 years, these containers are also 

inspected to the satisfaction of the competent authority, to determine: 

• Conformance to design type, including marking; 

• Internal and external conditions, and 

• Proper functioning of service equipment. 

DOT standards (both the specifications and non-bulk packaging) indicate that on inspection the 

container must not show a reduction in integrity (non-bulks) and must be “free from 

incompatible residues, rupture or other damage which reduces its [the container’s] structural 

integrity.” The container regulations require a tamper-evident device for containers holding 

liquids, and the MACA-75 standards specify an anti-backfilling device for such containers. 

These devices must be checked before each refilling. 

F.5.12 Labeling 

Labeling requirements were originally considered under the proposed container and containment 

regulations in the 1994 proposed container rule. In this section, labeling requirements are 

compared with existing standards as referenced in the 1994 Proposed Rule. 

The Proposed Rule adopted PR Notice 83-3 recommendations (EPA, 1983), which provided the 

pesticide user certain statements and instructions on the container label for pesticide and 

container storage and removal. Additionally, container regulations require container labels to 

include the product’s intended use and registration number and container type information. 

The DOT HMR require containers to be labeled with general specifications pertaining to the 

nature of the hazard of the product. UN recommendations also requires a statement on the label 

regarding the primary and secondary risks of the product. The DOT HMR or UN 

recommendations do not contain labeling specifications for product or container storage and 
Page 241 

disposal nor a unique identifier to track the product. MACA-75 specifications do not include 

labeling. 

Table F-3 presents a side-by-side comparison of the 13 requirement categories and subcategories 

between the container regulations and the three major regulations/standards.
Page 242 

Table F-3. Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations and S

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulk Bulk Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Design StandardsRequirements 

Prohibit distribution or sale of pesticide product in nonrefillable container unless the container met standard. (§165.42) Container must meet DOT standards for design, construction, and markings in accordance with Packing Group III material as defined by DOT. (§§165.60–165.64) 

Prohibit distribution or sale of pesticide product in refillable container unless container met standard. (§165.92) Container must meet DOT standards for design, construction, and markings in accordance with Packing Group III material as defined by DOT. (§§165.60–165.64) 

Specific construction requirements for the 20 packaging types, including seams, opening/closing sizes and types, compatibility of container and materials, construction materials (§§173 (e.g., 173.24) 178, 180) 

Specific construction standards by container type (e.g., steel drums, plastic drums, and jerricans), including: opening size, seams, construction materials, etc. (6.1.4) 

(1) Resiprotectedeterior(2) Concontents under n(3) Gaskmateriaattack bthe IBC(4) All spositionminimizor contedamage(5) Desiinternal contents normal transpor(6) Specrequiremcontaine(7) Each passing perform(6.5.1.5
Page 243 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Reporting No reporting 

under these regulations. Refer to standards under the container regulations 6(a)(2) to determine if incidents involving containers are reportable to EPA. (§165.80) 

No reporting under these regulations. Refer to standards under the container regulations 6(a)(2) to determine if incidents involving containers are reportable to EPA. (§165.130) 

Each carrier that transports hazardous materials shall report in writing to DOT when there has been an unintentional release of hazardous materials or any quantity of hazardous materials has been discharged during transportation. (§171.16) 

None. A repor

inspectito desigdate of n(6.5.1.6

Responsibility Registrants. 

(§165.42) 

Registrants. (§165.92) Manufacturer or any person who performs a function 

prescribed in this part shall perform that function in accordance with this part. §178.2(a)(2) 

Not specified. Not spe

Integrity - Use Not specified. Not specified. Each liquid and dry 

bulk container and its appurtenances must meet the following standards: (1) Be resistant to extreme changes in temperature and constructed of materials adequately thick to not fail and be resistant to corrosion, puncture, or cracking; and (2) Capable of withstanding all operating stresses. (§165.120(a)) 

Each package used for the shipment of hazardous materials shall be designed, constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed, so that under conditions normally incident to transportation:(1) Except as otherwise provided, there will be no identifiable (without the use of instruments) release of hazardous materials to the environment; (2) The effectiveness of the package will not be substantially reduced; for example, impact resistance, strength, packaging compatibility, 

Each package used for the shipment of hazardous materials shall be designed, constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited, and closed, so that under conditions normally incident to transportation- (1) Except as otherwise provided, there will be no identifiable (without the use of instruments) release of hazardous materials to the environment; (2) The effectiveness of the package will not be substantially reduced; for example, impact resistance, strength, 

Specific requirements according to packaging type relating to containers designed so that they remain secure and leakproof under normal conditions of transport. (6.1.4) 

Resistanfrom deexternal (6.5.1.5None of escape uconditio(6.5.1.6
Page 244 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

etc. must be maintained for the minimum and maximum temperatures encountered during transportation; (3) There will be no mixture of gases or vapors in the package which could, through any credible spontaneous increase of heat or pressure, significantly reduce the effectiveness of the packaging. (§173.24(b)) (4) Additional integrity requirements for Intermediate Bulk Containers (§178.704) 

packaging compatibility, etc. must be maintained for the minimum and maximum temperatures encountered during transportation; (3) There will be no mixture of gases or vapors in the package which could, through any credible spontaneous increase of heat or pressure, significantly reduce the effectiveness of the packaging. (§173.24(b)) 
Page 245 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Integrity - Compatibility 

Not specified. Registrants develop a description of 

acceptable containers, which are those that meet the standards in Subpart D and are compatible with the pesticide formulation. (§§165.164(b) and 165.190(b)) 

(1) Even though certain packages are specified in this part, it is, nevertheless, the responsibility of the person offering a hazardous material for transportation to ensure that such packages are compatible with their lading. This particularly applies to corrosivity, permeability, softening, premature aging and embrittlement. (2) Packaging materials and contents must be such that there will be no significant chemical or galvanic reaction between the materials and contents of the package. (3) Plastic packages and receptacles must be of a type compatible with the lading and may not be permeable to an extent that a hazardous condition is likely to occur during transportation, handling or refilling. Each plastic packaging or receptacle which is used for liquid hazardous materials must be capable of withstanding without failure the procedure specified in appendix B of this part Alternative procedures or rates of permeation are permitted if they yield a level of safety equivalent to or greater than that provided by paragraph §173.24(e)(3)(ii) of this section and are specifically approved by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. 

Construction should be appropriate to its intended use (6.1.4) 

IBCs anconstrumateriawith theliable (1) to bcontenttheir us(2) causreact or form hadangerowith IB

 (4) Mixed contents. Hazardous materials may not be 

packed or mixed together in the same outer packaging with other hazardous or non-hazardous materials if such materials are capable of reacting dangerously with each other and causing combustion or dangerous evolution of heat; evolution of flammable, poisonous, or asphyxiant gases; or formation of unstable or corrosive materials. (5) Packagings used for solids, which may become liquid at temperatures likely to be encountered during transportation, must be capable of containing the hazardous material in the liquid state. §173.24(e) 
Page 246 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Permanent Markings

Not specified. Serial number or other identifying code 

for each container (§165.116) 

Each packaging represented as manufactured to a DOT specification or a UN standard must be marked on a non-removable component of the packaging with specification markings conforming to the applicable specification, and with the following:  (1) In an unobstructed area, with letters, and numerals identifying the standards or specification (e.g., UN 1A1, DOT 4B240ET, etc.).  (2) Unless otherwise specified in this part, with the name and address or symbol of the packaging manufacturer or, where specifically authorized, the symbol of the approval agency certifying compliance with a UN standard. Symbols, if used, must be registered with the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. Duplicate symbols are not authorized.  (3) The markings must be stamped, embossed, burned, printed or otherwise marked on the packaging to provide adequate accessibility, permanency, contrast, and legibility so as to be readily apparent and understood. 

(1) UN packaging symbol (2) Code designating type of packaging (3) Letter of designation (4) Relative density for which the design type has been tested. (5) Either letter “S” denoting that packaging intended for transport of solids or inner packagings or for packagings intended to contain liquids, hydraulic test pressure which packaging has shown to withstand (6) Last 2 digits of the year which packaging was manufactured. (7) State authorizing allocation of the mark (8) Name of manufacturer or other ID of packaging (9) Specific marking according to packaging type (10) Reconditioning markings (6.1.3.1) 

(1) UN symbol(2) Codtype of (3) Lettpacking the desiapprove(4) Monmanufa(5) Statallocati(6) NammanufaID of thspecifieauthorit(7) Stac(8) Maxpermiss(9) Contype (10) Adfor certIBCs (6
Page 247 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

 (4) Unless otherwise specified, letters and numerals 

must be at least 12.0 mm (0.47 inches) in height except that for packagings of less than or equal to 30 L (7.9 gallons) capacity for liquids or 30 kg (66 pounds) capacity for solids the height must be at least 6.0 mm (0.2 inches). For packagings having a capacity of 5 L (1 gallon) or 5 kg (11 pounds) or less, letters and numerals must be of an appropriate size.  (5) For packages with a gross mass of more than 30 kg (66 pounds), the markings or a duplicate thereof must appear on the top or on a side of the packaging. (6) A UN standard packaging marking or multiple markings are permitted provided container meets all applicable standards. (7) Authorized exemptions allowed. (§178.3, §178.503(a), §178.703) 

Dispensing Capability 

If container has capacity of 30 L or less & if container holds a liquid pesticide, container must: (1) Allow contents of nonrefillable container to pour out in a continuous, coherent stream (2) Minimize dripping (§165.68) 

Not specified. Not specified. Closures on packagings 

shall be so designed and closed that under conditions normally incident to transportation:(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, there is no identifiable release of hazardous materials to the environment from the opening to which the closure is applied; and (2) The closure is secure and leakproof. (§173.24(f)) 

Must be leakproof (6.1.4) No contents should escape under 

conditions (6.5.1.5.2) 
Page 248 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Closures Four closure 

sizes are specified for containers that meet all of these criteria: (1) rigid container; (2) capacity greater than or equal to 3.0 liters (0.79 gal.); (3) holds liquid agricultural pesticide; (4) is not an aerosol container; (5) is not a pressurized container. (§165.66) Final rule should not overlap with child-resistant packaging requirements. 

Each opening of each liquid minibulk container must have a one-way valve, a tamperevident device, or both (§165.118) 

(1) Each liquid bulk container must A) be equipped with a vent or other device designed to relieve excess pressure, prevent losses by evaporation, exclude precipitation. (2) External sight gauges are prohibited. (3) Container connections except for vents must be equipped with a shutoff valve which can be locked closed (§165.120(b)) 

(1) Closures on packagings shall be so designed and closed that under conditions (including the effects of temperature and vibration) normally incident to transportation- (i) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, there is no identifiable release of hazardous materials to the environment from the opening to which the closure is applied; and (ii) The closure is secure and leakproof. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a closure (including gaskets or other closure components, if any) used on a specification packaging must conform to all applicable requirements of the specification. (§173.24 (f)) §178.601(g)(5) 

Specific construction standards according to type. For example, closure device must be designed so it remains secure and leakproof under normal conditions of transport (6.1.4) 

Constructed so that none of the cescape under normal conditions (
Page 249 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Residue RemovalDesign Standard 

For rigid containers with dilutable pesticide, container must be capable of 99.99% removal of each active ingredient. Percent removal represents the percent of the original concentration of the active ingredient in the pesticide product when compared to the concentration of that active ingredient in the fourth rinse according to a formula. (§165.70) 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not spe

Design Standard Responsibility 

Registrant Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not app
Page 250 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Procedure Conduct rinsing 

(triple and/or pressure) on the label if rigid container & dilutable pesticide. 

Registrant develops a written residue removal procedure for each pesticide product placed in a refillable container that is adequate to maintain product integrity. (§§165.164(a) and 165.190(a)) Before refilling, the refiller (which could be a registrant) must clean each refillable container by conducting the pesticide product’s residue removal procedure for refilling unless certain conditions are met. (§165.170 and 165.210) Before disposal, conduct the rinsing procedure on the label. 

To be considered empty and not subject to DOT requirements, packaging must be “sufficiently cleaned to remove any potential hazard.” (§173.29(b)(2)(ii)) Must be free from incompatible residue for reuse. (§§173.28(a)) 

Not specified. Not spe

Procedure Responsibility 

End user Before refilling: registrant and refiller 

(which could be the registrant). Before disposal: whoever disposes of container, could be registrant, refiller, end user, or someone else. 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not spe

Production Testing

No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Sampling No No No IBC-Samples of all 

intermediate bulk container design types (§178.810(c)) 

3-6 containers (§178.602) 

3-6 containers (6.1.5.3.1) 

1 contasame or may be drop (6

Filling Requirements 

No No No Filled at least: solids95%, liquid-98% 

(§178.602, §178.810) 

Filled at least: solids95%, liquid-98% (§178.602) 

Filled to at least: solids-95%; liquid98% (6.1.5.2.1) 

Filled to 95%; li(6.5.4.9
Page 251 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Drop Test No No No The drop test must be 

conducted for the qualification of all packaging design types and performed periodically as specified in §178.601(e) Drop heights are determined according to the packing group,; for liquids, if the test is performed with water, there are specific requirements (§178.603, §178.810) 

The drop test must be conducted for the qualification of all packaging design types and performed periodically as specified in §178.601(e). Drop heights, measured as the vertical distance from the target to the lowest point on the package, must be determined as follows: (1) For solids and liquids, if the test is performed with the solid or liquid to be transported or with a non-hazardous material having essentially the same physical characteristic, the drop height must be determined according to packing group and (2) Specific requirements if for liquids, the test is performed with water (§178.603(e)). 

If test performed with materials to be carried or with another substance having essentially same physical characteristics, 0.8 m - 1.8 m depending on packing group. Other heights will apply based on relative density (6.1.5.3.4) 

Dependdensity0.8m if 1.2 or (1.5m/d if relati(6.5.4.1
Page 252 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Production Retesting

Not specified, however DOT standards are referred to and adopted. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Not specified, however DOT standards are referred to and adopted. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Not specified, however DOT standards are referred to and adopted. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Manufacturer-periodic retesting §178.601(e) -Each IBC intended to contain liquids or solids that are loaded or discharged under pressure must be tested in accordance with the leakproofness test prescribed in §178.813 of this subchapter and visually inspected every 2.5 years, starting from the date of manufacture or the date of a repair (§180.352b) 

The performance of the drop, leakproofness, hydrostatic pressure, and stacking tests. (§178.601(c)(2)) The packaging manufacturer shall achieve successful test results for the periodic retesting at intervals established by the manufacturer of sufficient frequency to ensure that each packaging produced by the manufacturer is capable of passing the design qualification tests. Changes in retest frequency are subject to the approval of the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. For single or composite packagings, the periodic retests must be conducted at least once every 12 months. For combination packagings, the periodic retests must be conducted at least once every 24 months. (§178.601(e)) 

At intervals established by competent authority. (6.1.5.1.3) Retesting before reuse every 2.5 years (§173.32(e)) 

At interby com(6.5.4.1subject leakproair pres§178.60checked leakproreuse. ((2)) 
Page 253 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Reconditioning No. However, 

may be applicable to drums. 

No No Packagings and 

receptacles used more than once must be in such condition, including closure devices and cushioning materials, that they conform in all respects to the prescribed requirements of this subchapter. Before reuse, each packaging must be inspected and may not be reused unless free from incompatible residue, rupture, or other damage which reduces its structural integrity. (§173.28) 

(1) Reconditioning of metal drums is: cleaning, restoring and inspecting. Packagings that have visible signs of deterioration must be rejected. (§173.28) (2) Reconditioning of a non-bulk packaging other than a metal drum or a UN 1H1 plastic drum includes: removal of former contents, cleaning, inspecting, replacing non-integral parts with new or refurbished parts, and restoring to meet standards. (§173.28) (3) A person who reconditions a packaging must mark and certify the package before reuse. (§178.503(c)(d))d (d) The marking may different than the original but must not identify a greater container capacity. (4) Packagings which have significant defects which cannot be repaired may not be reused. (§173.28c) 

(1) Requires leakproofness test (4.1.1.12 (2) Must be able to pass all tests (4.1.1.9) 

(1) Reqleakpro(4.1.1.1(2) Musall tests 

Miscellane

ous 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
Page 254 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Waiver Yes. May be 

issued by EPA for the following reasons: (1) if registrant demonstrates container safety standard meets or exceeds DOT standards for hazardous materials; (2) necessary or similarly protective nonstandard closure; (3) or other reasons as necessary. Waiver must be obtained in writing. (§§165.72, 165.74) 

Yes. May be issued by EPA if registrant demonstrates container safety standard meets or exceeds DOT standards for hazardous materials. Waiver must be obtained in writing. (§§165.122, 165.124) 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not app

Certification Not required Not required. Marking on the packaging with appropriate 

DOT or UN markings certifies that: (1) All requirements of the DOT specification or UN standard are met. (2) All functioned performed by or on behalf of the person whose name or symbol appears as part o f the marking conform to requirements specified in this part. (§§178.3(a)(2), 178.2(b)) 

A transport certificate and mark shall be issued attesting that container design meets the standards. (5.4.1.6) 

A certifshall be that desincludinmeets th(6.5.1.6
Page 255 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Record keeping

For each pesticide product, maintain records for as long as the non-refillable container design type is used to distribute or sell the pesticide product and for 3 years thereafter. Must keep the following records: 1) Name and EPA registration number of the pesticide product 2) Description of the design type of the nonrefillable container in which pesticide product is distributed or sold 3) copy of the certification as described in §§165.82 and 165.84 4) Record to document compliance with the requirement for closures in §165.66 5) Record to document compliance with dispensing standards in §165.68. (§165.86) 

Keep a copy of the certification for as long as a refillable container is used to distribute the product and for 3 years after. (§165.136) 

Yes, relative to testing for IBCs. (§178.801(l)) 

Yes, relative to testing for refillables. (§178.601(1)) 

Yes, relative to testing. (6.1.5.8.9) 

Yes, relinspecti(6.5.4.1
Page 256 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

RefillingTransfer 

Not Applicable. Replaces the Bulk Pesticides 

Enforcement Policy with §165.182 and §165.200. Provides that registrants may allow a refiller to prepackage the 

registrant’s pesticide product into any size refillable container and distribute or sell under the registrant’s registration (provided all conditions of the rule are met). Require registrants to submit to EPA acknowledgement that they have entered into a repackaging agreement with a refiller and they are responsible for the integrity of the repackaged product. 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not spe

Responsibility - Registrant that distributes or sells products in refillable containers 

Not applicable. (1) Product not adulterated or different 

from composition described. (§165.162) (2) Registrant would be required to develop written residue removal procedure for refilling each pesticide product. (§165.164) (3) Registrant required to develop a written list of acceptable containers for each registered pesticide. (§165.164) (4) Refiller at establishment must use approved container(s) (§165.166), have required documentation (§165.168), clean and inspect containers before refilling (§§165.170–165.174), and appropriately label the containers (§165.176). (5) Keep and make available to EPA records on pesticide products distributed or sold and information on container history and use. (§165.178) 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not spe
Page 257 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Responsibility - Registrant that distributes or sells products to refillers for repackaging 

Not applicable. (1) Repackaging results in no change to 

pesticide formulation and occurs at an EPA approved location. (§165.182) (2) Registrant must provide refiller with a written contract/authorization. (§165.186) (3) Registrant responsible for product integrity (§165.188) (4) Registrant required to provide refiller with a written residue removal procedure for refilling each pesticide product before or at the time of distribution or sale. (§§165.190, 165.192)  (5) Registrant required to provide refiller with a written list of acceptable containers for each registered pesticide. (§§165.190, 165.192) (6) Keep and make available to EPA records on contracts entered into with refillers, residue removal procedure, and list of acceptable containers for the current operating year and 3 years after that. (§165.194) 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not spe

Responsibility - Refiller 

Not applicable. (1) Required to possess necessary 

written authorizations. (§165.200) (2) Product not adulterated or different from composition described. (§165.204) (3) Refiller at establishment must use approved container(s) (§165.206), have required documentation (§165.208), clean and inspect containers before refilling (§§165.210–165.214), and appropriately label the containers (§165.216). (4) Keep and make available to EPA records on pesticide products distributed or sold and information on container history and use. (§165.218) 

Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not spe
Page 258 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Inspection Not applicable. Inspection prior to packaging or 

refilling (§§165.174 and 165.214) 

Before reuse, each packaging must be inspected and may not be reused unless free from incompatible residue, rupture, or other damage which reduces its structural integrity. (§173.28, §178.601(c)(g)) 

Refillables-inspection prior to refill. (§173.28, §180.352) Before reuse, each packaging must be inspected and may not be reused unless free from incompatible residue, rupture, or other damage which reduces its structural integrity. (§173.28, §178.601(c)(g)) 

Inspection before each fill (4.1.1.9) 

Before (4.1.1.9of packby a comrequired5 years every 2(6.5.1.6
Page 259 

Table F-3 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other National Regulations 

Container Requirements 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 100-199) 

UN Recommendations on th

Dangerous Goo

Requirement Non-Refillable Refillable Bulk and IBC Non-Bulk Non-Bulk 

Labeling (1)Identify 

container type + recycle statement (156.140(a)) (2) Residue removal statement (156.144(d)) 

(1) Reserve space for net weight of contents (156.10(d)(7)) (2) Reserve space for EPA establishment number (156.10(f)) (3) Identify container type (156.140(b)) (4) Residue removal statement 

Except as specified in §172.400a, each person who offers for transportation or transports a hazardous material in any of the following packages or containment devices, shall label the package or containment device with labels specified for the material in §172.101 and §172.400 Examples: (1) general label specifications (2) codes indicating the primary hazard of the material (3) codes indicating subsidiary hazards (4) specific labels according to hazard class or division (§172.101(g), §172.400) 

Labels of primary and subsidiary risk (5.2.2.1) 

1. Precautionary markings (1.1.1) 2. Marked in accordance with applicable provisions of the container regulations (1.2.1) 3. Tanks designed, constructed, or tested under these guidelines aren’t required to be labeled or marked as prescribed by DOT Haz. Mat. Regs unless they contain DOT regulated hazardous materials (1.1.3) 4. Containers over 119 gallons capacity, containing combustible liquids, must be marked and placarded as required to DOT HMR (1.1.4) 

Not spe
Page 260 

F.6 Existing EPA Policy Applicable to Pesticide Containers 

Existing EPA regulations, recommendations, and programs have an effect on the baseline 

compliance rate of the container regulations. Three policies that are examined to estimate this 

effect are the child-resistant packaging requirements already specified under container 

regulations, the Consumer Labeling Initiative, and the Bulk Pesticide Enforcement Policy. It is 

important to estimate the impacts of these policies in order to determine the level of adjustments 

and changes that the affected market sectors will make to come into compliance under the 

container regulations. Each of these current policies affects some but not all of the components 

of the container regulations. Below is a summary of each policy and its relevant impacts on the 

container regulations. Following the policy summaries, Table F-4 provides a side-by-side 

comparison of the relevant components of the container regulations. 

F.6.1 Child-Resistant Packaging (40 CFR Part 157)

Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 157 prescribes requirements for child-resistant packaging (CRP) of 

pesticide products and devices under authority of the container regulations Sections 25(a)(1) and 

25(c)(3). The purpose of this regulation is to protect children and adults from serious injury or 

illness resulting from accidental ingestion or contact with pesticides or devices regulated under 

the container regulations. The CRP requirements are targeted toward products that meet toxicity 

criteria and are intended for residential use. Table F-4 details the toxicity criteria used to 

determine eligibility. Pesticides classified for restricted use or that are packaged in large sizes 

are exempt. 

The CRP standards are set for effectiveness, compatibility, and durability and must be certified 

by EPA. Registrants must keep on record a (1) description of the container, (2) copy of the 

certification statement, (3) document verifying the package is child-resistant, (4) written 

evidence verifying that the container has been tested, and (5) an explanation of why the container 

and closure are compatible in cases where the components are purchased separately.

F.6.2 Consumer Labeling Initiative 

EPA’s Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI) is a voluntary, cooperative partnership effort among 

federal, state, and local government agencies, the pesticide and cleaner industry, environmental 

groups, and other interested groups. CLI was promulgated by a Pesticide Registration (PR) 

Notice posted in the Federal Register (EPA,1996). The purpose of CLI is to make labels easier 

to read and understand on indoor insecticides, outdoor pesticides, and household hard surface 

cleaners (i.e., floor and basin, tub and tile), some of which are registered 

antimicrobials/disinfectants. 

CLI has undergone two phases. Phase I began in early 1996 and ended on September 30, 1996. It 

was comprised of three components: qualitative consumer research, a literature review of 

relevant publications and reports of studies available in the public domain or provided by various 

stakeholders, and a review of extensive stakeholder comments solicited through the Federal 

Register Notice. 

Phase II, which began in October 1996, resulted from this first phase of research. Phase II 

addressed issues that Phase I did not complete or include, including conducting in-depth 
Page 261 

quantitative consumer research, finding ways to improve labels by using clearer wording and 

storage and disposal information, and identifying other information about ingredients that 

consumers want and need on labels. This phase also included the development of a consumer 

education campaign. 

Pesticide Regulation Notices are issued by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs to inform 

pesticide registrants and other interested persons about important policies, procedures, and 

regulatory decisions. The labeling recommendations of the Phase I and II reports, some of which 

have been included in PR Notices, are as follows: 

• Include emergency telephone numbers on product labels; 

• Use common chemical names, not formal chemical names; 

• Use the heading “Other Ingredients” instead of the little understood term “Inert Ingredients”; 

• Use the more readily understood heading “First Aid,” instead of “Statement of Practical 

Treatment”; 

• Include simplified, medically correct First Aid Statements; 

• List only meaningful ingredient identification; 

• Provide consistent and clear directions for storage and disposal; and 

• Specify label recommendations according to pesticide type. 

The CLI affects a relatively small portion of the pesticides included in the scope of the container 

regulations. This class of products includes outdoor pesticides under Toxicity Categories I or II, 

which are not exempt as eligible antimicrobials. It appears unlikely that outdoor pesticides in 

Toxicity Categories III and IV, which meet container regulations, were intended for use in the 

scope of the CLI. The CLI targets the home and garden sector whereas the container regulations 

are intended for eligible containers used by all market sectors. Table F-4 below compares the 

requirements of the 1994 Proposed Rule regulations for container labeling with the CLI 

recommendations. 

F.6.3 Bulk Pesticide Enforcement Policy 

The Bulk Pesticide Enforcement Policy was published in July 1977 (41 FR 55932). This policy 

was developed to define when bulk shipments and transfer practices were allowable without a 

separate registration. The commercial transfer of pesticides in bulk can involve changing the 

container at various stages of the distribution process; however, “repackaging” (“transferring a 

pesticide formulation from one container to another without a change in the composition of the 

formulation or the labeling for sale or distribution,” 40 CFR §165.3) is considered “production” 

of a pesticide as defined in 40 CFR §167.3. A registration is needed for distribution or sale of a 

repackaged product. The Bulk Policy clarifies that a separate registration is not needed, as long 

as “the transfer of a registered product in ‘bulk’ involves only the changing of the product 

container with no change: 

(1) “to the pesticide formulation, 

(2) to the product’s accepted labeling [with exceptions regarding information required by the 

policy regarding the repackaging establishment and package content], and

(3) to the identity of the party accountable for the product’s integrity.” 
Page 262 

If the above three conditions are met, the repackaged product is considered to be encompassed 

within the terms of the original product registration. The policy details when a new registration 

is needed and how to satisfy the third criterion regarding “accountability” for product integrity. 

Primarily, this criterion is met if the repackager has written authorization from the registrant 

allowing the repackager to repackage the pesticide at a registered establishment and to use the 

registrant’s label. 

The Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy is often referred to as the “55-gallon” policy because it 

defines the term “bulk” to mean any volume of pesticide greater than 55 gallons or 100 pounds 

held in an individual container. This policy may have discouraged repackaging smaller amounts 

(i.e., it placed a lower limit on the quantity of pesticide that could be introduced into refillable 

bulk containers and on the capacity of the containers because such quantities could not be 

repackaged without a new registration). On March 4, 1991, this policy was amended to allow 

the repackaging of any quantity of pesticides into refillable containers, provided that: 

(4) “The container is designed and constructed to accommodate the return and refill of greater 

than 55 gallons liquid or 100 lb. dry materials; and 

(11) Either: (a) the containers are dedicated to and refilled with one specific active ingredient 

in a compatible formulation, or (b) the container is thoroughly cleaned according to written 

instructions provided by the registrant to the dealer prior to introducing another chemical to 

the container in order to avoid cross-contamination; and 

(12) All other conditions of the July 11, 1977 policy are met.” 

The Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy does not include any container construction or 

performance standards. With regard to labeling and marking, the policy indicates that the 

registrant’s label must be used for the repackaged material, and this label must reflect the 

establishment number of the establishment that repackaged the material and the appropriate net 

content statement. Permanent marking is not required. 

The refillable container requirements do not change the conditions under which repackaging a 

pesticide can occur without requiring a new registration. The safeguards specified in the Bulk 

Pesticides Enforcement Policy are incorporated into the final container regulations through the 

requirements regarding registrant and refilling establishment repackaging responsibilities. The 

Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy will be rescinded after the container regulations are final. 

The final regulations make the following general changes: 

(5) Repackaging is allowed for any quantity of pesticide into any size of container, as long as 

that container meets the standards for a refillable container, and 

(6) Specific labeling, marking, design, and performance standards are established for refillable 

containers. 
Page 263 

Table F-4. Comparison of Container Regulations with Other EPA Policies 

Category Container Regulations 

Child-Resistant Packaging 

(49 CFR Part 157) 

Consumer Labeling 

Initiative 

(FR 61:12011) 

Scope (1) The product is classified in 

Toxicity Category I or II, or (2) The container capacity is greater than or equal to the container size criterion of 5 L (1.3 gallons) or 5 kg (11 lbs), or (3) The product is intended for outdoor use and the label includes at least one of the specified environmental statements (FR 64:203, Table 5) Exempt: Antimicrobials eligible for exemption (FR 64:203, Table 5) 

(1) The product has toxicity of: 1.5 g/kg LD50 oral; 2,000 mg/kg LD50 acute dermal; or 2 mg/l LC50 acute inhalation; or (2) The product is corrosive to the eye, causes corneal irritation persisting 21+ days; or (3) The product is corrosive to the skin or causes severe skin irritation at 72 hrs; or (4) EPA determines packaging could significantly reduce serious hazard or injury. and (5) Product intended for residential use. Exempt: Product classified for restricted use or packaged in large sizes. 

(1) Indoor insecticides (2) Household surface cleaners (3) Outdoor pesticides Some of these pesticides are registered antimicrobials. 

Design Standards 

Major component of regulation developed for refillable and nonrefillable container standards (refer to Table F-3 above). 

(1) Effectiveness: meets specification in 16 CFR §170.20. (2) Compatibility: product does not interfere with the child-resistant packaging or is detrimental to the integrity of the container. (3) Durability: child-resistant packaging meets standards over lifetime of container. 

Not applicable. 

Certification Not required. Child-resistant packaging device must be certified 

by EPA along with compatibility with container. 

Not applicable. 

Recordkeeping Record of container certifications 

must be kept while container is in use. 

Record of CRP and container certifications must be kept while container is in use. 

Not applicable. 
Page 264 

Table F-4 (Continued). Comparison of Container Regulations with Other EPA Policies 

Category Container Regulations 

Child-Resistant Packaging 

(49 CFR Part 157) 

Consumer Labeling 

Initiative 

(FR 61:12011) 

Labeling Labeling regulations pertain to: 

(1) For refillables, reserve space for net contents and EPA establishment number. (2) Residue removal instructions. (3) Identification of container types. 

Not specified. Voluntary labeling 

recommendations pertain to (1) Simplifying and clarifying language, ingredient listings, and first aid statements. (2) Providing useful storage and disposal information. 
Page 265 

F.7 State Regulations and Standards 

State regulations and standards have an important role in managing pesticide containers. Just as 

nationwide regulations/standards affect the baseline compliance rate of container regulations, 

state-level regulations/standards also have an impact on the baseline compliance rate. States 

have developed container-related regulations varying from no or weak standards to stringent 

requirements. This suggests that adjustments to the nationwide compliance rate are necessary to 

compensate for variability in state-level container regulations. 

While a comprehensive state-level container standards analysis is beyond the scope of this 

economic analysis, this section will discuss some of the applicable state regulations and 

guidelines that focus on container performance standards and the rinsing, disposal, and storage of 

pesticide containers. To obtain information on state pesticide regulations, we conducted a survey 

of Internet literature for eight states located in different regions of the United States. The main 

source of information used for this section was the National Agricultural Safety Database 

(NASD) maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NASD 

includes pesticide container-related articles and brochures contributed by professionals and 

organizations from states across the country. Additional information collected and summarized 

in this section comes from state agencies responsible for pesticide container standards and 

university extension programs providing recommendations. 

The results of the eight-state analysis are summarized in the following sections by requirement 

category. Following the summaries is Table F-5, which includes state-by-state details of the 

rinsing, disposal, and storage guidelines from the eight states evaluated. 

F.7.1 Container Design and Performance Standards 

States are prohibited from imposing any requirements for pesticide packaging in addition to, or 

different from, those required under the container regulations (Section 14(b)). The container 

regulations require pesticides that are considered DOT hazardous materials to be packaged in 

containers that meet the DOT hazardous materials regulations, which contain performance, 

design, and management standards. Most, if not all, states have adopted the DOT HMR in some 

form and, in this way, regulate pesticide containers holding DOT hazardous materials. These 

requirements must be at least as stringent as the federal requirements. 

F.7.2 Refilling Requirements 

Some states have adopted bulk pesticide storage regulations that by definition allow repackaging 

and transfer into refillable containers with the assurance that certain standards are being met. 

Such standards may address, depending on the state, refillable storage containers and 

appurtenances, secondary containment, operational area containment (mixing/loading/refilling 

activities), security, inspection and maintenance, open burning of agrichemical containers, and 

other issues. Iowa and South Dakota have effectively incorporated EPA’s 1977 Bulk Pesticides 

Enforcement Policy. 

Applicators can purchase small quantities of pesticides in containers that are refilled by the 

registrant. Several registrants market pesticides in these small refillable containers (e.g., 15 or 30 

gallons) in compliance with both federal and state law. They do this by having the containers 
Page 266 

returned to them for refilling, rather than to a dealer. Registrants are able to trace and ensure 

return of these containers by numbering each one and requiring a deposit. 

F.7.3 Transfer of Pesticides Between Containers 

California has regulations requiring the use of closed systems when (1) employees handle any 

liquid pesticide or liquid mix or dilution of pesticide displaying the signal word “DANGER” on 

the label or (2) employees handle any minimal exposure pesticide. California defines a “closed 

system” as “a procedure for removing a pesticide from its original container, rinsing the empty 

container and transferring the pesticide product and dilutions and rinse solution through 

connecting hoses, pipes, and couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent exposure of any 

person to the pesticide or rinse solution” (CalEPA, 1998). Employees must receive training in 

the proper use and safety precautions of closed systems. Employees who only handle up to one 

gallon of product per day in original containers of up to one gallon in size are exempted from the 

closed system requirement. 

California has found its closed-system requirement difficult to implement because of the variety 

of container sizes, shapes, and materials. Additionally, not all reusable containers are adaptable 

to closed systems. The container regulations do not address the use of closed systems for either 

the registrant or the refilling establishment, but the requirement for use of standardized closures 

for non-refillable containers should encourage and expedite the use of closed systems. EPA’s 

final container regulations do not specify that refillable containers must conform to the use of 

standardized closures. 

F.7.4 Residue Removal Procedures 

A number of states have developed residue removal procedures for users. These are sometimes 

part of a regulatory requirement or are published as recommendations in Cooperative Extension 

circulars or bulletins. The removal procedures vary by state and typically include triple rinsing 

and/or pressure rinsing. Table F-5 contains descriptions of the residue removal procedures, 

either required or recommended, for those states that have such procedures. 

F.7.5 Container Collection and Disposal Procedures 

A number of states have instituted some form of pesticide container disposal program. The 

primary function of these programs is to provide pesticide users with a secure and 

environmentally controlled site for returning empty containers, so that uncontrolled disposal and 

dumping of pesticide containers is reduced. These programs also help to ensure that residues 

have been properly removed from empty containers. States commonly recommend that rinsed, 

empty pesticide containers be disposed of in approved, sanitary landfills. Pesticide container 

collection sites and toxic waste cleanup days are also common. South Dakota, for example, 

establishes 19 sites across the state during the summer for pesticide container collection. Some 

states, including Florida and Nebraska, allow for some pesticide containers to be disposed of by 

open burning. Opening burning of pesticide containers is prohibited by state statute in Michigan. 

Florida and Nebraska also permit the burial of properly rinsed pesticide containers in open fields, 

with regulations that the burial be a minimum of 18 inches deep and in a location where surface 

and groundwater will not be polluted. California prohibits the burial of pesticide containers. 
Page 267 

F.7.6 Pesticide Storage Guidelines 

Pesticide storage guidelines are similar from state to state. Generally, states recommend that 

pesticides and pesticide containers should be stored in a clean, dry, well-ventilated, insulated, 

fireproof structure that can be locked and monitored by responsible personnel. Storage 

guidelines commonly specify that only pesticide and pesticide containers should be stored 

together to avoid the contamination of other products. Visible signs on all entrance points with 

the words “danger,” “warning,” or “keep out” are also recommended. Michigan has special 

storage guidelines for bulk pesticides which specify permissible locations of storage facilities 

based on distance from water supplies. The Iowa State University Extension is promoting “Zero 

Pesticide Storage” to encourage farmers to inventory and properly dispose of all unneeded or 

unusable pesticides in 2 to 3 years. 
Page 268 

Table F-5. Eight-State Analysis of Pesticide Container Guidelines 

Rinsing Guidelines Disposal Guidelines Storage Guidelines 

FLORIDATriple-rinse, or jet-rinse, applicable to metal, glass, and plastic containers, with the exception of aerosol cans: 1. Empty container into spray tank 

and drain in vertical position for 30 seconds 

2. Add a measured amount of rinse 

water (or other dilutant) so container is 1/5 to 1/4 full 

3. Rinse container thoroughly, pour 

into tank, and drain for 30 seconds. 

4. Repeat step three times 5. Puncture container before final 

drain 

6. Crush pesticide container 

immediately; sell as scrap for recycling or bury 

7. Bury triple-rinsed containers a 

minimum of 18 inches deep but well above the ground water table (never bury in wetlands or sinkholes). 

Florida state law allows for some pesticide containers to be disposed of by open burning. Strict regulations apply. Farmers may bury triple-rinsed containers on their own property. Containers should be buried at least 18 inches deep but well above the ground water table, and never in sinkholes and wetlands. Farmers should receive permission from the landowner before burying containers on rented property. Non-farmers who bury empty pesticide containers on the their own property must notify their local Department of Environmental Regulation of the burial. 

Safe storage rules: 1. Keep pesticides and other poisons locked in a 

cabinet, room, or separate building designated solely for their storage. 

2. Post the cabinet, room, or building with a sign, 

“PESTICIDES—POISONS, KEEP OUT,” or similar signs 

3. Control access to the facility to one to three 

highly trusted, responsible individuals 

4. Never store pesticides where food, feed, seed, 

fertilizers, or other products may become contaminated 

5. Only store pesticides in their original containers 6. Facility shall be reasonably fireproof and wellventilated; temperatures should be kept between 

freezing and 100 degrees F 

7. Concrete block walls, sealed concrete floors with 

no floor drains, and metal shelves are recommended over wooden structures 

8. Store dry pesticides on the top shelves, liquids 

on the lower shelves 

9. Electrical fixtures should be dust- and explosionproof. 

NASDhttp://w

MICHIGANTriple-rinse, or pressure-rinse, applicable to all empty pesticide containers. After triple-rinsing, puncture metal and plaster containers. 

Metal and plastic containers should be punctured after they are properly rinsed. Rinsed glass, metal, and plastic containers may be buried in approved sanitary landfills. Open burning of pesticide containers is prohibited by state statute. Michigan has had an agricultural plastic pesticide container recycling program in operation since 1992. This program facilitates grinding and recycling of clean, plastic containers.

Safe storage rules: • Keep a separate structure for pesticide storage 

• Structure should be locked at all times and 

protected from temperature extremes, high humidity, and direct sunlight 

• Structure should be dark, cook, dry, wellventilated, insulated to prevent freezing, and 

constructed to state and local fire codes for storing flammable/combustible materials 

• Never store pesticides near feed, seed, food, or 

fertilizers. 

Storage guidelines for bulk pesticides also exist in Michigan. The guidelines specify permissible locations of storage facilities, based on distance from water supplies. 

NASDhttp://wMichighttp://w
Page 269 

Table F-5 (Continued). Eight-State Analysis of Pesticide Container Guidelines 

Rinsing Guidelines Disposal Guidelines Storage Guidelines 

IOWATriple-rinse, or pressure-rinse, applicable to all empty pesticide containers: 1. Fill container about 20 percent full 

of water, replace the cap securely, and shake the container 

2. Pour rinse water into a spray tank 

3. Drain for at least 30 seconds 

4. Repeat two times 

5. Puncture all containers. 

Empty pesticide containers that have been properly rinsed may be disposed of in approved landfills. 

The Iowa State University Extension recommends that pesticide users try to achieve “Zero Pesticide Storage” in 2 to 3 years. The following initial steps are suggested: • Determine what pesticides are in storage; banned 

pesticides such as DDT or Chlordane should be disposed of by professionals at the next Toxic Waste Cleanup Day 

• Set aside all pesticides that are no longer wanted 

or that are unusable (unusable pesticides may be ineffective or dangerous to use due to poor storage conditions); store them properly until the next Toxic Waste Cleanup Day. 

NASDhttp://w

KANSASTriple-rinse applicable to all empty containers of liquid pesticides. Wash the inside of the tractor with detergent and water and change the cab’s filters when finished applying pesticides. 

 NASD

http://w

MARYLANDTriple-rinse pesticide containers and return the rinsate to the spray tank. 

Puncture thoroughly rinsed pesticide containers so they cannot be reused. Pesticides containers may be disposed of in a licensed sanitary landfill. 

Pesticides should be stored in their original containers in a cool, well-ventilated, locked location away from pumps and water sources. 

Maryla

httphmd.e

LeafGrouPesti
Page 270 

Table F-5 (Continued). Eight-State Analysis of Pesticide Container Guidelines 

Rinsing Guidelines Disposal Guidelines Storage Guidelines 

SOUTH DAKOTAContainers must be either triple-rinsed or pressure-rinsed prior to recycling or disposal. Triple rinse: • Remove cover from container; 

empty pesticide into the sprayer tank; let container drip and drain for an extra 30 seconds once it is empty 

• Fill the container 1/5 to 1/4 full 

with water 

• Secure the cover on the container 

• Remove cover and empty rinsate 

into the sprayer tank; let container drip and drain for an extra 30 seconds 

• Repeat two more times 

• Leave container open to air dry 

• Inspect container for cleanliness – 

pay close attention to threads and the outside of the container (more rinsing may be necessary). 

Pesticide containers are collected at approximately 19 sites across South Dakota during the summer. Containers are inspected before acceptance. Acceptable containers are recycled, while containers with visible residue are rejected. Applicators with unacceptable containers are asked to properly clean and return them. A person shall not construct a bulk pesticide storage facility, for the storage of more than 300 gallons, without a secondary means of containment. Plans and specifications for the facility must be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture for review and approval prior to construction. 

Reduce the amount of pesticides kept in storage at any one time, storing it no longer than necessary.: • Rotate pesticide supply, using the oldest products 

first 

• Store pesticides under proper conditions; most 

pesticides require storage temperatures between 40 and 100 degrees F under relatively dry conditions 

• Store in a location away from occupied areas and 

on an impermeable floor, such as concrete, to allow detection and containment of spills. 

South D

http://w

tm

http://w

tm

NEBRASKA

All empty pesticide containers must be either triple-rinsed or pressure-rinsed. Triple-rinsing (applicable for plastic, non-pressurized metal, and glass containers): • Remove cap from container; 

empty remaining pesticide into the spray tank, allowing container to drain for 30 seconds 

• Fill container 10% to 20% full of 

water or rinse solution 

• Secure the pesticide container cap 

• Swirl liquid within the container 

to rinse all inside surfaces 

• Remove cap; add rinsate from 

container to spray tank and allow to drain for at least 30 seconds 

• Repeat two more times 

• Replace cap and dispose of 

container properly. 

Nebraska has community landfills and other sites that accept empty plastic agricultural pesticide containers that have been pressure- or triple-rinsed. All containers are thoroughly inspected before acceptance. Pesticide containers are divided into three groups: • Group I: combustible containers that held all pesticides 

except for heavy metals 

• Group II: noncombustible containers (metal, glass, and 

plastic) that held all pesticides except for heavy metals 

• Group III: both combustible and noncombustible 

containers used for pesticides containing heavy metals. 

Group I containers may be disposed of by: • Burning in a special high-temperature pesticide 

incinerator 

• Burial in a specially designated disposal landfill 

• Burning small quantities (50 pounds or one day’s 

accumulation, whichever is less) if local ordinances permit 

• Burial singly in open fields at least 18 inches below the 

surface, but only in locations where surface and 

Storage Area Guidelines: • Store pesticides and pesticide containers in a fireresistant structure with a concrete floor and good 

ventilation 

• Post weatherproof signs stating “Danger – 

Pesticides, Keep Out!” or a similar warning on each door of the facility and over all windows 

• Use pesticide storage area ONLY for pesticides 

• Good lighting–both natural and artificial–is 

necessary in storage area; some liquid pesticides, for example, are subject to photodecomposition and therefore should not be stored in direct sunlight 

• Insulate storage areas to avoid temperature 

extremes 

• An electrically shielded exhaust-type ventilating 

fan may be needed in the storage area to reduce the temperature and concentrations of toxic fumes 

• For storage of large quantities or pesticides, fire 

detector sensors and fire-fighting equipment are 

NebGuInstitutResourLincoln http://w
Page 271 

Table F-5 (Continued). Eight-State Analysis of Pesticide Container Guidelines 

Rinsing Guidelines Disposal Guidelines Storage Guidelines 

Pressure-rinsing (applicable for plastic and non-pressurized metal containers): • Remove cap from container; 

empty pesticide into spray tank, allowing container to drain for 30 seconds 

• Insert pressure-rinser nozzle by 

puncturing through the lower side of the container 

• Hold container upside down over 

the spray tank openings 

• Rinsate will run into the spray 

tank 

• Rinse for the length of time 

recommended by the manufacturer (at least 30 seconds); rotate the nozzle to rinse all inside surfaces 

• Rinse caps in a bucket of water for 

more than one minute and pour this rinse water into spray tank 

• Replace cap and dispose of 

container properly. 

subsurface water will not be polluted; containers should not be buried in locations likely to be used as future building sites or where animals might uncover them while rooting or digging. 

Group II containers may be disposed of by: • Burial in a sanitary landfill 

• If group II containers are not properly 

• rinsed, they can only be disposed of by burial in a 

specially designated landfill. 

Group III containers may be disposed of by: • Disposal in a sanitary landfill, if the container has been 

triple-rinsed and punctured to facilitate draining 

• Any Group III container that is not or cannot be rinsed 

must be sealed in a watertight container and buried in a specially designated hazardous waste landfill. 

recommended; provide floor plan and records of the location and nature of pesticides in storage to the police or county sheriff, fire department, and public health department 

• Provide wooden pallets or metal shelves for 

storing granular and dry formulations packaged in sacks, fiber drums, boxes, or other waterpermeable containers. 
Page 272 

Table F-5 (Continued). Eight-State Analysis of Pesticide Container Guidelines 

Rinsing Guidelines Disposal Guidelines Storage Guidelines 

CALIFORNIA

Each emptied container that held less than 28 gallons of a liquid pesticide diluted for use shall be rinsed by the user at the time of use. There are two rinsing procedures: Procedure 1: • For containers smaller than 5 

gallons, use enough water to fill the container 1/4 full; for larger containers, use enough water to fill it 1/5 full 

• Close the container securely and 

agitate 

• Drain the solution into the mix 

tank; allow the container to empty completely 

• Repeat steps a minimum of 2 more 

times. 

Procedure 2: • Turn the empty container over and 

place the opening over a nozzle; this nozzle must be located in the opening of the mix tank so the liquid will drain into the tank; the nozzle must be able to rinse all inner surfaces of the container 

• Turn the nozzle on and rinse until 

the water coming from the container is clear; use a minimum of 1⁄2 the container volume of water. 

Other rinsing methods may be used, if approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).

Dispose of all empty pesticide containers in a manner approved by the CalEPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control. Glass, plastic, and metal containers should be disposed of in an approved disposal site. No pesticide container should be buried. Disposal requirements may differ by county. In many counties, people must possess a permit or certificate issued by the local agricultural commissioner to dispose of rinsed containers.

Safe storage guidelines: • Keep pesticides and empty containers under 

direct personal control at all times 

• Acceptable pesticide storage areas include: (1) a 

locked, fenced area, (2) a lockable storage compartment, (3) a locked truck or trailer with side racks (the tops of the racks should be at least six feet above the ground) 

• Keep storage areas clean, dry, ventilated, and 

adequately lighted 

• Keep pesticides and fertilizers separate in storage 

area 

• Post warning signs on all storage areas 

containing pesticides (or empty containers) with the signal words “DANGER” or “WARNING” on the label; post signs on all directions of approach, if possible; sign must be readable from 25 feet away. 

Worker CalEPASeries Ahttp://w

743.pd
Page 273 

Appendix G. Comparison of the Final Container Regulations with the 1994 

Proposed Container Regulations 

The final container regulations differ significantly from the 1994 proposed regulations. The final 

regulations are narrower in scope than the proposed regulations, exempt certain antimicrobial 

pesticides, and adopt some of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous materials 

regulations. As a result, the economic impacts on the regulated community will be different 

under the final regulations than under the proposed regulations. 

EPA received approximately 1,900 pages of comments from more than 200 commenters (e.g., 

trade associations, pesticide manufacturers, pesticide retailers, and many state regulatory 

agencies) on the proposed rule. In response, two significant issues were readdressed, and the 

comment period was reopened in 1999. The two issues were: (1) the scope of the container 

standards; and (2) the relationship between the 1994 proposed rule and the DOT standards for 

hazardous materials packaging. In the final rule (as discussed below), EPA has revised the scope 

of the container standards to be risk-based with exemptions, and has adopted many of the design 

and construction standards that would apply to DOT Packing Group III materials. These and 

other changes made to each standard are as follows. 

The following is a comparison of the proposed and final container requirements under 

consideration by EPA for 11 major sections of the container regulations. Each category is 

discussed in a separate section below: 

G.1 Scope 

The proposed regulations generally affected all containers used to package pesticide products, 

without regard to industry, use, risk, or container type and size. Only manufacturing use 

products were exempt from the proposed regulations. 

The final CONTAINER regulations affect a significant number but not all of the total containers 

used in the pesticide industry. The scope criteria of the final regulations are based on the 

characteristics and/or human risk associated with the pesticide product contained. All 

manufacturing use products, all plant-incorporated protectants, and certain antimicrobial 

products are not subject to the final regulations. In particular, antimicrobial pesticide products 

that satisfy all four of the following criteria are exempt from the regulations: 

• The product is an antimicrobial pesticide, as defined in the container regulations Section 

2(mm), or it has antimicrobial properties, as defined in the container regulations Section 

2(mm)(1)(A), and is subject to a tolerance or a food additive regulation. 

• Its label includes directions for use on a site in at least one of the 10 antimicrobial product 

use categories identified as “household, industrial or institutional.” 

• It is not a hazardous waste when it is intended to be disposed, as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 

• EPA has not specifically found that the product must be subject to the regulations to prevent 

an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 

As set out in the last bullet, the final regulations include a provision to require a specific 

antimicrobial product or group of products to comply with the container regulations if a problem 
Page 274 

becomes evident. EPA may consider evidence such as use history, accident data, monitoring 

data, or other pertinent evidence in deciding whether the product must comply with the container 

standards to prevent an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 

Other than MUPs, plant-incorporated protectants, and exempt antimicrobial products, all 

pesticide products are subject to the non-refillable container, refillable container, repackaging 

and labeling regulations. 

However, the scope of the non-refillable container regulations is different in that only “higherrisk” products are subject to all of the non-refillable container requirements. The “lower-risk” 

products are subject only to the basic DOT requirements. In particular: 

• A product is subject to all non-refillable container requirements if it is classified in at least 

one of the following categories: 

- Toxicity Category I 

- Toxicity Category II 

- Restricted use product. 

• All other products (those in Toxicity Category III or IV that are not restricted use products) 

must comply only with the basic DOT requirements in 49 CFR §173.24. 

For the refillable container and repackaging regulations, all products (that are not specifically 

exempt) are subject to the full set of requirements. The only exception is that antimicrobial 

products used in swimming pools and closely related sites are subject to a reduced number of 

requirements. 

To estimate the number of containers affected by the container rule, EPA estimated the 

percentage of pesticide products in Toxicity Categories I and II, and the percentage of 

antimicrobial pesticides. Based on an analysis of information in an Office of Pesticide Programs 

database (EPA, 1998a), EPA estimated the percentage of pesticide products in Toxicity Category 

I used on agricultural crops and forestry and ornamental turf/plants to be 20 and 10 percent, 

respectively. Toxicity Category II pesticide products were estimated to be 15 percent used on 

agricultural crops and forestry and ornamental turf/plants. Fifteen percent of all pesticide 

products used for agricultural products and forestry and ornamental turf/plants were in Toxicity 

Category II. 

For comparison purposes, EPA estimated that 70 percent of antimicrobial pesticides eligible for 

exemption are classified in Toxicity Category I and 15 percent in Toxicity Category II. The 

antimicrobial pesticide exemption applies only to non-agricultural pesticide use. EPA estimated 

that an additional 10 to 20 percent of pesticide products above and beyond those affected by the 

toxicity criteria would also be affected by the hazard statement scope criteria and an additional 

15 to 25 percent affected by the container size criteria. In the end, approximately 50 to 90 

percent of pesticide containers were expected to be affected by the scope criteria. 

G.2 Design Standards 

Design standards were very general in the proposed regulations. The final container standards 

adopt a subset of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (DOT 
Page 275 

HMR) packaging standards at the Packing Group III level for pesticides not classified as DOT 

hazardous materials. Pesticides that are classified as DOT hazardous materials must comply 

with all applicable DOT regulations. For the purpose of enforcing the pesticide container 

regulations, the final rule identifies the DOT requirements for all three packing groups that are 

“equivalent” to the Packing Group III requirements applicable to products that are not DOT 

hazardous materials. Under the regulations, sale or distribution of pesticides in containers not 

meeting all of the standards (the specifically listed ones in the pesticide regulations and the 

adopted DOT packaging standards) is prohibited. Both non-refillable and refillable pesticide 

containers must meet these standards. 

G.3 Permanent Markings 

Proposed container regulations specified permanent marking requirements for non-refillable and 

refillable containers. Non-refillables required the EPA registration number and the name, 

symbol, or code of materials used to make the container, and refillables required several pieces 

of information including the statement, “Meets EPA standards for refillable containers.” The 

final regulations for non-refillables and refillables refer to and adopt the DOT standards, which 

include marking requirements. Additionally, the final regulations require a serial number or 

other identifying code to be durably marked on each refillable container. 

G.4 Dispensing Capability 

The proposed regulations stipulated that all non-refillable containers for liquids be designed to 

eliminate the splash and leakage during normal pouring of the contents, closing or resealing of 

the container, and storage and cleaning of the container. The final regulations apply only to 

liquid non-refillable containers with a capacity greater than 20 liters (5.3 gallons) and are the 

same except the resealing criterion was replaced by a DOT equivalent. No dispensing capability 

requirements are specified in either the proposed or final container regulations for refillable 

containers. 

G.5 Closures 

The final requirements for container closures are essentially the same as the proposed closure 

standards. Four closures are specified for non-refillable rigid containers having a capacity 

greater than 3.0 liters for liquid agricultural pesticides. The proposed and final regulations 

should not overlap with the child-resistant packaging requirements. Liquid minibulk refillables

require a one-way valve, tamper-evident device, or both on each opening. Liquid bulk refillable 

containers must be equipped with a pressure-relieving device and locking shutoff valve and 

cannot have external sight gauges. 

G.6 Residue Removal Design Standard 

With regard to non-refillable containers, the proposed regulations specified that registrants must 

demonstrate that each rigid/dilutable container/formulation combination achieves a “six-9s” 

laboratory performance standard (a reduction of the original active ingredient concentrate to 

.0001 percent in a fourth rinse or equivalent to 99.9999 percent removal). The final regulations 

require only a “four-9s” standard, where rigid containers with dilutable pesticides must be 

capable of 99.99 percent removal of each active ingredient. Percent removal represents the 
Page 276 

percentage of the original concentration of the active ingredient in the pesticide product when 

compared to the concentration of that active ingredient in the fourth rinse according to a formula. 

The final regulations require that every registrant test three containers from each rigid 

container/dilutable formulation combination to determine that the containers are capable of 

attaining at least 99.99 percent removal of each active ingredient in the fourth rinsate after a 

triple rinse. 

The proposed regulations required that a minimum of 19 randomly selected containers be 

sampled for residue removal compliance and required the testing to be done according to the full 

GLP rule. 

Residue removal procedures for the final and proposed regulations are the same, except that 

household products are exempt from the residue removal labeling requirements for nonrefillables. For non-refillable, rigid containers with dilutable pesticides, triple and/or pressure 

rinsing is required prior to disposal, and the procedure is specified on the pesticide label. 

Additionally, for refillables, registrants are required to develop written residue removal 

procedures for each pesticide product, and refillers are required to follow the procedures before 

each refill.

G.7 Design Qualification Testing92

The proposed regulations specified several container design qualification testing requirements; in 

particular, residue removal testing for non-refillable containers and drop testing for refillable 

minibulk containers. The final regulations do not specifically require residue removal testing for 

non-refillable containers, although in reality the registrants will have to conduct some testing to 

be able to show that their containers meet the residue removal standard. The details of the 

testing procedure will be included in an OPP testing guideline. The final regulations do not 

provide the specific details of a drop test for minibulks as the proposed regulations did. Instead, 

the final rule adopts the DOT HMR design standards for non-refillable and refillable containers, 

thereby incorporating DOT’s design qualification testing for drop, leakproofness, hydrostatic 

pressure, stacking, and cooperative tests (as applicable) for each new or different packaging. 

G.8 Production Testing and Periodic Retesting92

The proposed regulations did not address production testing or periodic retesting, whereas the 

final regulations require production testing and periodic retesting by adopting DOT HMR 

standards. Depending on the kind of container, the DOT HMR specify the retesting intervals 

(e.g., every 12 or 24 months for DOT non-bulk packages). In addition, the DOT HMR specify 

 

92 The titles of Sections G.7 and G.8 are consistent with the DOT definitions of design qualification testing, periodic 

retesting, and production testing (49 CFR §178.601(c)). For the sake of completeness: 

 “Design qualification testing is the performance of the drop, leakproofness, hydrostatic pressure, stacking, and 

cooperage tests, as applicable, prescribed in sections..., for each new or different packaging, at the start of 

production of that packaging. 

 Periodic retesting is the performance of the drop, leakproofness, hydrostatic pressure, and stacking tests, as 

applicable, prescribed in sections..., at the frequency specified in §178.601(e) of this subpart. 

 Production testing is the performance of the leakproofness test prescribed in §178.604 of this subpart on each 

single or composite packaging intended to contain a liquid.” 
Page 277 

production testing (testing each and every container for compliance with the leakproofness test) 

for some types of containers. 

G.9 Reconditioning 

The proposed regulations did not address reconditioning of containers. The final rule 

incorporates DOT requirements (such as 49 CFR §173.28) that allow and account for 

reconditioning. 

G.10 Waiver 

The proposed rule provided for waivers from the standard closure and residue removal standards 

for non-refillable containers. The final rule includes provisions for these two waivers, plus 

waivers from the container dispensing requirements (for non-refillable containers) and from the 

cross-referenced DOT requirements (for non-refillable and refillable containers.) 

G.11 Certification 

The proposed regulations required registrants to certify that the non-refillable and refillable 

containers used for distribution or sale of pesticides meet the regulatory standards. As proposed, 

the certification needed to contain information including the EPA registration number and the 

name of company official who certified the container. The final rule does not require 

certification. 

G.12 Recordkeeping 

The proposed and final regulations require several types of recordkeeping. The first addresses 

the documentation that the container used meets each aspect of the EPA design standards. In the 

proposed rule, the records for non-refillable container design specified six pieces of information 

and required the records to be kept for as long as the container design type was used with the 

registered pesticide product, plus 3 years. The final recordkeeping requirements are similar, 

although only five pieces of information must be kept. In the proposed rule, the records for 

refillable containers included documentation of compliance with the drop test and a copy of the 

certification and needed to be kept for as long as the registrant allowed the container to be used, 

plus 3 additional years. The final rule does not include any refillable container design 

recordkeeping because the standards for which records were proposed are not being finalized. 

The second type of recordkeeping requirement involves records kept by the registrants regarding 

repackaging. The proposed rule required registrants to keep copies of the contracts or 

authorizations, residue removal procedure for refilling, and list of acceptable containers for as 

long as the registrant distributes or sells a product to a refiller and for 3 years thereafter. The 

final rule requires registrants to keep the same records, but changes the time period to the current 

operating year and for 3 years thereafter. 

The third type of recordkeeping requires refillers to keep copies of the documents identified in 

the previous paragraph for the registrants. The same documents are specified in both the 

proposed and final regulations, although the time period for maintaining the records in the final 

rule was changed to the current operating year and for 3 years after (as for the registrant 

recordkeeping). 
Page 278 

The fourth type of recordkeeping involves information that refillers have to record when they 

repackage and when they receive refillable containers. The proposed rule required refillers to 

record six pieces of information each time a pesticide was repackaged into a refillable container 

and four pieces of information each time a refiller received a refillable container. These records 

were to be kept for 3 years. The final rule maintains the same time frame, but significantly 

decreases the amount of information that refillers must keep. In the final rule, refillers must 

record only three pieces of information when a pesticide is repackaged, and no recordkeeping is 

required when a refillable container is received. 

G.13 Refilling 

The proposed and final regulations contain nearly the same requirements for refilling, including 

specific guidelines for registrants and refillers. For example, registrants that directly sell or 

distribute pesticide products in refillables or sell or distribute pesticide products to refillers for 

repackaging are held responsible for providing instructions and documentation for refilling. 

Refillers that repackage pesticide products into refillable containers for distribution or sale must 

comply with the residue removal procedure for refilling developed by registrants and can 

repackage any quantity of a pesticide product into a refillable container up to the rated capacity 

of the container. In addition, refillers must inspect the exterior and interiors of the containers to 

ensure that the container meets the necessary criteria with respect to container integrity, required 

markings, and openings. Refillers must also clean each refillable container according to the 

pesticide product’s residue removal procedure for refilling (supplied by the registrant) before 

repackaging the product, unless certain criteria are met. Both the proposed and final regulations 

set out conditions for allowing registrants and refillers to engage in repackaging. The final rule 

has the same general structure of these conditions, although the final rule changes two of the 

conditions to: (1) require a contract between the parties (rather than a contract or an authorization 

as proposed); and (2) allow repackaging at an end user location under certain circumstances 

(rather than requiring the repackaging to be conducted at a registered establishment as proposed). 

G.14 Labeling 

Labeling requirements under the final regulations are generally more flexible than the proposed 

regulations because they provide a range of specific statements. The scope of the labeling 

requirement (proposed and final) includes all labels for all pesticide products, not just those that 

fall within the container rule scope. However, the final regulations exempt household products 

from the residue removal instructions. Labels may include blank areas, which are more 

specifically described in the final regulations, to allow a refiller to put any amount of product 

into a refillable, designate on the label the amount, and add its EPA establishment number. This 

is an option in the final rule, but was required in the proposal. Other information to be included 

on the label is a description of the container type (intended purpose, such as a refillable or nonrefillable statement) and detailed residue removal instructions. Changes between the final and 

proposed regulations include clarifying that durable permanent marking is acceptable versus 

permanent marking, adding alternatives for the recycling and reuse statements for refillables, 

exempting household products from including residue removal instructions, and several minor 

changes that offer greater flexibility and clarity. 
Page 279 

Table G-1 presents a side-by-side comparison of the 14 requirement categories and subcategories 

between the final and proposed regulations for the three major container types (non-refillable, 

refillable minibulk, and refillable bulk). In the table (as in the previous discussion), only 

substantial changes in the requirements are mentioned. For the purposes of this analysis, 

substantial changes are modifications that would change the costs and/or the assumptions made 

in the proposed container rule RIA. All changes, including those made for clarification 

purposes, are described in the preamble of the final rule. 
Page 280 

Table G-1. Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container Regulat

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

1. Scope The following three categories of pesticide products are not subject to the nonrefillable container, refillable container, and repackaging regulations: 

(1) Manufacturing use products (MUPs), (2) Plant-incorporated protectants, and (3) Antimicrobial pesticide products that satisfy all four of these criteria: - The product is an antimicrobial pesticide, as defined in the container regulations Section 2(mm), or it has antimicrobial properties, as defined in the container regulations Section 2(mm)(1)(A), and is subject to a tolerance or a food additive regulation. - Its label includes directions for use on a site in at least one of the 10 antimicrobial product use categories identified as “household, industrial or institutional.” - It is not a hazardous waste when it is intended to be disposed, as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. - EPA has not specifically found that the product must be subject to the regulations to prevent an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 

MUPs are exempt. All other pesticide products affec

 Other than MUPs, plant-incorporated 

protectants, and exempt antimicrobial products, all pesticide products are 

subject to the non-refillable container regulations. A product is subject to all 

non-refillable container requirements if it satisfies at least one of the following criteria: (1) It meets the criteria of Toxicity Category I. (2) It meets the criteria of Toxicity Category II. (3) It is a restricted use product. If it does not meet any of these criteria, the product is subject to only the basic 

DOT requirements in 49 CFR §173.24. 

Other than MUPs, plant-incorporated protectants, and exempt antimicrobial products, all pesticide products are subject to all of the refillable container and repackaging regulations. 

2. Design Standards (general) 

Prohibit distribution or sale of pesticide product in non-refillable container unless the container meets the standards. (§165.42) Container must meet certain DOT standards for design, construction, and markings in accordance with Packing Group III material as defined by DOT. (§§165.60–165.64) 

Prohibit distribution or sale of pesticide product in refillable container unless container meets the standards. (§165.92) Container must meet certain DOT standards for design, construction, and markings in accordance with Packing Group III material as defined by DOT. (§§165.110–165.114) Same general integrity standards for bulk containers as proposed. (§164.120) 

Cannot sell or distribute pesticide in a non-refillable container unless container meets the standards. (§165.102(a)(1)). General integrity requirements. 

Can’t serefillable meets thGeneral minibulkstandard
Page 281 

Table G-1 (Continued). Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container R

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

3. Permanent Markings Incorporates DOT marking. Incorporates DOT marking. Also, serial 

number or other identifying code marked durably on each container. (§165.116) 

Permanent only: EPA registration number and the name, symbol, or code of material(s) used to make container. (§165.102(c)) 

Permanemanufacmanufacsymbol omake costatemenrefillable 

4. Dispensing Capability If container has capacity of 20 L or less 

and if container holds a liquid pesticide, container must: (1) Allow contents to pour out in a continuous, coherent stream, and (2) Minimize dripping. (§165.68) 

Not specified. Require all containers that hold liquid 

pesticide to: (1) Allow contents to pour in continuous, coherent stream, (2) Dispense without leaking or dripping, and (3) Once container has been resealed, not allow the pesticide to escape during storage or agitation. (§165.102(d)) 

Not spec

5. Closures Similar to proposed rule requirements. 

(§165.66) 

Same as proposed rule requirements. (§165.118) 

Same as proposed rule requirements. (§165.120(b)) 

Four closure sizes are specified for containers that meet all of these criteria: (1) rigid container; (2) capacity greater than or equal to 3.0 liters (0.79 gal.); (3) holds liquid agricultural pesticide; (4) is not an aerosol container; (5) is not a pressurized container. (§165.102(e)) Final rule should not overlap with childresistant packaging requirements. 

Each opeach liquminibulk containehave a ovalve, a evident dboth. (§165.12
Page 282 

Table G-1 (Continued). Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container R

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

6. Residue Removal

Design Standard 

The final regulations require only a “four-9s” standard, where rigid containers with dilutable pesticides must be capable of 99.99 percent removal of each active ingredient. Percent removal represents the percentage of the original concentration of the active ingredient in the pesticide product when compared to the concentration of that active ingredient in the fourth rinse according to a formula. The final regulations require that every registrant test three containers from each rigid container/dilutable formulation combination. 

Not specified. Not specified. For rigid containers with dilutable 

pesticide, registrant must demonstrate that container achieves 99.9999% removal of each active ingredient. Testing done according to full GLP regulations. (§165.104) Testing done by sampling of a minimum 19 random containers for residue removal compliance. (§165.105(b)(1)) 

Not spec
Page 283 

Table G-1 (Continued). Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container R

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

Procedure Same as proposed rule requirements, 

but household products are exempt. 

Same as proposed rule requirements. Conduct rinsing (triple and/or pressure) on 

the label if rigid container & dilutable pesticide. (156.144(d)) 

Registraremoval product that is adintegrity165.190Before rcould be refillable pesticide proceduconditio165.210Before dprocedu

Procedure Responsibility Same as proposed rule requirements. Same as proposed rule requirements. End user. Before r

(which cdisposalcontaineend user 

7. Design Qualification Testing

Residue removal testing not required, but registrants will have to do some testing to show they comply with the standard. Incorporates DOT design qualification tests. 

Incorporates DOT design qualification tests. 

Incorporates DOT design qualification tests. 

Yes, required residue removal testing Yes, req

test for m

Sampling Three containers for residue removal 

test, as described in OPP test procedure. Sampling for DOT tests as set out in the DOT regulations. 

As set out in DOT regulations. 

As set out in DOT regulations. 

Nineteen random containers at a minimum (for residue removal). (§165.105(b)(1)) 

One randcontainetesting. 

Drop Test Incorporates drop test (and other tests) 

in DOT regulations. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Incorporates drop test (and other tests) in DOT regulations. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Incorporates drop test (and other tests) in DOT regulations. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

No. Solids - 

liquids - (§165.12
Page 284 

Table G-1 (Continued). Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container R

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

8. Production Testing and Periodic Retesting

Incorporates production testing and periodic retesting in DOT regulations. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Incorporates production testing and periodic retesting in DOT regulations. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

Incorporates production testing and periodic retesting in DOT regulations. (49 CFR Parts 178 and 180) 

No. No. 

9. Reconditioning Incorporates DOT regulations that 

provide for reconditioning. (49 CFR §173.28) 

No. No. No. However, may be applicable to 

drums. 

No. 

10. Waiver Yes. Provisions to waive: (1) adoption 

of the subset of DOT standards (new); (2) standard closure requirement (as proposed); (3) container dispensing standards (new); and (4) residue removal standard (as proposed) if the specified criteria are met. Waiver must be obtained in writing. (§§165.72, 165.74) 

Yes. There is a provision to waive adoption of the DOT standards if the specified criterion is met. (New) waiver must be obtained in writing. (§§165.122, 165.124) 

Yes. May be issued by EPA if registrant can demonstrate that waiving compliance with residue removal procedure does not result in unreasonable risk. (§165.104(c)) There is also the option to request approval of a non-standard closure, which is ultimately a waiver (§165.102(e)(2)) 

Not spec

11. Certification No No Yes. (§165.111(a)) Yes. (§12. Recordkeeping 

For Container Design Requirements 

Similar to proposed rule requirements, but copy of certification is not required. (§165.86) 

No recordkeeping required. For each pesticide product, maintain 

records for as long as the non-refillable container design type is used to distribute or sell the pesticide product and for 3 years thereafter. Must keep the following records: (1) Name and EPA registration number of the pesticide product (2) Description of the design type of the non-refillable container in which pesticide product is distributed or sold (3) Copy of the certification (4) Record to document compliance with the requirement for closures (5) Record to document compliance with dispensing standards (6) Record to document compliance with residue removal standard. (§165.107) 

For each refiller fcontaineas a refildistributthereafterecords: (1) Desccontaine(2) Recowith the applicab(3) Copy (§165.12
Page 285 

Table G-1 (Continued). Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container R

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

For Repackaging Requirements 

Not applicable. Registrant records: Must keep the same 

records, but for a different time period (current operating year and for 3 years thereafter.) (§§165.176(a) and 165.194) Refiller “informational” records: Must keep the same records, but for a different time period (current operating year and for 3 years thereafter). (§§165.176(a) and 165.218(a)) Refiller repackaging records: Each time a refiller repackages into a refillable container for sale or distribution, must generate and maintain the following for 3 years: product information; date of repackaging; serial number of container. (§§165.176(b) and 165.218(b)) Refiller container return records: Not required in final rule. 

Not applicable. Registra

registranto a refilthe regiscontract removal of accepRefiller long as a product 3 years tcopies oresidue rand list o(§165.13Refiller a refiller containe

generate 3 years: sale; namserial nuinspectio(§165.13Refiller time a recontainefollowinof personumber 

was rececontaine
Page 286 

Table G-1 (Continued). Comparison of Final Container Regulations with Proposed Container R

Final Container Requirements 1994 Proposed Container Req

Refillable 

Requirement Non-Refillable Minibulks Bulks Non-Refillable Min

13. Refilling

Transfer Not Applicable. Same general structure as proposed rule 

requirements, but the final rule changes two of the conditions to require a contract between the parties rather than a contract or authorization and to allow repackaging at an end user location if conducted by a registered establishment. (§§165.182 and 165.202) 

Not applicable. Replace

EnforcemProvides refiller tpesticide refillable sell unde(providemet). Aresponsirefillers process. 

Responsibility for Product Integrity Not applicable. Same as proposed rule requirements. (§165.162, 165.188 and 165.206) Not applicable. Both the 

responsirepackagrelated rrepackag

Inspection Not applicable. Same as proposed rule requirements. 

(§§165.168 and 165.210) 

Not applicable. Refiller 

(§165.13

14. Labeling Similar to and more specific and 

flexible than proposed requirements. Additional/amended requirements include: (1) Durable markings acceptable (§156.140) (2) Non-refillable statement includes alternatives for recycling and reuse directions (§156.140(a)) (3) Exempt household products from requiring residue removal instructions. (§156.144(c)) (See residue removal procedures above.) (4) Rinsing procedure includes “or equivalent.” (§156.146(a)) (See residue removal procedures above.) 

Similar to and more specific and flexible than proposed requirements. Additional/amended requirements include: (1) Durable markings acceptable (§156.140) (2) More specific description of use of blank space on labels for net contents and EPA establishment registration number, and makes blank spaces optional (“may include”) (§156.10(d)(f)) (3) Container type requirement includes an alternative statement. (§156.140(b)) (4) Residue removal statement (§156.156) (See residue removal procedures above.) 

(1) Identify container type + recycle + do not reuse statement (§156.140(a)) (2) Residue removal statement (§156.144(d)) (See residue removal procedures above.) 

(1) Resecontents (2) Reseestablish(3) Ident(§156.14(4) Resid(§156.14procedu
Page 287 

Appendix H. Characterization of Unintentional Human Pesticide and 

Antimicrobial Exposures and Health Effects in the TESS Database 

H.1 General Characterization of Unintentional Human Pesticide and Antimicrobial 

Exposures 

One of the strengths of TESS information is that it provides a perspective on the extent of 

pesticide exposures occurring throughout the country. For example, we have information on the 

distribution of the age of unintentional pesticide exposure victims by the reason of exposure 

(Table H-1). Generally, children less than 6 years of age comprised 54 percent of the overall 

exposure cases seen. Thirty-seven percent of the incidents involved adults over 19 years old, 

followed by young children 6 to 12 years old (6 percent), and young adults 13 to 19 years old (3 

percent). Overall, in children under 6 years of age most cases (64.05 percent) were observed as a 

result of “general” unintentional exposure causes. 

Table H-1. Percent Distribution of Age of Exposure Case by Reason of Exposure 

Exposure Reason 

≤ 5 Years 

Old 

6-12 Years 

Old 

13-19 Years 

Old 

≥ 20 Years 

Old Unknown Total a

General 64.05% 5.14% 2.21% 27.83% 0.76% 81.21% 

Environmental 17.12% 8.78% 4.92% 67.40% 1.78% 8.11% 

Occupational 0.04% 0.04% 6.93% 91.54% 1.45% 3.24% 

Therapeutic Error 22.55% 21.72% 8.13% 46.43% 1.16% 0.74% 

Misuse 6.38% 7.87% 5.26% 79.97% 0.52% 6.20% 

Bite/sting 19.64% 7.14% 3.57% 66.07% 3.57% 0.07% 

Food poisoning 9.52% 4.76% 47.62% 38.10% 0% 0.05% 

Unknown 29.29% 5.72% 5.39% 58.59% 1.01% 0.37% 

Total 54.10% 5.57% 2.85% 36.62% 0.86% 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 31 “Reason by Age (Adults Lumped)”). a Represents column percent where total number of cases is 80,978; other percentages represent row percent. 

As expected, adults sustained the majority (91.54 percent) of exposures occurring in 

occupational environments. Although adults comprised only 36.62 percent of the overall victim 

population, they made up the largest proportion of exposures in each specific reason of exposure 

category, except for “general.” 

Table H-2 below shows a similar breakdown of these unintentional exposures categories by 

exposure chronicity. Of all the unintentional pesticide and antimicrobial exposures observed in 

2001, the overwhelming majority (97 percent) of them were considered “acute” exposures. 

Chronic exposures comprised 1.4 percent of all unintentional pesticide and antimicrobial 

exposures, acute-on-chronic exposures represented approximately one percent, and cases in 

which the chronicity could not be determined accounted for 0.2 percent of overall unintentional 

exposures. 
Page 288 

Table H-2. Percent Distribution of Exposure Chronicity to Reason of Exposure 

Exposure Reason Acute a

Acute-onchronic b

 Chronic c Unknown d Total e

General 98.84% 0.52% 0.50% 0.14% 81.27% 

Environmental 88.66% 3.12% 7.56% 0.65% 8.11% 

Occupational 88.99% 2.70% 7.20% 1.10% 3.24% 

Therapeutic Error 90.05% 4.31% 5.47% 0.17% 0.74% 

Misuse 95.56% 2.01% 2.21% 0.22% 6.20% 

Bite/sting 94.64% 1.79% 3.57% 0% 0.07% 

Food poisoning 100.00% 0% 0% 0% 0.05% 

Unknown 93.60% 2.36% 2.02% 2.02% 0.37% 

TOTAL 97.40% 0.93% 1.44% 0.22% 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 42 “Reason by Exposure Chronicity”). 

a Acute: a single, repeated or continuous exposure occurring over a period of 8 hours or less. 

b Acute-on-chronic: single exposure that was preceded by a continuous, repeated, or intermittent exposure occurring 

over a period exceeding 8 hours. 

c Chronic: a continuous, repeated, or intermittent exposure to the same substance lasting longer than 8 hours. 

d Unknown: unable to determine whether the exposure is acute or chronic. e Represents column percent where total number of cases is 80,978; other percentages represent row percent. 

H.2 Characterization of Health Effects Associated with Unintentional Human Pesticide 

and Antimicrobial Exposure Cases 

TESS data also offer some insight into the type or degree of outcome or clinical effects and the 

location of the activities performed to manage the exposure. We evaluated these data and 

determined the appropriate stratification with which to estimate the number of unintentional 

pesticide-related illnesses expected per year. This section characterizes the overall patterns seen 

among unintentional pesticide exposures. 

The general distribution of exposure cases by medical outcome is presented for both the “with 

concomitants” and “without concomitants” categories in Table H-3. In this case, the distribution 

of medical outcome does not vary significantly between the two categories. 
Page 289 

Table H-3. Profile of Unintentional Pesticide and Antimicrobial Exposures by 

Medical Outcome 

With Concomitants a

Without 

Concomitants b Medical 

Outcome Description Number Percent Number Percent 

No effect Patient developed no signs or symptoms as a 

result of exposure 

18,385 22.70% 17,888 23.03% 

Minor effect Patient developed some signs or symptoms as a 

result of the exposure, but they were minimally 

bothersome and generally resolved with no 

residual disability or disfigurement 

12,084 14.92% 11,295 14.54% 

Moderate effect Patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result 

of the exposure that were more pronounced, 

more prolonged, or more of a systemic nature 

than minor symptoms (usually some form of 

treatment is indicated) 

2,164 2.67% 1,876 2.42% 

Major effect Patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result 

of the exposure that were life-threatening or 

resulted in significant residual disability or 

disfigurement 

111 0.14% 87 0.11% 

Death Patient died as a result of the exposure or as a 

direct complication of the exposure 

2 0% 2 0% 

No follow-up, 

nontoxic 

No follow-up calls were made to determine the 

patient’s outcome because the substance 

implicated was nontoxic, the amount 

implicated was insignificant, or the route of 

exposure was unlikely to result in a clinical 

effect 

13,773 17.01% 13,612 17.52% 

No follow-up, 

minimal 

toxicity 

No follow-up calls were made to determine the 

patient’s outcome because the exposure was 

likely to result in only minimal toxicity of a 

trivial nature 

25,388 31.35% 24,482 31.52% 

No follow-up, 

potentially 

toxic 

Patient was lost to follow-up, refused followup, or was not followed, but the exposure was 

significant and may have resulted in a 

moderate, major, or fatal outcome 

2,378 2.94% 2,229 2.87% 

Unrelated effect Exposure was probably not responsible for the 

effect 

6,693 8.27% 6,201 7.98% 

 Total 80,978 100.00% 77,672 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 22 “Medical Outcome” and p. 6 “Field Definitions”). 

a

 “With Concomitants” indicates that a pesticide substance was implicated in the exposure case but could have 

involved another substance that may or may not have been another pesticide. 

b

 “Without concomitants” indicates that only one pesticide substance was implicated in the exposure. 

We evaluated only the unintentional pesticide and antimicrobial exposures “with concomitants” 

to include all the cases in which a pesticide was involved. The majority of cases reported 

showed no effect (23 percent) or was an exposure in which minimal toxicity concerns were 

involved (31 percent). 
Page 290 

Table H-4 displays the severity of symptoms associated with exposures distributed by age. As 

described earlier, young children account for the majority of the exposed population (54 percent) 

in the 80,978 reported cases. However, from Table H-4, we see that they also account for the 

majority of the individuals who showed no effect from the reported exposure (75 percent) as well 

as of the individuals involved in nontoxic exposures (77 percent). By contrast, adults were 

among the majority of victims exhibiting minor, moderate, or major medical effects. More 

severe outcomes (“major effect”) also occurred in the adult (over 19 years old) category. Results 

for the exposures resulting in death appear to be equally distributed between less-than-6-yearolds and over-19-year-olds, but this is representative of the two deaths reported in 2001. 

Table H-4. Percent Distribution of Age of Exposure Patient by Symptom Severity of 

Medical Outcome Among “With Concomitants” Exposure Cases 

Medical Outcome 

≤ 5 Years 

Old 

6-12 Years 

Old 

13-19 Years 

Old 

≥ 20 Years 

Old Unknown Total a

No effect 74.57% 5.32% 1.68% 17.97% 0.46% 23.70% 

Minor effect b 24.90% 7.15% 4.97% 62.20% 0.78% 14.92% 

Moderate effect b 11.23% 3.51% 4.16% 80.18% 0.93% 2.67% 

Major effect b 27.93% 5.41% 9.01% 55.86% 1.80% 0.14% 

Death 50.00% 0% 0% 50.00% 0% 0% 

No follow-up, nontoxic 77.02% 4.94% 1.68% 15.72% 0.64% 17.01% 

No follow-up, minimal 

toxicity 

53.39% 5.90% 3.06% 36.64% 1.01% 31.35% 

No follow-up, 

potentially toxic 

43.82% 4.12% 2.86% 45.75% 3.45% 2.94% 

Unrelated effect 24.07% 4.62% 3.35% 67.00% 0.97% 8.27% 

Total 54.10% 5.57% 2.85% 36.62% 0.86% 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 51a “Medical Outcome by Age (Adults Lumped)”). a

 Represents column percent where total number of cases is 80,978; other percentages represent row percent. 

b

 The duration of the clinical effects observed in these outcome categories are highlighted in Table H-5 below. 

Table H-5 shows the tendency for increasing duration of the clinical effects with more severe 

outcomes among those exhibiting minor, moderate, or major medical outcomes. Although these 

outcome categories were defined above in Table H-3, some examples of common symptoms 

demonstrated in each group may include: 

• Minor effect: self-limited gastrointestinal symptoms, drowsiness, skin irritation, first-degree 

dermal burn, transient cough; 

• Moderate effect: corneal abrasion, high fever, disorientation, isolated brief seizures that 

respond readily to treatment; and 

• Major effect: repeated seizures, respiratory compromise during intubation, cardiac or 

respiratory arrest. 
Page 291 

Table H-5. Duration of Clinical Effects by Symptom Severity Among Those “With 

Concomitant” Cases Exhibiting Minor, Moderate or Major Medical Outcomes 

Duration Minor Effect Moderate Effect Major Effect Total 

≤ 2 hours 48.49% 14.93% 5.41% 43.10% 

> 2 and  8 hours 18.55% 19.69% 7.21% 18.64% 

> 8 and  24 hours 12.34% 16.54% 19.82% 13.03% 

> 24 hours and ≤ 3 days 6.30% 14.60% 23.42% 7.68% 

> 3 days and ≤ 1 week 2.97% 10.17% 9.01% 4.10% 

> 1 week and ≤ 1 month 1.12% 3.79% 5.41% 1.55% 

> 1 month 0.27% 1.39% 4.50% 0.47% 

Anticipated permanent 0.02% 0.28% 4.50% 0.10% 

Unknown 9.93% 18.62% 20.72% 11.32% 

Total a 84.16% 15.07% 0.77% 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 23 “Duration of Clinical Effects by Medical Outcome”). a

 Represents row percent where total number minor, moderate and major effects is 14,359; other percentages 

represent column percent. 

Most minor effects lasted less than 2 hours, and as expected, victims with major effects tended to 

experience more prolonged effects. 

Table H-6 gives more insight regarding the severity of reported cases and the medical resources 

required to manage them. The majority of all unintentional pesticide exposures (77 percent) 

reported to poison centers were managed in a non-health care facility, such as at the site of the 

exposure (which could be the patient’s home). Treatment in health care facilities was involved 

in 20 percent of the reported cases and was recommended in another 1.27 percent of patients. 

Table H-6. Percent Distribution of Symptom Severity of Medical Outcome by 

Management Site Among “With Concomitant” Exposure Cases 

Medical Outcome 

Non-Health 

Care 

Facility 

Health Care 

Facility Other 

Refused 

Referral Unknown Total a

No effect 76.57% 22.49% 0.36% 0.55% 0.03% 22.70% 

Minor effect 66.44% 29.93% 1.02% 2.35% 0.26% 14.92% 

Moderate effect 23.94% 69.18% 1.57% 4.81% 0.51% 2.67% 

Major effect 9.01% 81.98% 5.41% 3.60% 0% 0.14% 

Death 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

No follow-up, nontoxic 93.25% 6.43% 0.25% 0.03% 0.05% 17.01% 

No follow-up, minimal 

toxicity 

88.03% 10.32% 0.81% 0.37% 0.47% 31.35% 

No follow-up, 

potentially toxic 

28.17% 46.01% 3.11% 14.00% 8.70% 2.94% 

Unrelated effect 61.09% 34.87% 1.00% 1.51% 1.52% 8.27% 

Total 77.29% 20.10% 0.75% 1.27% 0.60% 100.00% 

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 39 “Medical Outcome by Management Site”). 

a

 Represents column percent where total number of cases is 80,978; other percentages represent row percent. 
Page 292 

Table H-4 above showed that the majority of victims experiencing minor, moderate, or major 

effects were over 19 years old. According to Table H-6, the majority of victims with moderate 

and major effects are managed in a health care facility. Table H-7 provides the distribution of 

the victims that were treated in health care facilities, where children less than 6 years old and 

adults over 19 years of age were most often treated and released when they were evaluated at a 

health care facility. However, adults over 19 years of age were also approximately twice as 

likely as children less than 6 years old to be admitted to the hospital for their exposure. 

Table H-7. Percent Distribution of Management Site by Age of “With Concomitant” 

Exposure Patient 

Management Site 

≤ 5 Years 

Old 

6-12 Years 

Old 

13-19 

Years Old

≥ 20 Years 

Old Unknown Totala

Non-health care facility 56.75% 5.99% 2.73% 33.71% 0.81% 77.29%

Health care facility 45.80% 3.75% 3.22% 46.43% 0.79% 21.36%

 Treated/released 52.01% 3.98% 2.84% 40.68% 0.48% 16.24%

 Admitted, critical care 28.84% 5.03% 4.23% 61.11% 0.79% 0.47%

 Admitted, non-critical care 32.50% 2.12% 7.31% 57.88% 0.19% 0.64%

 Admitted, psychiatry 1.85% 1.85% 20.37% 74.07% 1.85% 0.07%

Lost to follow-up/left against 

medical advice 

25.33% 3.26% 3.59% 65.10% 2.72% 2.69%

 Refused Referral 24.98% 2.34% 3.90% 67.90% 0.88% 1.27%

Other 34.26% 13.61% 5.90% 41.48% 4.75% 0.75%

Unknown 32.37% 5.19% 2.28% 56.02% 4.14% 0.60%

TOTAL 54.10% 5.57% 2.85% 36.62% 0.86% 100.00%

Source: AAPCC (2002, Report 45a “Management Site by Age - Row %”). a

 Represents column percent where total number of cases is 80,978; other percentages represent row percent. 
Page 293 

Appendix I. Benchmark Costs for Physician Office Visits by Current 

Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT-4) Code 

Table I-1. Benchmark Costs for Physician Office Visits by Current Procedural 

Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT-4) Code 

CPT-4 

Code Brief Description 

Cost 

(Year 2000$) 

Cost 

(Year 2005$) a

99201 New patient requiring: 

1. Problem focused history 

2. Problem focused examination 

3. Straightforward medical decision-making 

$30.61 $31.68 

99202 New patient requiring: 

1. Expanded problem focused history 

2. Expanded problem focused examination 

3. Straightforward medical decision-making 

$48.44 $50.14 

99203 New patient requiring: 

1. Detailed history 

2. Detailed examination 

3. Medical decision-making of low complexity 

$66.95 $69.30 

99204 New patient requiring: 

1. Comprehensive history 

2. Comprehensive examination 

3. Medical decision-making of moderate complexity 

$99.58 $103.07 

99205 New patient requiring: 

1. Comprehensive history 

2. Comprehensive examination 

3. Medical decision-making of high complexity 

$125.15 $129.54 

99211 Established patient. May not require a physician. 

Presenting problems are minimal (5 minutes). 

$13.46 $13.93 

99212 Established patient requiring 2 of these 3 components: 

1. Problem focused history 

2. Problem focused examination 

3. Straightforward medical decision-making 

$26.58 $27.51 

99213 Established patient requiring 2 of these 3 components: 

1. Expanded problem focused history 

2. Expanded problem focused examination 

3. Medical decision-making of low complexity 

$38.02 $39.35 

99214 Established patient requiring 2 of these 3 components: 

1. Detailed history 

2. Detailed examination 

3. Medical decision-making of moderate complexity 

$57.53 $59.55 

99215 Established patient requiring 2 of these 3 components: 

1. Comprehensive history 

2. Comprehensive examination 

3. Medical decision-making of high complexity 

$90.83 $94.01 

Source: Online division of Intellimed, accessible at www.myhealthscore.com. a

 Prices provided at www.myhealthscore.com were year 2000 dollars, as of October 23, 2002. These costs were 

converted to 2005 dollars by applying the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule conversion factors: [2005 conversion 

factor] ÷ [2000 conversion factor] = $37.8975 ÷ $36.6137 = 1.0351. 
Page 294 

Appendix J. Case Summaries of 1999 California Incidents That Would Have 

Been Prevented by the Container Regulations 

In Chapter 5, we described the state data used to derive the percentage of pesticide illnesses 

potentially related to the container standards. This section provides a more detailed view of the 

underlying cases in California in 1999 that were used in the calculation of the percentage. First, 

we provide a breakdown of the cases based on the likelihood of prevention by the regulation and 

whether the pesticide involved is subject to the regulations. This is followed by individual case 

summaries for each of the cases used by EPA to estimate the percentage of potentially avoidable 

pesticide illnesses as a result of the regulation. 

Table J-1 shows the number of cases associated with the incidents in California in 1999 that were 

considered by EPA to have been “very likely” or “possibly” prevented by the container 

regulations. Sixteen cases were considered “very likely,” and 51 cases were considered 

“possible.” Table J-2 presents the specific case summaries, along with two columns of 

information critical to the calculations described in Chapter 5. 

Table J-1. Number of Cases in California in 1999 Considered by EPA as “Very Likely” or 

“Possibly” Preventable by the Container Regulations 

Likelihood of Incident 

Prevention 

Regulated Pesticide Category Very Likely Possibly Total 

Other Pesticide 7 15 22 

Antimicrobial 9 30 39 

Antimicrobial (unclear whether subject to regulations) 3 3 6 

Total 19 48 67 

Note: Shaded areas denote the 51 “possible” cases, which if included, would increase the annual health benefits by 

an additional 1,950 to 2,451 cases, as described in Section 5.2.5.3. The three unclear antimicrobial cases are 

included in the “Possible” incidents 

The first column of interest is “Reg Impact,” which designates EPA’s evaluation of the 

regulatory impact. In addition to this condition of whether the incident was likely to have been 

prevented by the regulations, EPA also considered whether the chemical involved was subject to 

the regulations (noted in the column “Product Category”). Here, EPA determined that cases 

involving non-antimicrobial agents were subject to the regulations (“Not A”). For the remaining 

cases, where the antimicrobial pesticide was known, EPA determined whether it would be 

subject to the regulations (“A-in” if subject to regulations, otherwise exempt and omitted from 

the table). 

However, in six cases antimicrobial pesticides were involved, but it was not clear from the 

California Department of Pesticide Regulations (CDPR) information available whether the 

pesticide is subject to the container regulations (denoted “A ?” in Table J-2). Three of these 

cases were initially categorized as “very likely” and three were “possibly” prevented by the 

regulations, as shown in Table J-1. Due to the limited data and the uncertainties surrounding 

these cases, we regrouped the three former cases as “possibly” for a conservative approach to 
Page 295 

deriving the percentage of pesticide illnesses potentially related to the container design and 

residue removal standards. 

Additional cases avoided if possible cases are included 

Similar to calculations described in 5.2.4 and 5.2.5, we estimate the additional cases avoided if 

the 51 “possible” cases were also considered. The 51 “possible” cases (from CDPR) 

corresponds to 4.33 percent of the total unintentional pesticide product cases in CDPR (i.e., 51 / 

1,179 = 4.33 percent). In 2001, 64 poison control centers participated in TESS, reporting more 

than 2 million human exposure cases, which represent an estimated 98.8 percent of all poison 

exposures reported to poison centers in the U.S. To scale up to 100 percent, we need the inverse 

of 98.8 percent, which is 1.012) 

Avoided illnesses with clinical effects = 19,492 * 4.33% * 1.012 = 853 cases, where 19,492 is 

the number of nationwide illnesses resulting from unintentional pesticide-related exposures 

(from TESS); used for “low-end” scenario. To calculate the “high-end” scenario, we go through 

the same steps using 24,531 (19,492 related cases + 5039 unknown if related) “high-end” cases 

as the basis from TESS, which results in 1,074 cases avoided. 

From Table 5.10, we have that 43.86% of exposures resulted in clinical effects (including minor, 

moderate, major effects, and death) and 56.14% of exposures resulted in “no effect.” Assuming 

these same ratios between exposures with clinical effects and exposures with “no effect,” than 

we can estimate the number of cases with “no effect” avoided by the rule would be: 

1,092

43.86% 56.14%

853 = ⇒ x = x

Therefore, the total number of additional cases that could have been avoided if the 51 “possible” 

cases were considered from the CDPR data, is 1,945 (853 + 1,092 = 1,945). This number 

represents the “low-end” scenario. To calculate the “high-end” scenario, we go through the same 

steps using 1,074 “high-end” cases resulting in clinical effects, which results in 2,449 “high-end” 

cases avoided. 

1,375

43.86% 56.14%

1,074 = ⇒ x = x
Page 296 

Table J-2. Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “Very Likely” 

the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

HANDLING CONTAINER FOR APPLICATION/USE

Opening or closing container (other than drops)

99-44 def A-in red, irritated eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P After removing the cap to a 

poked a hole in the inside ssplash into his eye. He fluprovided eye protection. 

99-121 pro A-in red, irritated eyes sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P According to the manager, 

eyes when he opened a 5-gconnecting it to the dishwaworker drove him to the ho

99-176 def A-in red, burning eye, 

blurred vision 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Kennel technician flicked a 

pulled the inner seal from a her eye; failed to wear emp

Handler opens container and then drops it

99-840 def A-in severely painful, red 

& dry eyes, blurred vision, sluggishly reactive pupils 

sodium hypochlorite 1 0 V As a worker poured pool ch

container’s handle broke ointo the barrel and splashed liquid ran down behind his 

Transfer pesticide from container, unspecified

99-334 def A-in red eye, superficial 

corneal burn 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P School food service worke

pouring a sanitizer from a gbottle. She acknowledged gloves & goggles, but faile

99-783 def A-in scratchy, burning, red 

eyes 

sodium hypochlorite 2 0 P Liquid pool chlorine spray

and his assistant when the incautiously. They rinsed Both recovered fully within 

99-995 def A-in red, burning eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P When a camp maintenance 

cistern to treat the camp’s dsplashed up into his eye. Hmedical attention. 
Page 297 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

99-1121 def A-in red, dry and burning 

eye, blurred vision 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P When a hurried correctiona

5-gallon container into a cuher eye. She failed to wear 

99-1401 def A-in burning eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P As employee poured disinf

contacted his hand. He thehis eye, which began burnimedical attention. 

Handler is exposed while mixing/loading; exposure involves the container

99-719 pro A ? burning eye peroxyacetic acid 0 0 P Sterilant failed to complete

sterilizer when a medical tewater and cut it open. She liquid into her eye. She flu

Handler is exposed while mixing/loading; exposure involves the transfer equipment

99-395 pro A-in burning, irritated skin 

on face, neck, shoulder; headache, brief transient eye irritation 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P A pool chlorine delivery dr

employee to shut a valve dthe employee attempted to chlorine splashed on his bo

99-613 def A-in redness, burning 

sensation in eye, slightly blurred vision 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Employee attempted to dis

blockage in the disinfectandisinfectant splashed towarflushed the eye with water 

99-715 def A-in redness, stinging & 

burning pain in eyes 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Mobile home park manage

chlorinator. During inspecliquid chlorine in his face. He had no pesticide trainin

99-854 def A-in irritated, burning eye sodium hypochlorite 1 0 P As a prison employee attem

water treatment tank, the hinto his eye. He flushed it infirmary, which sent him t
Page 298 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

Handler is exposed while mixing/loading; exposure does not involve the container and/or transfer equipment

99-402 def A-in burning, irritated eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P As a housekeeper cleaned t

a bucket of water and splasdeveloped symptoms and sto wear the provided eye pr

99-635 def A-in red & irritated eye sodium hypochlorite 17 0 P As a meat packing plant em

cleaner & disinfectant, somHe sought medical attentioprotection. 

99-779 pos Not A itchy, red, burning 

rash on face and neck

propargite, adjuvant 0 0 P Worker mixed, loaded & a

vineyard for 3 or 4 days. Hwhile loading the propargitdoctor the next day when s

99-819 def A-in red, burning eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P When a custodian poured b

splashed into his eye. He dmedical attention. He faile

99-865 pro Not A red, burning, itching 

and papular lesion on penis 

not determined, metolachlor, trifluralin

0 0 P After mixing/loading herbi

washing his hands. He dev2 hours later. Grower & wabout application dates and 

99-1005 def A-in burning, painful and 

slightly red eye 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Veterinary assistant prepar

she poured bleach into the 

her eye. She sought medic

99-1047 def A ? red, burning eye unknown 0 0 P As restaurant employee po

some of it splashed up into and sought medical attentiosanitizer. 

99-1135 def A-in red, burning, painful 

eye 

sodium hypochlorite 5 0 P When a shop employee pou

splashed some into her eyeattention. The bucket cont
Page 299 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

99-1146 def A-in red, painful eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P While preparing a bleach s

splashed the liquid into his and continued work. He so

Use or application

99-120 def A-in red, irritated eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Amusement park worker sp

poured the liquid into a sinirritated after flushing it, so room. 

99-406 pro A-in red, burning eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Hospital housekeeper splas

cleaning a toilet. She flushseeking medical attention i

99-674 def Not A mildly swollen 

eyelid, irritated eye 

permethrin 5 0 P SPCO removed safety glas

While manipulating the nopermethrin into his eye. Hsaw a doctor the next day. 

99-682 def A-in red, burning eye, 

blurred vision, small erosions over right cornea 

sodium hypochlorite 1 0 P As a swimming instructor p

liquid splashed up into her medical attention. Label in

99-713 pro A ? water & burning 

eyes, irritated throat, brief wheezing headache 

peroxyacetic acid 0 0 V As an LVN placed a sterila

machine, the lid broke. Shsterilizer into an adjacent sexposed herself to fumes & 

99-1128 def A-in burning eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Pool serviceman ignored ex

wear provided PPE. As he liquid splashed up into his medical attention. 
Page 300 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

Miscellaneous

99-288 pro Not A red, irritated eyes adjuvant 0 0 P As employee put away a sp

down hard, causing the maThe cap was not screwed owater and went home for thday. 

99-320 pos Not A red, burning, painful 

eye 

not determined, diuron, glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, simazine 

0 0 P Farm worker felt somethin

herbicide into a spray tank hand wand. He wore safetprotection. He is unsure w

OTHER CONTAINER HANDLING

Handling that seems to be related to use 

99-196 def Not A red and burning skin 

on the palm of the left hand 

not determined, 2,4-D, diquat, fluazifopbutyl, mecoprop 

? 0 V A herbicide leaked onto a h

adjusted the nozzle on a reto burn so she rinsed it with seeking medical attention. rubber gloves. 

99-296 pro Not A severe burning & 

pain in eyes 

glyphosate 0 0 P While holding a glyphosate 

contaminated his hand with rubbed his eyes and develoeyes and sought medical at

99-689 pro Not A headache, nausea, 

lightheadedness, slight difficulty breathing 

glyphosate 4 0 p As an employee talked to a

off a hand pump sprayer anpesticide onto her arms. Twhere she smelled the fum

Moving containers on a cart

99-1048 pro A-in red, burning eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P While cleaning a co-worke

bottle of bleach with a loosspilled bleach into her eye. medical evaluation. 
Page 301 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

Miscellaneous 

99-340 def Not A red, irritated eyes fipronil 0 0 P Child grabbed flea treatme

hands. She meant to apply trying to open it. Her granimmediately and took her t

99-1177 def A-in redness, temporary 

loss of vision 

sodium hypochlorite 3 0 P As employee changed the d

dishwasher, some of the liqflushed it & sought medicano eye protection. 

STORAGE

Stock management 

99-90 def A-in red, burning eye sodium hypochlorite 1 0 V As a worker stacked liquid 

truck, some liquid from the his eye. He immediately flmedical attention; failed to 

99-546 def A ? nausea, headache, 

vomiting 

unknown ? 0 V As employee lifted boxes o

fell out of one box. Contaisplashed up into his face. Hmedical attention the next d

99-1001 def A-in red, irritated eye, 

blurred vision 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 V Pool chlorine leaked and w

manager moved the cartonchlorine containers fell out He flushed it & sought med

99-1105 def Not A 2 dime-sized blisters 

on the hand between fingers 

not determined, chloropicrin, methyl bromide 

0 0 P While prepping empty fum

manufacturer, a grower plaHe noticed wetness on his Within a few hours, he not

Leaking/broken container on shelf causes exposure 

99-560 def A-in red, burning, itchy 

eyes, temporary blindness 

sodium hypochlorite 1 0 V Liquid from a cracked disin

employee’s eyes as he stocdeveloped symptoms & sou
Page 302 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

99-580 pro Not A nausea, upset 

stomach 

not determined, 2,4-D, dichlorprop, mecoprop 

0 0 V When a customer picked u

shelf, he contaminated his drove home. While driving washed his hands upon arrinext day. 

99-610 def Not A red, burning eye metolachlor 0 0 V Shop foreman splashed a c

when he investigated a wet applicator training. After thim to wear PPE in all dea

99-1354 pro A ? rough, dry skin on 

fingers, itchy & burning hands 

phenolic disinfectants 0 0 V Hospital service technician 

repeated contact with leakidisinfectant. He saw a nurwear protective gloves whe

Container falls off shelf or is dropped after being taken from a shelf

99-903 pro Not A burning eyes, nose, 

throat and chest 

MSMA 0 0 V Sales clerk dropped a bottl

shelves. Upon impact, the splashed into his face & eymedical attention. 

Stocking shelves or displays

99-275 def A-in pain & corneal 

abrasion in eye 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P As employee stocked the g

accidentally squeezed the tsquirted the disinfectant intimmediately drove him to a 

Retail – exposure occurs at cashier/check out stand

99-128 def A-in pain, irritation in 

eyes 

sodium hypochlorite 1 0 V When a cashier dropped a b

splashed up into her eyes. doctor, who noted normal e

Retail – exposure from handling returns 

99-56 pro Not A red, watery eyes and 

burning sensation of eyes and face 

cypermethrin 0 0 P A courtesy clerk dropped a 

to the shelf. When she pickShe washed but developed 
Page 303 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

99-510 def A-in red, burning, tearing 

eye, red eyelids 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P As grocery store employee 

a loose cap allowed some tpicked up the tape, the liquflushed her eye with water

99-891 def Not A blurred vision, light 

sensitivity in the eye 

malathion 3 0 P Dissatisfied customer slam

broken malathion bottle onmalathion to splatter into theye and saw a doctor the ne

Retail – other

99-720 pro A-in mildly red, burning 

pain in eye 

calcium hypochlorite 0 0 V When a grocery store clerk 

pool chlorine, some of the eye began burning so a co-

99-786 pro A-in itchy, red, burning 

skin on arm, sensitive to light touch, nausea 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 V Pool sanitizer spilled from 

arm. She felt her skin immwashed it with soap & watnauseous. 

99-889 pos A-in watery, irritated, 

bloodshot eye 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 V Retail clerk handled a wet 

said it did not smell like chirritated. She flushed it wi

99-1159 pos A-in red, burning in eye copper naphthenate 0 0 V Retail clerk rubbed his eye 

wood preservative. The eyimmediately with water. 

TRANSPORTATION

Exposure while loading or unloading a vehicle 

99-133 pos Not A nausea, 

lightheadedness, slightly dry mouth, difficulty breathing, sluggishness 

diazinon 0 0 V Farm supply company driv

powder. Bag split open anHe washed face, removed snight. His family had the f
Page 304 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

Container leaks or spills during transport

99-168 pro Not A burning testicle and 

abdomen skin, leg numbness 

trifluralin 0 0 P An unopened box with 2 co

employees drove to an appcontaminated himself with He saw a doctor 4 hours la

Transportation – accident

99-1353 pro A-in red, burning eyes, 

difficulty breathing, burning lungs & facial skin 

sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P Two police officers spent 3

vehicular accident site invoThe chemicals spilled and officers were exposed. 

OTHER

Repackaging - transferring pesticide from one container to another (not for application or use)

99-1219 pro A-in difficulty breathing, 

pain upon deep breathing 

calcium hypochlorite 0 0 P As a pool maintenance wor

chlorine from a large contafumes. He developed sympHe smokes 4–5 packs of ci

Spill – various causes (not drop, not moving, not falling off shelves)

99-1441 pro A-in coughing, breathing 

difficulty, eye irritation, dizziness 

not determined, hydrogen chloride, sodium hypochlorite 

15 0 P Contractor was checking o

cloud of greenish gas and sHe reported that one of his experienced similar sympto

Mix up containers/mistake/mis-labeled containers

99-541 pro A ? burning in throat, 

chest heaviness, transient shortness of breath 

unknown 0 0 P Someone apparently poure

container of granular pool fumes. Upon investigating discovered the problem, insymptoms. 

Cleanup

99-785 pos Not A nausea, sleepiness, 

eye irritation 

oxyfluorfen 0 0 P Public works employee dev

clean up a herbicide spill. supervisor went to his hom
Page 305 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “

Prevented by the Container Regulations 

Case No. 

CDPR 

Relation a

Product 

Category b Medical Description Pesticide(s) 

Days 

off 

Work 

Days 

in 

Hosp 

Reg 

Impact c C

Miscellaneous household exposures 

99-1055 pos A-in red, irritated eye sodium hypochlorite 0 0 P When a worker added disin

some bleach splashed up incontinued working. The eyshe sought medical attentio

SPECIFIC PESTICIDES OR CONTAINERS

Fogger

99-284 def Not A coughing, sore throat, 

burning eyes, rash on head 

not determined, methoprene, piperonly butoxide, pyrethrins, synergist 

? 0 V Homeowner successfully a

the tab snapped off the thirher face. She rinsed her fasought medical attention. Hdays. 

Aerosol container – exposure occurs during application (use of the container)

99-1411 pos Not A nausea, vomiting, 

diarrhea, mild sweating, abdominal pain, possible mild tremor 

chlorpyrifos ? 0 P Man developed symptoms 

in his room. He reportedly some on his skin. 

Spray bottle – spray mechanism and bottle separate, causing exposure

99-511 def Not A bad taste in mouth, 

nauseam eye irritation 

glyphosate 0 0 V While preparing to spray w

plunger of a ready-to-use ghandle broke off, allowing He felt irritant symptoms, sattention. 

99-1365 pro Not A burning eyes, blurred 

vision 

unknown 0 0 P Homeowner treated a crape 

thought to contain copper & the hand pump sprayer, the face & eyes. He washed up 
Page 306 

Table J-2 (Continued). Case Summaries of Incidents in California in 1999 Considered by EPA to Have Been “V

Prevented by the Container Regulations

Source: EPA (2005). a “CDPR Relation” refers to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) evaluation of the degree of correlation between pesticid

where the term “pesticide-related” refers to cases that fall into one of the three following relationships: Definite (def): High degree of correlation between pattern of exposure and resulting symptoms. Requires both medical evidence (such as measur

positive allergy tests, characteristic signs observed by medical professional) and physical evidence of exposure (environmental and/or biological support the conclusions. Probable (pro): Relatively high degree of correlation exists between the pattern of exposure and the resulting symptoms. Either medical or physi

unavailable. Possible (pos): Some degree of correlation evident. Medical and physical evidence are inconclusive or unavailable. 

b “Product Category” refers to the following codes, developed and assigned by EPA regarding the type of pesticide involved and whether it is su

given the information provided in the CDPR case summary: Not A: not an antimicrobial, assumed to be subject to the regulations. A-in: antimicrobial that is subject to the regulations (i.e., antimicrobial that is “in” the scope of the regulations). A ?: antimicrobial, but it is unclear whether or not it will be subject to the regulations, either because there is not enough information, or it is not 

criteria would apply to it. 

c “Reg Impact” refers to whether EPA determined the incident to be “very likely” (V) or “possibly” (P) prevented by the container regulations. 
Page 307 

Appendix K. Pesticide Container and Refilling Requirements Cost Analysis Tables 

Table K-1a. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, and M

Refillable Liquid Pesticide Containers 

30-55 Gallons 5 Gallons 1 to < 5 Gallons < 1 Gallon Water Soluble Packets 

Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Glass PVA Packets Barrier Packs 

Bag 

Bo

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural 378 141 71 35 34,128 0 1,233 0 0 667 101 I/C/G 1,610 2,335 14,139 966 21,208 1,449 20,693 161 242 0 0 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 30,186 8,625 112,120 12,937 8,625 0 0 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural 883 330 166 82 79,623 0 2,876 0 0 1,555 235 I/C/G 3,757 5,448 32,987 2,254 49,481 3,381 48,279 376 564 0 0 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 70,427 20,122 261,587 30,183 20,122 0 0 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural 1,600 598 301 149 144,339 0 5,214 0 0 2,820 425 I/C/G 6,811 9,876 59,799 4,086 89,698 6,130 87,518 681 1,022 0 0 1Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 127,669 36,477 474,198 54,715 36,477 0 0 Large Establishments Agricultural 196,572 73,449 36,958 18,327 17,728,446 0 640,408 0 0 346,332 52,251 I/C/G 836,533 1,212,973 7,344,760 501,920 11,017,139 752,880 10,749,449 83,653 125,480 0 0 135Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 15,680,901 4,480,257 58,243,346 6,720,386 4,480,257 0 0 
Page 308 

Table K-1b. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, and M

Refillable Solid Pesticide Containers 

11-44 lb 

 Bags 45 - 55 lb Bags 11 - 44 lb Bags 1 - 10 lb Bags Jugs 

Water S

Pack

Paper/ Plastic Plastic Paper Plastic Paper Plastic Paper 

2.5 

Gallons 

1 qt to 

 < 2.5 Gal 

PVA 

Packets 

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural 0 2,264 9,991 4,609 2,714 403 7,015 32 2,783 53,951 I/C/G 0 0 0 1,127 0 0 0 0 372 1,308 Home & Garden 0 0 0 42,584 0 0 0 0 539 0 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural 0 5,282 23,309 10,753 6,331 939 16,367 75 6,492 125,874 I/C/G 0 0 0 2,630 0 0 0 0 869 3,053 Home & Garden 0 0 0 99,353 0 0 0 0 1,258 0 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural 0 9,575 42,255 19,493 11,477 1,703 29,669 137 11,769 228,181 I/C/G 0 0 0 4,768 0 0 0 0 1,575 5,534 Home & Garden 0 0 0 180,104 0 0 0 0 2,280 0 Large Establishments Agricultural 0 1,175,993 5,189,922 2,394,278 1,409,603 209,151 3,644,096 16,776 1,445,534 28,026,402 I/C/G 0 0 0 585,573 0 0 0 0 193,448 679,683 Home & Garden 0 0 0 22,121,271 0 0 0 0 280,016 0 
Page 309 

Table K-1b (Continued). Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container 

Type, Entity Size, and Market Sector: Non-Refillable Solid Pesticide Containers

Fiber Drums 

> 30 lb < 30 lb Other 

Subtotal-- 

Dry 

Containers Total 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 15 159 4,214 103,217 139,972 

I/C/G 1,288 0 0 4,529 90,944 

Home & Garden 0 0 0 43,123 431,230 

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 35 370 9,832 240,816 326,568 

I/C/G 3,006 0 0 10,567 212,183 

Home & Garden 0 0 0 100,610 1,006,105 

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 64 671 17,822 436,544 591,993 

I/C/G 5,449 0 0 19,155 384,638 

Home & Garden 0 0 0 182,384 1,823,837 

Large Establishments 

Agricultural 7,811 82,428 2,189,025 53,618,588 72,711,631 

I/C/G 669,226 0 0 2,352,749 47,243,200 

Home & Garden 0 0 0 22,401,287 224,012,868 
Page 310 

Table K-1c. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity Size, and Market 

Liquid Pesticide Containers 

“Large” Bulk 

Tanks 

Bulk Tanks 

(> 250 Gallons)

126 - 250 

Gallons 61 - 125 Gallons 26 - 60 Gallons 5 - 25 Gallons 

Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel 

Small-Small Establishments Agricultural 23 3 2 0 66 13 327 109 93 8 243 189 I/C/G 14 2 22 5 14 2 14 2 270 7 133 0 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swimming Pool Industry 3 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 287 0 144 0 Medium-Small Establishments Agricultural 53 6 5 1 154 30 764 255 216 18 566 442 I/C/G 33 4 51 12 32 4 32 4 630 16 310 0 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swimming Pool Industry 12 1 33 4 0 0 0 0 996 0 498 0 Large-Small Establishments Agricultural 97 11 9 1 279 54 1,385 462 392 32 1,026 801 I/C/G 60 7 92 22 58 6 58 6 1,142 28 562 0 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swimming Pool Industry 3 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 241 0 120 0 Large Establishments Agricultural 11,887 1,321 1,153 128 34,301 6,604 170,123 56,773 48,100 3,943 126,065 98,368 I/C/G 7,313 813 11,282 2,736 7,146 794 7,146 794 140,310 3,478 68,996 0 Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swimming Pool Industry 1,602 178 4,629 514 0 0 0 0 138,476 0 69,238 0 
Page 311 

Table K-1d. Number of Containers Within the Scope of the Rule by Container Type, Entity 

Size, and Market Sector: Refillable Solid Pesticide Containers 

Bulk 

(> 2,501 lbs)

101 - 2,500 

lbs < 100 lb “Large” 

Bulk 

Tank Paper/Plastic Paper/Plastic Paper/Plastic

Other 

Subtotal--

Dry 

Containers

Total 

Small-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 0 10 25 1,286 0 1,322 2,398

I/C/G 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,380

Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Swimming Pool Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,498

Medium-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 1 24 59 3,001 0 3,084 5,594

I/C/G 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,553

Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Swimming Pool Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,655

Large-Small Establishments 

Agricultural 1 44 107 5,439 0 5,591 10,140

I/C/G 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,067

Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Swimming Pool Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,091

Large Establishments 

Agricultural 172 5,347 13,109 668,074 0 686,703 1,245,469

I/C/G 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,236,458

Home & Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Swimming Pool Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,203,756
Page 312 

Table K-2a. Number of Containers Out of Compliance for the Average Registrant, by Requirement, Market 

(Nonrefillable Containers) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards, 

Hazardous Material

DOT Packaging 

Standards, Nonhazardous Material Closure Standards Dispensing Standards Labeling 

Small Establishments Agriculture 0 0 39 81 1,596 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0 0 0 272 1,383 Home & Garden 0 0 0 511 6,556 Total 0 0 39 865 9,535 Small-Small Establishments Agriculture 0 0 9 18 351 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0 0 0 60 304 Home & Garden 0 0 0 112 1,442 Total 0 0 9 190 2,097 Medium-Small EstablishmentsAgriculture 0 0 40 84 1,650 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0 0 0 281 1,429 Home & Garden 0 0 0 529 6,778 Total 0 0 40 894 9,857 Large-Small EstablishmentsAgriculture 0 0 217 453 8,906 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0 0 0 1,519 7,716 Home & Garden 0 0 0 2,854 36,586 Total 0 0 217 4,825 53,208 Large Establishments Agriculture 0 0 30,404 63,288 1,245,062 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0 0 0 212,341 1,078,612 Home & Garden 0 0 0 398,927 5,114,449 Total 0 0 30,404 674,556 7,438,123 
Page 313 

Table K-2b. Number of Containers Out of Compliance for the Average Registrant, by Requirement, Market 

(Refillable Containers) 

DOT Packaging 

Standards, 

Hazardous 

Material 

DOT Packaging 

Standards, Nonhazardous Material Labeling Recordkeeping Container Markings Minib

Conta

Openi

Small EstablishmentsAgriculture 0.00 0.00 27.34 27.34 27.34 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0.00 0.00 36.19 36.19 1.09 Home & Garden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 63.53 63.53 28.43 Small-Small Establishments Agriculture 0.00 0.00 6.01 6.01 6.01 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0.00 0.00 7.96 7.96 0.24 Home & Garden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 13.97 13.97 6.25 Medium-Small EstablishmentsAgriculture 0.00 0.00 28.26 28.26 28.26 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0.00 0.00 37.41 37.41 1.13 Home & Garden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 65.67 65.67 29.39 Large-Small Establishments Agriculture 0.00 0.00 152.56 152.56 152.56 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0.00 0.00 201.94 201.94 6.10 Home & Garden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 354.50 354.50 158.66 Large Establishments Agriculture 0.00 0.00 21326.52 21326.52 21326.52 Indust./Comm./Govt. 0.00 0.00 28229.63 28229.63 853.30 Home & Garden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 49556.14 49556.14 22179.81 
Page 314 

Table K-3. Number of Refillable Containers by Type of Refilling Entity 

Number of Containers within the Scope 

Type of Refilling Entity of the Rule 

Liquid Dry Total 

Agriculture 566,900 696,700 1,263,600

 Agricultural Pesticide Refillers 510,210 627,030 1,137,240

 Agricultural Pesticide Registrants 56,690 69,670 126,360

I/C/G -- Pesticide registrants 37,458 0 37,458

Swimming Pool Industry -- Antimicrobial Applicators 1,217,000 0 1,217,000

Home & Garden 0 0 0

Total 2,388,258 696,700 2,518,058
Page 315 

Table K-4a. Annual Refillings per Refiller Currently Not in Compliance with Inspection Requirement by Cont

Size, and Market Sector 

Container Type: Liquid Products Container Typ

“Large” Bulk Tanks 

Bulk Tanks 

(> 250 Gallons) 

126 - 250 Gallons 

61 - 125 Gallons 

26 - 60 Gallons 

5 - 25 Gallons 

Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel

Other 

“Large” Bulk Tank 

Bulk (> 2,501 lbs) 

Paper/Plastic 

101 - 2,500 lbs 

P/Plti

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers  Large-Small 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 8.0 1.5 39.6 13.2 11.2 0.9 37.7 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 3 Medium-Small 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.5 11.7 3.9 3.3 0.3 11.2 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0 Small-Small 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Large 16.7 1.9 1.6 0.2 67.3 13.0 334.0 111.5 94.4 7.7 318.3 248.3 0.0 0.2 7.5 25Agricultural Pesticide Registrants  Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Large-Small 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Medium-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Large 10.2 1.1 1.0 0.1 41.1 7.9 203.9 68.1 57.7 4.7 194.3 151.6 0.0 0.1 4.6 15I/C/G -- Pesticide registrants  Small 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Large-Small 1.5 0.2 1.7 0.6 1.9 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Medium-Small 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Small-Small 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Large 208.8 23.2 243.6 81.2 261.0 29.0 261.0 29.0 84.7 127.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Swimming Pool Supply Companies -- Antimicrobial Applicators  Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 0 Large-Small 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 3.4 0.0 49.1 0.0 0.0 0 Medium-Small 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0 Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0 Large 18.9 2.1 54.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3258.3 0.0 1629.2 0.0 23274 0.0 0.0 0
Page 316 

Table K-4b. Annual Refillings per Refiller Currently Not in Compliance with Container Cleaning Requir

Type, Entity Size, and Market Sector 

 Container Type: Liquid Products Contain

“Large” Bulk 

Tanks 

Bulk Tanks 

(> 250 Gallons) 

126 - 250 Gallons 

61 - 125 Gallons 

26 - 60 Gallons 

5 - 25 Gallons 

 Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel

Other 

“Large” Bulk Tank 

Bulk (> 2,501 lbs) 

P

/Plti

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers  Large-Small 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 7.9 2.6 2.2 0.2 7.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 0. Medium-Small 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 2.3 0.8 0.7 0.1 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0. Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0. Large 3.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 13.5 2.6 66.8 22.3 18.9 1.5 63.7 49.7 0.0 0.0 1.Agricultural Pesticide Registrants Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Large-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0. Medium-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.Large 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 8.2 1.6 40.8 13.6 11.5 0.9 38.9 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.I/C/G -- Pesticide registrants Small 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Large-Small 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Medium-Small 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.Large 41.8 4.6 48.7 16.2 52.2 5.8 52.2 5.8 16.9 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.Swimming Pool Supply Companies -- Antimicrobial Applicators Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Large-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Medium-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.Large 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.
Page 317 

Table K-4c. Annual Refillings per Refiller Currently Not in Compliance with Container Tracking (R

Requirement by Container Type, Entity Size, and Market Sector 

Container Type: Liquid Products Container 

“Large” Bulk 

Tanks 

Bulk Tanks 

(> 250 Gallons) 

126 - 250 Gallons 

61 - 125 Gallons 

26 - 60 Gallons 

5 - 25 Gallons 

 Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel Plastic Steel

Other 

“Large” Bulk Tank 

Bulk (> 2,501 lbs) 

Paper/Plastic 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers  Large-Small 4.9 0.5 0.5 0.1 20.0 3.8 99.0 33.0 28.0 2.3 94.3 73.6 0.0 0.1 2.2  Medium-Small 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.9 1.1 29.3 9.8 8.3 0.7 27.9 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.7  Small-Small 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 3.5 1.2 1.0 0.1 3.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 Large 41.7 4.6 4.0 0.4 168.4 32.4 835.1 278.7 236.1 19.4 795.6 620.8 0.0 0.6 18.7 Agricultural Pesticide Registrants Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0  Large-Small 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 3.6 1.2 1.0 0.1 3.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.1  Medium-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0  Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Large 25.4 2.8 2.5 0.3 102.8 19.8 509.8 170.1 144.1 11.8 485.7 379.0 0.0 0.4 11.4 I/C/G -- Pesticide registrants Small 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Large-Small 3.7 0.4 4.4 1.5 4.7 0.5 4.7 0.5 1.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Medium-Small 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Small-Small 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Large 522.1 58.0 609.1 203.0 652.6 72.5 652.6 72.5 211.7 317.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Swimming Pool Supply Companies -- Antimicrobial Applicators Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Large-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Medium-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Small-Small 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Large 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Page 318 

Table K-5a. Present Discounted Value of Compliance Costs per Entity for Refilling Requirement, 3% 

Year 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers Large-Small $1215 $987 $958 $930 $903 $877 $851 $826 $802 $779 $756 $734 Medium-Small 499 293 284 276 268 260 252 245 238 231 224 218 Small-Small 234 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 28 27 26 Large 8776 8328 8085 7850 7621 7399 7184 6974 6771 6574 6383 6197 Agricultural Pesticide Registrants Small 205 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 

Large-Small 236 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 30 29 28 27 Medium-Small 205 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 Small-Small 200 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Large 5434 5084 4936 4792 4652 4517 4385 4258 4134 4013 3896 3783 Industrial/Commercial/Government Pesticide Registrants Large-Small 230 31 30 30 29 28 27 26 26 25 24 23 Medium-Small 204 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 Small-Small 199 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Large 4717 4387 4259 4135 4015 3898 3784 3674 3567 3463 3362 3264 Swimming Pool Supply Companies – Antimicrobial Applicators Large-Small 223 24 24 23 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 18 Medium-Small 210 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 Small-Small 200 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Large 12026 11484 11149 10825 10509 10203 9906 9618 9337 9065 8801 8545 
Page 319 

Table K-5b. Present Discounted Value of Compliance Costs per Entity for Refilling Requirement, 7% 

Year 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Agricultural Pesticide Refillers Large-Small $1004 $785 $734 $686 $641 $599 $560 $523 $489 $457 $427 $399 Medium-Small 413 233 218 203 190 178 166 155 145 135 127 118 Small-Small 193 28 26 24 23 21 20 18 17 16 15 14 Large 7254 6626 6193 5787 5409 5055 4724 4415 4126 3856 3604 3368 Agricultural Pesticide Registrants Small 169 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 

Large-Small 195 29 27 25 24 22 21 19 18 17 16 15 Medium-Small 169 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 Small-Small 165 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Large 4492 4045 3780 3533 3302 3086 2884 2695 2519 2354 2200 2056 Industrial/Commercial/Government Pesticide Registrants Large-Small 190 25 23 22 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 Medium-Small 169 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 Small-Small 165 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Large 3899 3491 3262 3049 2849 2663 2489 2326 2174 2032 1899 1774 Swimming Pool Supply Companies – Antimicrobial Applicators Large-Small 184 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 Medium-Small 174 10 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 Small-Small 166 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Large 9940 9137 8539 7981 7459 6971 6515 6088 5690 5318 4970 4645