*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 1 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

As Submitted for EO 12866 Review.

EO12866_Rin2070‐AJ20_PesticideCertApp_NPRM_FRdocument_2015‐04‐09.docx

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 171 

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183; FRL-XXXX-XX] 

RIN 2070-AJ20 

Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

1 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes to the existing regulation concerning the certification of 

2 applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) in response to extensive stakeholder review of the 

3 regulation and its implementation since 1974. EPA’s proposed change would ensure the Federal 

4 certification program standards adequately protect applicators, the public, and the environment 

5 from risks associated with use of RUPs. The proposed changes are intended to improve the 

6 competency of certified applicators of RUPs, increase protection for noncertified applicators of 

7 RUPs operating under the direct supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide 

8 safety training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators, and establish a 

9 minimum age requirement for certified and noncertified applicators. In keeping with EPA’s 

10 commitment to work more closely with Tribal governments to strengthen environmental 

11 protection in Indian country, certain changes are intended to provide more practical options for 

12 establishing certification programs in Indian country. 

13 DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 90 days after date of publication 

14 in the Federal Register]. 

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 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 2 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

16 Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP17 2011-0183, by one of the following methods: 

18 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 

19 for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 

20 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

21 statute. 

22 • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC) 

23 (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. In addition, please mail 

24 a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information 

25 and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th St 26 ., NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

27 • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed 

28 information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

29 Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more 

30 information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

31 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Arling, Field and External Affairs 

32 Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

33 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-5891; email 

34 address: arling.michelle@epa.gov. 

35 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

36 I. Executive Summary 

37 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

38 You may be potentially affected by this action if you apply RUPs. You may also be 

39 potentially affected by this action if you are: Certified by a State, Tribe, or Federal agency to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 3 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

40 apply pesticides; a State, Tribal, or Federal agency who administers a certification program for 

41 pesticide applicators or a pesticide safety educator; or other person who provides pesticide safety 

42 training for pesticide applicator certification or recertification. 

43 The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

44 not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 

45 rulemaking applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: 

46 • Agricultural Establishments (Crop Production) (NAICS code 111). 

47 • Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421). 

48 • Agricultural Pest Control and Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112). 

49 • Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712). 

50 • Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control (Livestock Spraying) (NAICS code 115210). 

51 • Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 115310). 

52 • Wood Preservation Pest Control (NAICS code 321114). 

53 • Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 325320). 

54 • Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 424690, 424910, 444220). 

55 • Research & Demonstration Pest Control, Crop Advisor (NAICS code 541710). 

56 • Industrial, Institutional, Structural & Health Related Pest Control (NAICS code 

57 561710). 

58 • Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way Pest Control (NAICS code 561730). 

59 • Environmental Protection Program Administrators (NAICS code 924110). 

60 • Governmental Pest Control Programs (NAICS code 926140). 

61 B. What is the Agency’s Authority for Taking this Action? 

62 This action is issued under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

63 Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 4 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

64 C. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

65 The proposed rule would revise the existing Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

66 (certification) rule at 40 CFR 171 to enhance the following: Private applicator competency 

67 standards, exam and training security standards, standards for noncertified applicators working 

68 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, Tribal applicator certification, and State, 

69 Tribal, and Federal agency certification plans. The proposed rule would revise the existing 

70 certification rule at 40 CFR 171 to add: Application method-specific categories of certification 

71 for commercial and private applicators, predator control categories for commercial and private 

72 applicators, recertification standards and interval, and minimum age for certified applicators and 

73 noncertified applicators working under direct supervision. 

74 1. Private applicator competency standards. The proposed rule would clarify the 

75 standards of competency a private applicator must meet in order to be certified. The proposed 

76 rule would expand the private applicator competency standards to include the general standards 

77 of competency for commercial applicators (also known as “core” competency), standards 

78 generally applicable to pesticide use in agriculture, and specific related regulations relevant to 

79 private applicators, such as the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) (40 CFR 170). The proposed 

80 rule also would amend the options for determining private applicator competency by requiring 

81 the applicator to complete a training program or to pass a written exam that covers the specific 

82 competency standards. 

83 2. Application method-specific categories of certification for commercial and private 

84 applicators. The proposed rule would require that commercial and private applicators who apply 

85 pesticides aerially or by fumigation demonstrate competency to make these types of applications. 

86 The proposal would add categories for aerial application, soil fumigation, and non-soil 

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

Page 5 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

88 3. Recertification standards and interval. The proposed rule would require that 

89 commercial and private applicators demonstrate continued competency to use RUPs every 3 

90 years by either passing written exams for each certification they hold or completing specific 

91 training in a continuing education program administered by the certifying authority. Commercial 

92 applicators would be required to demonstrate continued competency in the core standards and 

93 each category in which they intend to maintain their certification. Private applicators would be 

94 required to demonstrate continued general competency and competency in each relevant 

95 application method-specific category in which they intend to maintain their certification. 

96 4. Standards for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision. The 

97 proposed rule would include several new requirements to ensure that noncertified applicators are 

98 competent to use RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator. In order for noncertified 

99 applicators to work under the direct supervision of a certified applicator they would have to 

100 complete specific training as outlined in the proposed rule, complete training required for 

101 handlers under the WPS, or pass the exam covering general standards of competency for 

102 commercial pesticide applicators (“core exam”). Either of these two training requirements would 

103 be required to be renewed annually and the core exam qualification would need to be renewed 

104 every 3 years. Commercial applicators would be required to ensure noncertified applicators have 

105 met these qualifications and to maintain records of the noncertified applicators’ qualifications. 

106 The proposal would require a certified applicator supervising noncertified applicators to be 

107 certified in each category in which he or she supervises applications, to provide to the 

108 noncertified applicators a copy of the labeling for the RUPs used, and to ensure that a means for 

109 immediate communication between the supervising applicator and noncertified applicators under 

110 his or her direct supervision is available. 

111 5. Minimum age. The proposed rule would require commercial and private applicators to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 6 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

112 be at least 18 years old and noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of 

113 certified applicators to be at least 18 years old. 

114 6. Indian Country certification. The proposed rule would offer three options for 

115 certification for applicators in Indian country. A Tribe may choose to allow persons holding 

116 currently valid certifications issued under one or more specified State or Federal agency 

117 certification plans to apply RUPs within the Tribe’s Indian country, develop its own certification 

118 plan for certifying private and commercial applicators, or take no action, in which case EPA 

119 may, in consultation with the Tribe(s) affected, implement an EPA-administered certification 

120 plan. EPA currently administers a Federal certification program covering Indian country not 

121 otherwise covered by a certification plan (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014) as well as a 

122 certification program specifically for Navajo Indian country (72 FR 32648; June 13, 2007). 

123 7. State, Tribal, and Federal agency certification plans. The proposed rule would update 

124 the requirements for submission, approval, and maintenance of State, Tribal, and Federal agency 

125 certification plans. The proposed rule would delete the section on Government Agency Plans 

126 (GAP) and would codify existing policy on review and approval of Federal agency certification 

127 plans. 

128 D. Why is the Agency Taking this Action?

129 The Agency is proposing revisions to the existing certification regulation at 40 CFR part 

130 171 in order to reduce occupational pesticide exposure and the incidence of related illness among 

131 certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision, and 

132 agricultural workers, and to ensure that when used according to their labeling, RUPs do not 

133 cause unreasonable adverse effects to applicators, workers, the public, or the environment. 

134 Discussions with State regulatory partners and key stakeholders over many years, together with 

135 EPA’s review of incident data, have led EPA to identify several shortcomings in the current 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 7 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

136 regulation that should be addressed, including: 

137 • Absence of a minimum age for certified pesticide applicators and noncertified 

138 applicators working under their direct supervision. 

139 • Absence of standards or a time period for ensuring that certified pesticide applicators 

140 maintain continued competency. 

141 • Lack of certification standards for specific types of pesticide application (aerial and 

142 fumigation) that may pose risks to applicators, bystanders, and the environment if not performed 

143 correctly. 

144 • Vague standards for evaluating the competency of private applicators to use RUPs. 

145 • Incomplete protections for persons applying pesticides under the direct supervision of a 

146 certified applicator. 

147 • Inconsistent national program for applicator certification that hinders applicators’ 

148 ability to work in different states without duplicative burden and inhibits EPA’s ability to 

149 develop certification and training materials that can be used nationally. 

150 • Limited options for establishing applicator certification programs in Indian country. 

151 • Incomplete information incorporated into the regulation about certification of 

152 applicators by Federal agencies. 

153 A detailed discussion about the rationale for the proposed rule and EPA’s regulatory 

154 objectives are provided in Units III. and VI. through XX. The proposed changes would offer 

155 targeted improvements that are reasonably expected to reduce risk to applicators, workers, the 

156 public, and the environment and improve applicator certification programs’ operational 

157 efficiencies. EPA expects the proposed changes would: 

158 • Improve competency of private and commercial applicators and noncertified applicators 

159 using RUPs under their direct supervision. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 8 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

160 • Provide more uniform competency among certified applicators across the nation, 

161 thereby assuring the effectiveness of restricted use registration as a risk management tool. 

162 • Protect applicators, workers, the public, and the environment from unreasonable 

163 adverse effects from the use of RUPs. 

164 • Ensure that applicators are competent to use high-risk application methods. 

165 • Ensure applicators’ ongoing competency to use RUPs. 

166 • Protect children by establishing a minimum age for commercial, private, and 

167 noncertified applicators. 

168 • Improve human health and environmental protection in Indian country. 

169 • Clarify and streamline requirements for States, Tribes, and Federal agencies to 

170 administer their own certification programs. 

171 E. What are the Estimated Impacts of this Action?

172 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with this 

173 rulemaking. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in Unit III. The following chart 

174 provides a brief outline of the costs and impacts of this proposed rule. 

 Private Applicators Commercial 

Applicators 

States and Other 

Jurisdictions 

Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63 

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

Per-Applicator Average: $40 

Range: $0 - $201 

Average: $66 

Range: $1 - $212 N/A 

Small Business 

Impacts 

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

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

although about half are unlikely to apply RUPs. 

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

entity. 

Impact on Jobs 

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

 Most private and commercial applicators are self-employed. 

 Incremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3% to 0.5% of the 

cost of a part-time employee. 

175 

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

Page 9 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

177 A. Regulatory Framework

178 This unit discusses the legal framework within which EPA regulates the safety of those 

179 who apply RUPs as certified applicators and noncertified applicators working under the direct 

180 supervision of certified applicators, as well as of the general public and the environment. 

181 1. FIFRA. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was signed 

182 into law in 1947 and established a framework for the regulation of pesticide products, requiring 

183 them to be registered by the Federal government before sale or distribution in commerce. 

184 Amended in 1972 by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.), 

185 FIFRA broadened Federal pesticide regulatory authority in several respects, notably by making it 

186 unlawful for anyone to use any registered product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling, 7 

187 U.S.C. 136i(a)(2)(G), and limiting the sale and use of RUPs to certified applicators and those 

188 under their direct supervision. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(2)(F). The amendments provided civil and 

189 criminal penalties for violations of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136l. The new and revised provisions 

190 augmented EPA’s authority to protect humans and the environment from unreasonable adverse 

191 effects of pesticides. 

192 As a general matter, in order to obtain a registration for a pesticide under FIFRA, an 

193 applicant must demonstrate that the pesticide satisfies the statutory standard for registration, 

194 section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). That standard requires, among other things, that 

195 the pesticide performs its intended function without causing “unreasonable adverse effects on the 

196 environment.” The term “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” takes into account 

197 the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide and 

198 includes any unreasonable risk to man or the environment. 7 U.S.C. 136(bb). This standard 

199 requires a finding that the risks associated with the use of a pesticide are justified by the benefits 

200 of such use, when the pesticide is used in compliance with the terms and conditions of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 10 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

201 registration or in accordance with commonly recognized practices. See Defenders of Wildlife v. 

202 Administrator, EPA, 882 F.2d 1294, 1298–99 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing FIFRA’s required 

203 balancing of risks and benefits). 

204 A pesticide product may be unclassified, or it may be classified for restricted or for 

205 general use. Unclassified and general use pesticides generally have a lower toxicity than RUPs 

206 and so pose less potential to harm humans or the environment. The general public can buy and 

207 use unclassified and general use pesticides without special permits or restrictions. 

208 Where EPA determines that a pesticide product would not meet these registration criteria 

209 if unclassified or available for general use, but could meet the registration criteria if applied by 

210 experienced, competent applicators, EPA will classify the pesticide, or particular uses of the 

211 pesticide, for restricted use only by certified applicators. 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1). Generally, EPA 

212 classifies a pesticide as restricted use if its toxicity exceeds one or more human health toxicity 

213 criteria or based on other standards established in regulation. EPA may also classify a pesticide 

214 as restricted use if it meets certain criteria for hazards to non-target organisms or ecosystems, or 

215 if EPA determines that a product (or class of products) may cause unreasonable adverse effect on 

216 human health and/or the environment without such restriction. The restricted use classification 

217 designation must be prominently placed on the top of the front panel of the pesticide product 

218 labeling. 

219 The risks associated with products classified as RUP require additional controls to ensure 

220 that when used they do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the 

221 environment. These products may only be applied by certified applicators or persons working 

222 under their direct supervision who have demonstrated competency in the safe application of 

223 pesticides, including the ability to read and understand the complex labeling requirements. 

224 FIFRA requires EPA to develop standards for certification of applicators (7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1)) 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 11 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

225 and allows States to certify applicators under a certification plan submitted to and approved by 

226 EPA. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(2). 

227 Provisions limiting EPA’s authority with respect to applicator certification include 7 

228 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1), (c), and (d); 7 U.S.C. 136w-5; and 7 U.S.C. 136(2)(e)(4). Section 136i(a)(1) of 

229 FIFRA prohibits EPA from requiring private applicators to take an exam to establish competency 

230 in the use of pesticides under an EPA certification program, or from requiring States to impose 

231 an exam requirement as part of a State plan for certification of applicators. 

232 Section 136i(c) of FIFRA instructs EPA to make instructional materials on Integrated 

233 Pest Management (IPM) available to individuals, but it prohibits EPA from establishing 

234 requirements for instruction or competency determination on IPM. EPA makes IPM instructional 

235 materials available to individual users through the National Pesticide Applicator Certification 

236 Core Manual, which is used directly or as a model by many States. Additionally, EPA has 

237 developed and implemented a variety of programs in other areas of the pesticide program to 

238 inform pesticide applicators about the principles and benefits of IPM. These include the EPA’s 

239 IPM in Schools Program, the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP), and the 

240 Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) Grant Program, as well as several other efforts. The 

241 Agency will continue to place a high priority on initiatives and programs that promote IPM 

242 practices. For additional information about the range of programs and activities, visit the Office 

243 of Pesticide Programs PestWise webpage on the EPA website at: 

244 http://www.epa.gov/pesp/about/index.html. 

245 Section 136i(d) of FIFRA prohibits EPA from requiring private applicators to keep 

246 records or file reports in connection with certification requirements. However, USDA requires 

247 private applicators to keep records of RUP applications containing information substantially 

248 similar to that which EPA requires commercial applicators to maintain. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 12 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

249 Section 136w-5 of FIFRA prohibits EPA from establishing training requirements for 

250 maintenance applicators (certain applicators of non-agricultural, non-RUPs) or service 

251 technicians. 

252 FIFRA section 2(e)(4)’s definition of “under the direct supervision of a certified 

253 applicator” allows noncertified applicators to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

254 certified applicator even though the certified applicator may not be physically present at the time 

255 and place the pesticide is applied. EPA can, on a product-by-product basis and through the 

256 pesticide’s labeling, require application of an RUP only by a certified applicator. 

257 2. Pesticide registration. In order to protect human health and the environment from 

258 unreasonable adverse effects that might be caused by pesticides, EPA has developed and 

259 implemented a rigorous process for registering and re-evaluating pesticides. The registration 

260 process begins when a manufacturer submits an application to register a pesticide. The 

261 application must contain required test data, including information on the pesticide’s chemistry, 

262 environmental fate, toxicity to humans and wildlife, and potential for human exposure. The 

263 Agency also requires a copy of the proposed labeling, including directions for use, and 

264 appropriate warnings. 

265 Once an application for a new pesticide product is received, EPA conducts an evaluation, 

266 which includes a detailed review of scientific data to determine the potential impact on human 

267 health and the environment. The Agency considers the risk assessments and results of any peer 

268 review, and evaluates potential risk management measures that could mitigate risks above EPA’s 

269 level of concern. Risk management measures could include, among other things, classifying the 

270 pesticide as restricted use, limitations on the use of the pesticide or requiring the use of 

271 engineering controls. 

272 In the decision-making process, EPA evaluates the proposed use(s) of the pesticide to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 13 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

273 determine whether it would cause adverse effects on human health, non-target species, and the 

274 environment. FIFRA requires that EPA balance the benefits of using a pesticide against the risks 

275 from that use. 

276 If the application for registration does not contain evidence sufficient for EPA to 

277 determine that the pesticide meets the FIFRA registration criteria, EPA communicates to the 

278 applicant the need for more or better refined data, labeling modifications, or additional use 

279 restrictions. Once the applicant has demonstrated that a proposed product meets the FIFRA 

280 registration criteria and – if the use would result in residues of the pesticide on food or feed – a 

281 tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

282 Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is available, EPA approves the registration 

283 subject to any risk mitigation measures necessary to achieve that approval. EPA devotes 

284 significant resources to the regulation of pesticides to ensure that each pesticide product meets 

285 the FIFRA requirement that pesticides not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the public and 

286 the environment. 

287 Part of EPA’s pesticide regulation and evaluation process is determining whether a 

288 pesticide should be classified as for restricted use. As discussed in Unit II.A., EPA classifies 

289 products as RUPs when they would cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the 

290 applicator, or the public when used according to the labeling directions. 7 U.S.C 136a(d)(1)(C). 

291 EPA has classified about 900 pesticide products as RUPs, which is about 5% of all registered 

292 pesticide products. EPA does not have data on the relative usage of RUPs versus general use or 

293 unclassified pesticides. 

294 When EPA approves a pesticide, the labeling reflects the risk mitigation measures 

295 required by EPA. The potential risk mitigation measures include requiring certain engineering 

296 controls, such as use of closed systems for mixing pesticides and loading them into application 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 14 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

297 equipment to reduce potential exposure to those who handle pesticides; establishing conditions 

298 on the use of the pesticide by specifying certain use sites, maximum application rate or 

299 maximum number of applications; or limiting the use of the product to certified applicators (i.e., 

300 prohibit application of an RUP by a noncertified applicator working under the direct supervision 

301 of a certified applicator) to protect users, the public, and the environment against risks associated 

302 with misapplication by unqualified or incompetent applicators. Since users must comply with the 

303 directions for use and use restrictions on a product’s labeling, EPA uses the labeling to establish 

304 and convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used to protect the applicator, 

305 the public, and the environment from pesticide exposure. 

306 3. Pesticide Reregistration and Registration Review. Under FIFRA, EPA is required to 

307 review periodically the registration of pesticides currently registered in the United States. The 

308 1988 FIFRA amendments required EPA to establish a pesticide reregistration program. 

309 Reregistration was a one-time comprehensive review of the human health and environmental 

310 effects of pesticides first registered before November 1, 1984 to make decisions about these 

311 pesticides' future use. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) required that EPA 

312 establish, through rule making, an ongoing “registration review” process of all pesticides at least 

313 every 15 years. The final rule establishing the registration review program was signed in August 

314 2006. The purpose of both re-evaluation programs is to review all pesticides registered in the 

315 United States to ensure that they continue to meet current safety standards based on up-to-date 

316 scientific approaches and relevant data. 

317 Pesticides reviewed under the reregistration program that met current scientific and safety 

318 standards were declared “eligible” for reregistration. The results of EPA’s reviews are 

319 summarized in Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents. The last RED was 

320 completed in 2008. Often before a pesticide could be determined “eligible,” certain risk 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 15 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

321 reduction measures had to be put in place. For a number of pesticides, measures intended to 

322 reduce exposure to certified applicators and pesticide handlers were needed and are reflected on 

323 pesticide labeling. To address occupational risk concerns, REDs include mitigation measures 

324 such as: Voluntary cancellation of the product or specific use(s); limiting the amount, frequency 

325 or timing of applications; imposing other application restrictions; classifying a product or 

326 specific use(s) as for restricted use; requiring the use of specific personal protective equipment 

327 (PPE); and establishing specific restricted entry intervals; and improving use directions. 

328 Under the registration review program, EPA will review each registered pesticide at least 

329 every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. 

330 Pesticides registered before 1984 were reevaluated initially under the reregistration program. 

331 These pesticides also are subject to registration review. 

332 Rigorous ongoing education and enforcement are needed to ensure that these mitigation 

333 measures are appropriately implemented in the field. The framework provided by the pesticide 

334 applicator certification regulation and associated training programs are critical for ensuring that 

335 the improvements brought about by reregistration and registration review are realized in the 

336 field. For example, the requirement for applicators to demonstrate continued competency, or to 

337 renew their certifications periodically, is one way to educate applicators about changes in 

338 product labeling to ensure they continue to use RUPs in a manner that will not harm themselves, 

339 the public, or the environment. The changes being proposed are designed to enhance the 

340 effectiveness of the existing structure. 

341 In summary, EPA’s pesticide reregistration and registration reviews assess the specific 

342 risks associated with particular chemicals and ensure that the public and environment do not 

343 suffer unreasonable adverse effects from the risks. EPA implements the risk reduction and 

344 mitigation measures that result from the pesticide reregistration and registration review programs 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 16 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

345 through individual pesticide product labeling. 

346 4. Related rulemaking. EPA also issued proposed amendments to the WPS (79 FR 15444; 

347 March 19, 2014). Since 40 CFR parts 170 and 171, along with other components of the pesticide 

348 program, work together to reduce and prevent unreasonable adverse effects from pesticides, 

349 EPA’s experience with the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 170 significantly informs its 

350 effort to amend the current certification rule at 40 CFR part 171. 

351 B. Overview of Certified Applicator Information 

352 1. Existing Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule. The certification regulation is 

353 intended to ensure that persons using or supervising the use of RUPs are competent to use these 

354 products without causing unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment and 

355 to provide a mechanism by which States, Tribes, and Federal agencies can administer their own 

356 programs to certify applicators of RUPs as competent. FIFRA distinguishes three categories of 

357 persons who might apply RUPs: 

358 • Commercial applicators. “Commercial applicator” is defined at 7 U.S.C. 136(e)(3). 

359 This group consists primarily of those who apply RUPs for hire, including applicators who 

360 perform agricultural pest control, structural pest control, lawn and turf care, and public health 

361 pest control. 

362 • Private applicators. “Private applicator” is defined at 7 U.S.C. 136(e)(2). This group 

363 consists primarily of farmers or agricultural growers who apply RUPs to their own land to 

364 produce an agricultural commodity. 

365 • Noncertified applicators. A noncertified applicator is a person who uses RUPs under 

366 the direct supervision of a certified applicator. The phrase “under the direct supervision of a 

367 certified applicator” is defined at 7 U.S.C. 136(e)(4). 

368 The current certification regulation establishes requirements for submission and approval 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 17 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

369 of State plans for the certification of applicators. Consistent with the provisions of FIFRA 

370 section 11(a)(2) and the State plan requirements in the current rule, programs for the certification 

371 of applicators of RUPs are currently implemented by each of the fifty States. The certification 

372 programs are conducted by the States and Tribes in accordance with their State or Tribal 

373 certification plans, which are approved by the EPA Administrator and filed with EPA after 

374 approval. (Ref. 1) In some cases, certification programs are also carried out by other Federal 

375 agencies under approved Federal agency plans or by EPA under EPA-administered plans. In 

376 addition to the 50 State-implemented plans, EPA has approved plans for 3 territories, 4 Federal 

377 agencies, and 4 Tribes. EPA also directly administers a national certification plan for Indian 

378 country (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014) and has implemented a specific certification plan for the 

379 Navajo Nation (72 FR 32648; June 13, 2007). As used in FIFRA, the term State means a State, 

380 the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam, the 

381 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and American Samoa; the term State will have the same 

382 meaning in this rulemaking. 

383 The current certification regulation establishes competency standards for persons seeking 

384 to become certified as private or commercial applicators. For a person to become certified as a 

385 private applicator, he or she must either pass an exam covering a general set of information 

386 related to pesticide application and safety or qualify through a non-exam option administered by 

387 the certifying authority. For a person to become certified as a commercial applicator, he or she 

388 must pass at least two exams – one covering the general or “core” competencies related to 

389 general pesticide application and environmental safety and an exam related to each specific 

390 category in which he or she intends to apply pesticides. The current certification rule lists 10 

391 categories of certification for commercial applicators: Agricultural pest control – plant; 

392 agricultural pest control – animal; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; seed 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 18 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

393 treatment; aquatic pest control; right-of-way pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and 

394 health related pest control; public health pest control; regulatory pest control; and demonstration 

395 and research pest control. 40 CFR 171.3(b). (Note: EPA and other certifying authorities may 

396 sometimes refer to 11 categories of certification if the two subcategories under agricultural pest 

397 control are counted as individual categories.) Although EPA only requires certification of 

398 applicators who use RUPs, most States require all commercial “for hire” applicators to be 

399 certified, regardless of whether they plan to use RUPs. Once the applicator completes the 

400 necessary requirements, the certifying authority issues to the applicator a certification valid for a 

401 set period of time, ranging from 1-6 years depending on the State, Tribe, or Federal agency that 

402 provides the certification. 

403 The current regulation requires States to implement a recertification process to ensure 

404 that applicators maintain ongoing competency to use pesticides safely and properly. 40 CFR 

405 171.8(a)(2). However, the current rule does not have a requirement for the frequency, content, or 

406 standards for applicator recertification. States, Tribes and Federal agencies have established 

407 varying requirements for applicators to be recertified, such as attending a full-day workshop, 

408 earning a specific number of “continuing education units,” or passing written exams. Applicators 

409 who do not complete the recertification requirements in the established period no longer hold a 

410 valid certification and cannot use RUPs after their certification expires. 

411 Under the current certification regulation, noncertified applicators, i.e., persons using 

412 RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, must receive general instructions and 

413 be able to contact their supervisor in the event of an emergency. The rule does not have specific 

414 training requirements, a limit on the distance between the supervisor and noncertified applicator, 

415 or a restriction on the number of noncertified applicators that one certified applicator can 

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

Page 19 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

417 An overview of the development of the certification rule and the process leading to this 

418 proposal appear in Unit IV. 

419 2. Applicator demographics. The profile of certified applicators of RUPs has shifted 

420 over time. The U.S. is moving away from small agricultural production and more individuals 

421 seek professional pest control to address issues in their home or workplace. In 1987, around 1.2 

422 million applicators held a certification, almost 80% of which were private applicators, and 20% 

423 of which were commercial applicators (Ref. 2). In 2013, the total number of certified applicators 

424 decreased to just over 900,000 (Ref. 1). The respective proportions of private and commercial 

425 applicators changed more significantly – private applicators account only for 53% of the total 

426 certified applicator population and commercial applicators now make up about 47%. 

427 Applicators work in a diverse array of situations including agricultural production, 

428 residential pest control, mosquito spraying for public health protection, treating weeds along 

429 roadside and railroad rights of way, fumigating rail cars and buildings, maintaining lawns and 

430 other ornamental plantings, and controlling weeds and algae in waterways through pesticide 

431 application. Specific information on applicators across all industries or in each certification 

432 category is difficult to find and summarize. However, the broad trends indicate a decrease in 

433 agricultural applicators and an increase in urban and public health pest control. 

434 Since publication of the original rule, pesticide usage and reliance on hired pest control 

435 applicators have increased. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics expects that “employment of pest 

436 control workers [will] grow by 15 percent between 2008 and 2018, ... [because] more people are 

437 expected to use pest control services as environmental and health concerns and improvements in 

438 the standard of living convince more people to hire professionals, rather than attempt pest control 

439 work themselves” (Ref. 3).

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

Page 20 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

441 programs have informed EPA’s understanding of common types of pesticide exposures and their 

442 outcomes. In 2007, EPA released a report detailing the coverage of all pesticide incident 

443 reporting databases considered by EPA (Ref. 4). When developing the proposed changes to the 

444 certification rule, EPA consulted three major databases for information on pesticide incidents 

445 involving applicator errors while using RUPs. 

446 To identify deaths and high severity incidents associated with use of RUPs, EPA 

447 consulted its Incident Data System (IDS). IDS is maintained by EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

448 Programs (OPP) and incorporates data submitted by registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) as 

449 well as other incidents reported directly to EPA. FIFRA allows the aggregation of individual 

450 events in some circumstances, meaning an incident with negative impacts to a number of 

451 individuals (persons, livestock, birds, pollinators) and/or the environment could be reported as a 

452 single incident. In addition to incidents involving human health, IDS also collects information on 

453 claims of adverse effects from pesticides involving plants and animals (wild and domestic), as 

454 well as detections of pesticide in water. EPA uses this information to identify incidents involving 

455 the use of RUPs that have ecological effects. While IDS reports may be broad in scope, the 

456 system does not consistently capture detailed information about incident events, such as 

457 occupational exposure circumstances or medical outcome, and the reports are not necessarily 

458 verified or investigated. 

459 The second database, the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk 

460 (SENSOR), is maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute 

461 for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). SENSOR covers all occupational injuries and has 

462 a specific component for pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides). EPA uses SENSOR-Pesticides to 

463 monitor trends in occupational health related to acute exposures to pesticides, to identify 

464 emerging pesticide problems, and to build and maintain State surveillance capacity. SENSOR-
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 21 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

465 Pesticides is a State-based surveillance system with 12 State participants. The program collects 

466 most poisoning incident cases from: 

467 • U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) workers’ compensation claims when reported by 

468 physicians. 

469 • State Departments of Agriculture. 

470 • Poison control centers. 

471 A State SENSOR-Pesticides contact specialist follows up with workers and obtains 

472 medical records to verify symptoms, circumstances surrounding the exposure, severity, and 

473 outcome. SENSOR-Pesticides captures incidents only when the affected person has two or more 

474 symptoms. Using a standardized protocol and case definitions, SENSOR-Pesticides coordinators 

475 enter the incident interview description provided by the worker, medical report, and physician 

476 into the SENSOR data system. SENSOR-Pesticides has a severity index, based partly on poison 

477 control center criteria, to assign illness severity in a standardized fashion. SENSOR-Pesticides 

478 provides the most comprehensive information on occupational pesticide exposure, but its 

479 coverage is not nationwide and a majority of the data come from California and Washington 

480 State. Since 2009, SENSOR has been including information about how the incidents may have 

481 been prevented. 

482 The third database, the American Association of Poison Control Centers maintains the 

483 National Poison Data System (NPDS), formerly the Toxic Effects Surveillance System (TESS). 

484 NPDS is a computerized information system with geographically-specific and near real-time 

485 reporting. While the main mission of Poison Control Centers (PCC) is helping callers respond to 

486 emergencies, not collecting specific information about incidents, NPDS data help identify 

487 emerging problems in chemical product safety. Hotlines at 61 PCCs nationwide are open 24 

488 hours every day of the year. There are many bilingual PCCs in predominantly Spanish speaking 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 22 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

489 areas. Hotlines are staffed by toxicology specialists to provide poisoning information and clinical 

490 care recommendations to callers with a focus on triage to give patients appropriate care. Using 

491 computer assisted data entry, standardized protocols, and strict data entry criteria, local callers 

492 report incidents that are retained locally and updated in summary form to the national database. 

493 Since 2000, nearly all calls in the system are submitted in a computer-assisted interview format 

494 by the 61 certified PCCs, adhering to clinical criteria designed to provide a consistent approach 

495 to evaluating and managing pesticide and drug related adverse incidents. Information calls are 

496 tallied separately and not counted as incidents. The NPDS system covers nearly the entire United 

497 States and its territories, but the system is clinically oriented and not designed to collect detailed 

498 occupational incident data. Additionally, NPDS does not capture EPA pesticide registration 

499 numbers, a critical element for identifying the specific product and whether it was an RUP. 

500 Three studies showing undercounting of poison control data indicate the magnitude of the 

501 problem. The studies each focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison 

502 control with those poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies 

503 indicate a substantial underreporting of poisoning incidents to poison control, especially related 

504 to pesticides (Refs. 5, 6, 7). Underreporting of pesticide incidents is a challenge for all available 

505 data sources for a number of reasons. 

506 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning are often vague and mimic symptoms with other 

507 causes, leading to incorrect diagnoses, and chronic effects are difficult to identify and track. The 

508 demographics of the populations that typically work with or around pesticides also contribute to 

509 underreporting of incidents. There may not be enough information to determine if the adverse 

510 effects noted were in fact the result of pesticide exposure and not another contributing factor 

511 because many incident reports lack useful information such as the exact product that was the 

512 source of the exposure, the amount of pesticide involved, or the circumstances of the exposure. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 23 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

513 There may not be enough information to determine if the adverse effects noted were in fact the 

514 result of pesticide exposure and not another contributing factor. A more complete discussion of 

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

516 Analysis for this proposal (Ref. 8). 

517 The data available do provide a snapshot of the illnesses faced by those applying RUPs 

518 and others impacted by the application and the likely avenues of exposure. Review of these data 

519 sources shows that certified applicators continue to face avoidable occupational pesticide 

520 exposure and in some instances cause exposures to others. Deaths and illnesses from applicator 

521 errors involving RUPs occur for a variety of reasons, including misuse of pesticides in or around 

522 homes, faulty application and/or personal protective equipment, failure to confirm a living space 

523 is empty before fumigating, or unknowing persons accidentally ingesting an RUP that was 

524 improperly put in a beverage container. Common reasons for ecological incidents include failure 

525 to follow labeling directions, inattention to weather patterns at the time of application, and faulty 

526 application equipment (Ref. 9). Generally, reports on the data note that many of the incidents 

527 could be prevented with strengthened requirements for initial and ongoing applicator 

528 competency (certification and recertification), improved training for noncertified applicators 

529 working under the direction of a certified applicator, and knowledge of proper techniques for 

530 using specific methods to apply pesticides (Ref. 9). 

531 b. Agricultural Health Study. The National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute 

532 and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and EPA have sponsored the 

533 Agricultural Health Study since 1994. This long-term, prospective epidemiological study collects 

534 information from farmers who are certified applicators in Iowa and North Carolina to learn about 

535 the effects of environmental, occupational, dietary, and genetic factors on the health of the 

536 farmers, pesticide applicators, and their families. The study design involves gathering 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 24 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

537 information over many years about the pesticide applicator and his or her family’s health, 

538 occupational practices, lifestyle, and diet through mailed questionnaires and individual 

539 interviews (Ref. 10). 

540 The Agricultural Health Study includes approximately 52,000 private applicators, 32,000 

541 spouses of private applicators, and 5,000 commercial applicators. All applicators participating in 

542 the study are certified (or licensed) in every State in which they work and in each category in 

543 which they make applications. All participants were healthy before enrolling in the study, 

544 allowing the researchers to consider a number of variables such as pesticide use, lifestyle, and 

545 diet. 

546 The Agricultural Health Study is observational and considers a variety of factors 

547 including, but not limited to, pesticide use and exposure. Therefore, establishing a link between a 

548 specific health outcome and pesticide exposure can be difficult. However, it is possible to 

549 demonstrate statistical associations between a certain activity and an outcome. Using the 

550 information collected, the investigators working on the Agricultural Health Study have produced 

551 a number of articles relevant to the health and safety of pesticide applicators. See 

552 http://aghealth.nih.gov/news/publications.html. For instance, publications include information on 

553 characteristics of farmers who experience high pesticide exposure events and potential links 

554 between pesticide use and chronic health effects. 

555 EPA considers the information from the Agricultural Health Study when appropriate, 

556 such as during a chemical reassessment. The data also provide information on applicator 

557 practices that lead to exposures, some of which EPA plans to address through the changes 

558 proposed in this rulemaking. 

559 III. Rationale and Objectives for this Action

560 A. Reasons for the Proposed Action
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 25 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

561 Broadly defined, a pesticide is any agent used to kill or control undesired insects, weeds, 

562 rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other organisms. Chemical pest control plays a major role in modern 

563 agriculture and has contributed to dramatic increases in crop yields for most field, fruit and 

564 vegetable crops. Additionally, pesticides ensure that the public is protected from health risks, 

565 such as West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and the plague, and help manage invasive plants and 

566 organisms that pose significant harm to the environment. Pesticides are also used to ensure that 

567 housing and workplaces are free of pests, and to control microbial agents in health care settings. 

568 EPA’s obligation under FIFRA is to register only those pesticides that do not cause unreasonable 

569 adverse effects to human health or the environment. EPA is committed to protecting against 

570 these potential harms and to ensure access to a safe and adequate food supply in the United 

571 States. 

572 FIFRA requires EPA to consider the benefits of pesticides as well as the potential risks. 

573 This consideration does not override EPA’s responsibility to protect human health and the 

574 environment; rather, where a pesticide’s use provides benefits, EPA must ensure that the product 

575 can be used without posing unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment. 

576 Some pesticides may pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment 

577 without strict adherence to precise and often complex mitigation measures specified on the 

578 pesticide labeling – EPA classifies these products as restricted use. To ensure that the necessary 

579 measures are followed, EPA requires an additional level of precaution - these pesticides may be 

580 applied only by applicators who are certified or by noncertified applicators working under the 

581 direct supervision of a certified applicator. Certification serves to ensure competency of 

582 applicators to use these restricted products, and therefore to protect the applicator, persons 

583 working under the direct supervision of the applicator, the general public, and the environment 

584 through judicious and appropriate use of RUPs. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 26 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

585 Applicator certification enables the registration of pesticides that otherwise could not be 

586 registered, allowing the use of RUPs for pest management in agricultural production, building 

587 and other structural pest management, turf and landscape management, forestry, public health, 

588 aquatic systems, food processing, stored grain, and other areas. 

589 The certification regulation, which sets standards for applicators using RUPs, is 40 years 

590 old and has not been updated significantly since it was finalized. In conjunction with various 

591 non-regulatory programs, the certification regulation requirements are intended to reduce 

592 unreasonable adverse effects from application of RUPs to applicators, bystanders, the public, and 

593 the environment. The certification regulation provisions are meant to: 

594 • Ensure that certified applicators are and remain competent to use RUPs without 

595 unreasonable adverse effects. 

596 • Ensure that noncertified applicators receive adequate information and supervision to 

597 protect themselves and to ensure they use RUPs without posing unreasonable adverse effects. 

598 • Set standards for States, Tribes, territories, and Federal agencies to administer their own 

599 certification programs. 

600 • Protect human health and the environment from risks associated with use of RUPs. 

601 • Ensure the continued availability of RUPs used for public health and pest control 

602 purposes. 

603 Within these five areas, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is 

604 proposing a set of requirements that, in combination, is expected to achieve substantial benefits 

605 at minimum cost. 

606 The certification regulation must be updated to ensure that the certification process 

607 adequately prepares and ensures the continued competency of applicators to use RUPs. Several 

608 factors prompted EPA to propose changes to the current rule: The changing nature of pesticide 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 27 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

609 labeling, risks associated with specific methods for applying pesticides, adverse human health 

610 and ecological incidents, inadequate protections for noncertified applicators of RUPs, an uneven 

611 regulatory landscape, and outdated and obsolete provisions in the rule related to the 

612 administration of certification programs by Tribes and Federal agencies. 

613 1. The changing nature of pesticide labeling. As discussed above, EPA uses a rigorous 

614 process to register pesticides. EPA has also implemented the pesticide reregistration program and 

615 the registration review program to review registered pesticides periodically to ensure they 

616 continue to meet the necessary standard. As a result of these ongoing evaluations, labeling for 

617 pesticides changes with some frequency to incorporate risk mitigation measures that allow the 

618 pesticide to continue to be used safely. Changes address, among other topics, pesticide product 

619 formulation and packaging, application methods, types of personal protective equipment, and 

620 environmental concerns, such as the need to protect pollinators. In addition, EPA conducts risk 

621 assessments that result in more detailed risk mitigation measures, which can make the pesticide 

622 labeling more complex. For pesticides classified as RUPs, it is essential that applicators stay 

623 abreast of the changes to the labeling and understand the risk mitigation measures, because if the 

624 products are not used according to their labeling, they may cause harm to the applicator, the 

625 public or the environment. The current regulation requires that applicators demonstrate continued 

626 competency to use RUPs, but does not specify the length of the certification period or standards 

627 for recertification. The more frequently applicators receive training, the more likely they are 

628 retain the substance of the training and apply it on the job. Studies show that information 

629 retained from training sessions declines significantly within a year (Refs. 11, 12). EPA must 

630 ensure that certified applicators demonstrate and maintain an understanding of how to use RUPs 

631 in a manner that will not cause unreasonable adverse effects so that EPA can continue to register 

632 RUPs. Therefore, EPA is proposing changes to the regulation that would establish a certification 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 28 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

633 period and standards for applicator recertification. 

634 2. Risks associated with specific application methods. RUPs are applied using a variety of 

635 application methods. Some methods of application may pose a higher risk to the applicator, 

636 bystander, and the environment if not performed correctly. Spray applications, particularly 

637 spraying pesticides from an aircraft, may result in off-target drift of the pesticide. For example, a 

638 recent study estimates that 37% to 68% of acute pesticide-related illnesses in agricultural 

639 workers are caused by spray drift, including both ground-based and aerial spray applications 

640 (Ref. 13). EPA also recognized risks associated with performing soil fumigation in the 2008 

641 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for soil fumigants. As a result of these risks, EPA required 

642 additional training for soil fumigant applicators through labeling amendments on top of the 

643 existing requirement for the applicator to be certified. The decision also acknowledged that a 

644 specific certification category requiring demonstration of competency by passing a written exam 

645 related to applying fumigants to soil would be an acceptable alternative risk mitigation measure. 

646 EPA must ensure that applicators are competent to perform specific types of applications that 

647 may pose higher risks if not performed correctly. Therefore, EPA is proposing changes to the 

648 regulation to require applicators to demonstrate competency to apply RUPs using specific 

649 application methods. 

650 3. Adverse human health and ecological incidents. Much has changed over the last 40 

651 years related to use of RUPs – pesticide product formulation and labeling, application methods, 

652 types of personal protective equipment, and environmental concerns, such as the need to protect 

653 pollinators. The regulation has not been updated to address these and other changes affecting 

654 applicators of RUPs. 

655 In recent decades, several cases of misuse involving RUPs have indicated that standards 

656 are not adequate in some areas. In one of the most significant cases from the mid-1990s, there 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 29 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

657 was widespread misuse of the RUP methyl parathion, an insecticide used primarily on cotton and 

658 other outdoor agricultural crops, to control pests indoors. The improper use of this product by a 

659 limited number of applicators across several States led to the widespread contamination of 

660 hundreds of homes, significant pesticide exposures and human health effects for hundreds of 

661 homeowners and children, and a clean-up cost of millions of dollars (Refs. 14, 15). The incident 

662 resulted in one of the most significant and widespread pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s history. 

663 In another incident, a noncertified applicator using the RUP aluminum phosphide under the 

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

665 family ill. (1) Finally, several severe health incidents have resulted from the public getting access 

666 to RUPs that have been put into different containers, e.g., transferred to a soda bottle or a 

667 sandwich bag, that do not have the necessary labeling (Ref. 8). 

668 In addition to human health incidents from RUP exposure, there are instances where use 

669 of RUPs has had negative impacts on the environment. Although data on the damage associated 

670 ecological incidents are difficult to capture, EPA has identified a number of incidents of harm to 

671 fish and aquatic animals, birds, mammals, bees, and crops that could be prevented by the 

672 proposed changes to the certification rule (Ref. 8). See the economic assessment for this rule for 

673 more information on human health and ecological incidents stemming from RUP use (Ref. 8). 

674 In light of the incidents discussed above, EPA must update the certification rule to ensure 

675 that RUPs can continue to be used without posing unreasonable adverse effects to human health 

676 or the environment. EPA expects the proposed rule to reduce human health and environmental 

677 incidents related to RUP use by strengthening the standards of competency for certified 

678 applicators, improving training for noncertified applicators, and establishing a maximum 

679 certification period and standards for recertification training. These changes would ensure that 

680 applicators and those under their supervision more carefully follow pesticide label instructions, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 30 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

681 take proper care to prevent harm, and generally have a higher level of competency. 

682 4. Inadequate protection for noncertified applicators of RUPs. Noncertified applicators 

683 using RUPs receive little instruction on how to protect themselves, their families, other persons 

684 and the environment from pesticide exposure. Although little demographic data exists on this 

685 group, in industries including but not limited to agriculture and ornamental plant production, the 

686 profile of the population appears to be similar to that of agricultural pesticide handlers under the 

687 WPS. Both groups are permitted to mix, load, and apply pesticides with proper guidance from 

688 their employer or supervisor. Agricultural handlers under the WPS only use pesticides in the 

689 production of agricultural commodities; noncertified applicators may use pesticides in any 

690 setting not prohibited by the labeling. In order to mix, load or apply RUPs, however, all 

691 noncertified persons, including agricultural handlers, must be working under the direct 

692 supervision of a certified applicator and are protected under the certification rule. These 

693 noncertified applicators must be competent to use RUPs in a manner that will not cause 

694 unreasonable adverse effects to themselves, the public, or the environment. The existing 

695 certification rule does not have specific standards on which noncertified applicators must receive 

696 instruction in order to prepare them to use RUPs. EPA identified six incidents from 2006 to 2010 

697 where noncertified applicators experienced high severity health impacts from working with 

698 RUPs (Ref. 8). These adverse health effects were largely due to the noncertified applicators’ lack 

699 of understanding about the risks posed by the RUPs they were applying, proper application 

700 procedures and techniques, and labeling instructions. 

701 Under the WPS, agricultural handlers must receive training that covers, among other 

702 topics, hazards associated with pesticide use; format and meaning of pesticide labeling; and 

703 proper pesticide use, transportation, storage, and disposal. 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). Agricultural 

704 handlers also must be provided a copy of the labeling and any other information necessary to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 31 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

705 make the application without causing unreasonable adverse effects. EPA is proposing additional 

706 content under the WPS for agricultural handler training that covers proper use and removal of 

707 PPE and specific information on fitting and wearing respirators to ensure agricultural handlers 

708 are protected adequately and understand how to follow all relevant labeling provisions. 79 FR 

709 15443; March 19, 2014. 

710 Like agricultural handlers, some noncertified applicators may face challenges, such as not 

711 speaking or reading English and having a low income. They may bear risks from occupational 

712 pesticide exposure because they work with and around pesticides on a daily basis, and language 

713 and literacy barriers may make effective training and hazard communication challenging. Under 

714 the principles of environmental justice, EPA recognizes the need to reduce the disproportionate 

715 burden or risk carried by this population. 

716 Noncertified applicators must receive adequate instruction on understanding and 

717 following pesticide labeling to ensure that RUPs are used in a manner that will not cause 

718 unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment. Additionally, noncertified 

719 applicators must have sufficient information in order to protect themselves, others, and the 

720 environment before, during, and after pesticide applications. Because of the similar risks faced 

721 by agricultural handlers under the WPS and noncertified applicators under the certification rule, 

722 EPA proposes to strengthen the standards for noncertified applicators to include relevant 

723 provisions from the proposed agricultural handler training under the WPS and to ensure that the 

724 training is provided in a manner that the noncertified applicators understand, including through 

725 audiovisual materials or a translator if necessary. 

726 5. Uneven regulatory landscape. EPA assumes a minimum standard level of competency 

727 of RUP applicators as part of the pesticide registration and ongoing review processes, and 

728 registers RUPs based on the minimum standard of competency. States, however, may adopt 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 32 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

729 additional requirements as long as they meet the minimum standards established by EPA. Two 

730 areas of the rule related to assessing applicator competency lack specificity sufficient to ensure 

731 the minimum level of competency: Standards for exams and private applicator competency 

732 standards. The lack of specificity in the rule has resulted in States adopting differing standards, 

733 some of which do not match EPA’s expectation regarding the minimum level of competency of a 

734 certified applicator. 

735 In 2007, EPA issued guidance on its interpretation of exams in the rule. The guidance 

736 notes that EPA interprets any exam administered to gauge applicator competency as being a 

737 proctored, closed-book, written exam. EPA has become aware, however, that not all State 

738 certification programs reflect this interpretation; several States have certification processes that 

739 allow open-book, written exams for determining applicator competency. EPA is concerned that 

740 open-book exams allow a lower standard for the process of determining and assuring 

741 competency than intended when EPA established the requirement for exams in the regulation. 

742 EPA proposes to codify the 2007 guidance and to clarify its expectations regarding 

743 administration of certification exams and training programs to ensure that the process for 

744 determining competence meets a standard national baseline. 

745 The certification rule lists five points on which a person much demonstrate competency 

746 to become a private applicator. While these points cover the main topics that EPA expects an 

747 applicator to master before being certified to use RUPs, they do not cover in detail the necessary 

748 competencies for a person to use RUPs without causing unreasonable adverse effects. EPA must 

749 ensure that private applicators use RUPs competently. Commercial applicators must demonstrate 

750 competency in core pesticide use, such as reading and understanding the labeling, calculating 

751 application rates, wearing and caring for PPE, how to handle spills and other emergencies, and 

752 avoiding environmental contamination from pesticide use, as well as in specific categories of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 33 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

753 application. Private and commercial applicators have access to the same RUPs and EPA expects 

754 that they have the same level of competency. Over 90% of States have adopted specific standards 

755 of competency for private applicators that are comparable to the core standards for commercial 

756 applicators. Those States that have not adopted such standards for private applicators may be 

757 certifying applicators who do not meet the level of competency that EPA believes is necessary to 

758 use RUPs. To address this problem, EPA proposes to make the standards of competency for 

759 private applicators more specific – the proposed standards include many concepts from the 

760 commercial core standards as well as competencies necessary to use RUPs in agricultural 

761 production. 

762 6. Outdated and obsolete rule provisions. The certification rule has one section regarding 

763 Tribal programs that is outdated and one section on government agency certification programs 

764 that is not necessary. The current rule provides three options for applicator certification programs 

765 in Indian country. Consultation with Tribes raised an issue with one of the current options 

766 because it calls for Tribes that chooses to utilize a State certification program and rely on State 

767 certifications to obtain concurrence from the relevant States and to enter into a documented 

768 State-Tribal cooperative agreement. This option has led to questions about jurisdiction and the 

769 appropriate exercise of enforcement authority for such programs in Indian country. EPA 

770 proposes to revise this option to allow Tribes to administer programs based on certifications 

771 issued by a State, a separate Tribe, or a Federal agency by entering into an agreement with the 

772 appropriate EPA Regional office. This would allow Tribes to enter into agreements with EPA to 

773 recognize the certification of applicators who hold a certificate issued under an EPA-approved 

774 certification plan without the need for State-Tribal cooperative agreements. The agreement 

775 between the Tribe and the EPA Regional office would address appropriate implementation and 

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

Page 34 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

777 The current rule includes a provision for a GAP, a certification program that would cover 

778 all Federal government employees using RUPs. No such plan was developed or implemented by 

779 EPA or any other Federal agency. Subsequently, EPA issued a policy that allows each Federal 

780 agency to submit its own plan to certify RUP applicators. Four Federal agencies have EPA781 approved certification plans. To streamline the rule and codify the existing policy, EPA proposes 

782 to delete the current section on GAP and replace it with requirements from the existing policy on 

783 Federal agency certification plans. 

784 B. Regulatory Objectives 

785 Through this proposal EPA seeks to have those responsible for making pesticide use 

786 decisions and applying RUPs and those who benefit from the availability of these products to 

787 internalize the effects of their decisions. By strengthening certification standards, adding 

788 categories for application methods that present high risk of exposure, establishing recertification 

789 standards, and requiring specific training for noncertified applicators, EPA proposes to put the 

790 responsibility to ensure that RUPs are used in a manner to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on 

791 the parties who are most able to control the situation. This would minimize the externalities, 

792 undesirable or unintended consequences of decisions that result in negative consequences for 

793 other parties, in this case bystanders, the public, and the environment. 

794 EPA estimates the total annualized cost of the rule at $47.2 million. States and other 

795 jurisdictions that administer certification programs would bear annualized costs of about 

796 $359,000, but States would incur most of these costs immediately after the rule is finalized to 

797 modify their programs to correspond with the proposed changes to the Federal regulation. The 

798 annual cost to private applicators would be about $19.5 million, or about $40 per year per private 

799 applicator. The estimated annual cost to commercial applicators would be $27.4 million, or about 

800 $66 per commercial applicator per year. Many of the firms in the affected sectors are small 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 35 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

801 businesses, particularly in the agricultural sector. EPA concludes that there would not be a 

802 significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The impact to the average small 

803 farm is anticipated to be less than 1% of annual sales while the impacts to small commercial pest 

804 control services are expected to be around 0.1% of annual gross revenue. Given the modest 

805 increases in per-applicator costs, EPA also concludes that the proposed rule would not have a 

806 substantial effect on employment. 

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

808 and training program substantially. Trained and competent applicators are more likely to apply 

809 pesticide products without causing unreasonable adverse effects and to use RUPs properly to 

810 achieve the intended results than applicators who are not adequately trained or properly certified. 

811 In addition to core pesticide safety and practical use concepts, certification and training assures 

812 that certified applicators possess critical information on a wide range of environmental issues 

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

814 organisms, such as pollinators. Pesticide safety education helps applicators improve their 

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

816 The benefits of the proposed rule accrue to certified and noncertified applicators, the 

817 public, and the environment. EPA estimates the quantified value of the 638 to 762 acute illnesses 

818 from RUP exposure per year that could be prevented by the rule to be between $20.1 million and 

819 $20.5 million per year (Ref. 8). However, EPA recognizes that the estimate is biased downward 

820 by an unknown degree. First, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are 

821 underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly 

822 diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting database. Also, 

823 many symptoms of pesticide poisoning, such as fatigue, nausea, rash, dizziness, and diarrhea, 

824 may be confused with other illnesses and may not be reported as related to pesticide exposure. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 36 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

825 Studies estimate that underreporting of pesticide exposure ranges from 20% to 75% (Refs. 5, 6, 

826 7). If only 25% of pesticide poisonings are reported, the quantified estimated benefits of the rule 

827 would be about $80.5 million annually (Ref. 8). 

828 EPA’s approach to estimating the quantitative benefits of the proposal only measures 

829 avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due 

830 to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. Many of the negative health impacts 

831 associated with agricultural pesticide application are borne by agricultural workers and handlers, 

832 a population that more acutely feels the impact of lost work time on their incomes and family 

833 health. An increase in the overall level of competency for certified applicators and noncertified 

834 applicators working under their direct supervision would also be beneficial to people who work, 

835 play, or live in areas treated with RUPs, such as agricultural workers, neighbors of agricultural 

836 fields, and consumers whose homes are treated. Under-trained and under qualified pesticide 

837 applicators may not be aware immediately of the potential impacts to their own health or the 

838 health of those who live or work around areas where RUPs are applied, and therefore may not 

839 independently adopt measures to increase the safety of themselves or others, necessitating 

840 intervention by the government to ensure these populations are adequately protected. 

841 It is reasonable to expect that the qualitative benefits of the rule are more substantial. 

842 Although EPA is not able to measure the full benefits that accrue from reducing chronic 

843 exposure to pesticides, well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain 

844 cancer and non-cancer chronic health effects exist in peer-reviewed literature. See the economic 

845 assessment for this proposal for a discussion of the peer-reviewed literature (Ref. 8). The 

846 proposals for strengthened competency standards for private applicators, expanded training for 

847 noncertified applicators, additional application method-specific certification categories, a 

848 minimum age for all persons using RUPs, and appropriate certification options in Indian country 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 37 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

849 would lead to an overall reduction in the number of human health incidents related to chronic 

850 pesticide exposure and environmental contamination from improper or misapplication of 

851 pesticides. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements would result 

852 in long-term health benefits to certified and noncertified applicators, as well as to bystanders and 

853 the public. 

854 It is reasonable to expect that that the proposed rule would benefit the environment and 

855 the food supply. The proposed changes enhance private applicator competency standards to 

856 include information on protecting the environment during and after application, such as 

857 protecting pollinators and avoiding contamination of water supplies. The proposal to ensure that 

858 all applicators continue to demonstrate their competency to use RUPs without unreasonable 

859 adverse effect should better protect the public from RUP exposure when occupying treated 

860 buildings or outdoor spaces, consuming treated food products, and when near areas where RUPs 

861 have been applied. The economic assessment for this proposal includes a qualitative discussion 

862 of 68 incidents from 2009 through 2013 where applicator errors while applying RUPs damaged 

863 crops or killed fish, bird, bees, or other animals (Ref. 8). The environment should also be better 

864 protected from misapplication, which can result in cleaner water and less impact on non-target 

865 plants and animals. 

866 In addition, the proposed changes to the certification regulation specifically mitigate risks 

867 to children. The proposal would implement a minimum age of 18 for certified applicators and 

868 noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. Since children’s bodies are still 

869 developing, they may be more susceptible to risks associated with RUP application and therefore 

870 would benefit from strengthened protections. In addition, research has shown that children may 

871 not have developed fully the capacity to make decisions and to weigh risks (Refs. 16, 17, 18). 

872 Proper application of RUPs is essential to protect the safety of people who work, visit, or live in 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 38 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

873 or near areas treated with RUPs, people who eat food that has been treated with RUPs, people 

874 and animals who depend on an uncontaminated water supply, as well as the safety of the 

875 applicator him or herself. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that that restricting certification to 

876 persons over 18 years old would better protect both the applicators and those who may be 

877 affected negatively by improper or misapplication. 

878 Children also suffer the effects of RUP exposure from residential applications and 

879 accidental ingestion. Accidental ingestion occurs when children get access to an RUP that has 

880 been improperly stored, e.g., transferred to an unmarked container or left accessible to the public 

881 (Ref. 9). The proposed changes improve training for noncertified applicators, strengthen 

882 competency standards for private applicators, and require all applicators to demonstrate 

883 continued competency to use RUPs would remind applicators about core principles of safe 

884 pesticide use and storage, reducing the likelihood that children would experience these types of 

885 RUP exposures. Thus, the proposed changes may reduce children’s exposure to RUPs and 

886 contamination caused by improper application of pesticides. 

887 In the almost 4 decades since implementing the certification regulation, EPA has learned 

888 from the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Certification and Training Assessment Group 

889 (CTAG), National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program, meetings with State 

890 regulators, and other stakeholder interaction, that the national applicator certification program 

891 needs improvements, some of which can only be accomplished through rulemaking. This 

892 proposal reflects EPA’s commitment to pay particular attention to the health of children and 

893 environmental justice concerns. 

894 C. Considerations for Improving the Certification of Applicators Rule 

895 1. Regulatory history. The Agency proposed the existing certification rule in 1974. EPA 

896 finalized sections covering applicator competency standards and noncertified applicator 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 39 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

897 requirements (40 CFR 171.1-171.6) in 1974 (39 FR 36447; October 9, 1974), followed by 

898 sections outlining State plan submission and review and certification in Indian country (40 CFR 

899 171.7 through 171.10) in 1975 (40 FR 11698; March 12, 1975), and the requirements for EPA900 administered plans (40 CFR 171.11) in 1978 (43 FR 24834; June 8, 1978). Since 1978, EPA has 

901 made minor amendments to the rule, such as requiring dealer recordkeeping and reporting under 

902 EPA-implemented plans and establishing standards for EPA-administered plans. 48 FR 29854; 

903 June 29, 1983; 48 FR 53972; November 29, 1983. 

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

905 provisions for establishing private applicator categories, adding categories for commercial 

906 applicators, revising applicator competency standards, establishing criteria and levels of 

907 supervision for the use of a RUP by a noncertified applicator, criteria for approving State 

908 noncertified applicator training programs, establishing recertification requirements for private 

909 and commercial applicators, and eliminating the exemption for non-reader certification. 55 FR 

910 46890; November 7, 1990. EPA took comments on the proposal but did not finalize it due to 

911 constraints on EPA’s resources. 

912 Because no major revision has been made to this Federal regulation in almost 40 years, 

913 State programs have taken the lead in revising and updating standards for certification and 

914 recertification. Many States updated their certification programs based on EPA’s 1990 proposal. 

915 Others have amended their programs to address changes in technology or other aspects of 

916 pesticide application. As a result, the State requirements for certification of applicators are 

917 highly varied and most States go beyond Federal requirements for applicator certification. This 

918 situation has created an uneven regulatory landscape and problems in program consistency that 

919 complicate registration decisions, inhibit State-to-State reciprocity (i.e., recognition of other 

920 State certifications as valid), and hinder EPA’s ability to develop national program materials that 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 40 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

921 meet the needs of all States. 

922 2. Stakeholder Engagement. In 1985, a taskforce was formed by EPA and the State923 FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) to review existing certification 

924 programs and policies to determine what, if any, actions should be taken to improve the 

925 certification program. The taskforce included representatives from EPA, USDA, State 

926 cooperative extension services, and State lead agencies for pesticide regulation. The taskforce 

927 issued the Report of the EPA/SFIREG Certification and Training Task Force in August 1985, 

928 which identified areas in need of improvement and made specific recommendations for 

929 improvement (Ref. 19). The taskforce noted the growing complexity and technological 

930 advancements in pesticides and pesticide use practices, especially in the agricultural community. 

931 Further, the taskforce recognized proper pesticide use as a growing issue under broader 

932 environmental concerns, such as groundwater protection, endangered species protection, worker 

933 protection, chronic toxicity, pesticide disposal, and pesticide residues in the food supply (Ref. 

934 19). The agricultural and commercial applicator communities were becoming aware of these 

935 issues and as a consequence sought increased and specialized training. Based on the identified 

936 issues and action in the applicator community, the taskforce suggested that EPA upgrade the 

937 competency requirements for private and commercial agricultural applicators. 

938 The taskforce’s recommendations included adding additional categories “for certain use 

939 and application methods which require more stringent attention [such as] Compound 1080, 

940 certain fumigants, or aerial application” (Ref. 19). In addition, the taskforce recommended 

941 strengthening the training for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a 

942 certified applicator and requiring commercial applicators to retain records of the training (Ref. 

943 19). It suggested that EPA add dealer requirements for recordkeeping about sales of RUPs and 

944 make private applicator competency standards closer to the general commercial applicator 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 41 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

945 competency standards. Lastly, the report discussed the need for a standard recertification period 

946 and “sufficient standardization of training and the process of certification renewal to facilitate 

947 interstate commerce” (Ref. 19). 

948 EPA proposed amendments to the certification regulation in 1990, based in part on the 

949 taskforce’s report (55 FR 46890; November 7, 1990). However, the proposed rule was not 

950 finalized and the taskforce’s recommendations were not implemented at the Federal level. While 

951 many States adopted new regulations meeting or exceeding the proposed standards contained in 

952 the 1990 proposal, other States chose to retain their standards until EPA revised the Federal 

953 certification regulation. Some States sought to avoid potential conflicts with Federal regulations 

954 that had not been finalized, while other States were bound by laws or regulations that prohibited 

955 the State’s standards from being more restrictive than Federal standards. 

956 In 1996, stakeholders from the Federal and State governments and cooperative extension 

957 programs formed CTAG to assess the current status of and provide direction for Federal and 

958 State pesticide applicator certification programs. CTAG’s mission is to develop and implement 

959 proposals to strengthen Federal, State and Tribal pesticide certification and training programs, 

960 with the goal of enhancing the knowledge and skills of pesticide users. Pesticide certification and 

961 training programs are run primarily by State government programs and cooperative extension 

962 service programs from State land grant universities, so these stakeholders provide valuable 

963 insight into the needs of the program. 

 In 1999, CTAG issued a comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety in the 21st 964 Century,

965 which recommended improvements for State and Federal pesticide applicator certification 

966 programs, including how to strengthen the certification regulation (Ref. 20). The report suggests 

967 that EPA update the core training requirements for private and commercial applicators, establish 

968 a minimum age for applicator certification, set standards for a recertification or continuing 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 42 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

969 education program, facilitate the ability of applicators certified in one State to work in another 

970 State without going through the whole certification process again, and strengthen protections for 

971 noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (Ref. 20). 

972 Around the same time as CTAG issued its report, EPA initiated the National Assessment 

973 of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program (the National Assessment), an evaluation of its pesticide 

974 worker safety program (pesticide applicator certification and agricultural worker protection) 

975 (Ref. 21). The National Assessment engaged a wide array of stakeholder groups in public forums 

976 to discuss among other things, the CTAG recommendations and other necessary improvements 

977 to EPA’s pesticide applicator certification program. In 2003, EPA issued the Report on the 

978 National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program, which included many 

979 recommendations for rule revisions to improve the applicator certification program (Ref. 22). 

980 The various individual opinions and suggestions made during the course of the assessment 

981 centered on a few broad improvement areas: The expansion and upgrade of applicator and 

982 worker competency and promotion of safer work practices, improved training of and 

983 communication with all pesticide workers, increased enforcement efforts and improved training 

984 of inspectors, training of health care providers and monitoring of pesticide incidents, and finally, 

985 program operation, efficiency and funding (Ref. 22). Suggestions specific to certification of 

986 applicators included improving standards for noncertified applicators working under the direct 

987 supervision of certified applicators, establishing a minimum age for applicator certification, 

988 requiring all applicators to pass an exam to become certified, and facilitating reciprocity between 

989 States for certification of applicators (Ref. 22). While EPA addressed some of the 

990 recommendations through grants, program guidance, and other outreach, others could only be 

991 accomplished by rulemaking. 

992 During the initial stages of the framing of this proposal, EPA’s Federal advisory 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 43 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

993 committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a workgroup in 2006 to 

994 provide feedback to EPA on different areas for change to the certification regulation and the 

995 WPS. The workgroup had over 70 members representing a wide range of stakeholders. EPA 

996 shared with the workgroup suggestions for regulatory change identified through the National 

997 Assessment and solicited comments. The workgroup convened for a series of meetings and 

998 conference calls to get more information on specific parts of the regulation and areas where EPA 

999 was considering change, and provided feedback to EPA. The workgroup never reached 

1000 consensus; it focused on evaluating possible changes under consideration by EPA by providing 

1001 feedback from each member’s or organization’s perspective. Comments from the PPDC 

1002 workgroup members have been compiled into a single document and posted in the docket (Ref. 

1003 23). 

1004 EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on potential revisions 

1005 to the certification rule and the WPS in 2008. The SBAR Panel was convened under section 

1006 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

1007 Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA). As part of the SBAR Panel’s activities, EPA 

1008 consulted with a group of Small Entity Representatives (SERs) from small businesses and 

1009 organizations that could be affected by the potential revisions. EPA provided the SERs with 

1010 information on potential revisions to both rules and requested feedback on the proposals under 

1011 consideration. EPA asked the SERs to offer alternate solutions to the potential proposals 

1012 presented to provide flexibility or to decrease economic impact for small entities while still 

1013 accomplishing the goal of improved safety (Ref. 24). 

1014 Specific to the certification rule, the SERs provided feedback on requirements for the 

1015 minimum age of pesticide applicators and protections for noncertified applicators working under 

1016 the direct supervision of a certified applicator. The SERs’ responses were compiled in an 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 44 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1017 Appendix to the final Panel Report and posted in the docket (Ref. 24). EPA considered input 

1018 from the SERs as part of the evaluation of available options for this rulemaking and SER 

1019 feedback is discussed where relevant in this preamble. 

1020 Consistent with EPA’s Indian Policy and Tribal Consultation Policy, EPA’s Office of 

1021 Pesticide Programs conducted a consultation with Tribes. The consultation was carried out via a 

1022 series of scheduled conference calls with Tribal representatives to inform them about potential 

1023 regulatory changes, especially areas that could affect Tribes. EPA also informed the Tribal 

1024 Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) about the potential changes to the regulation. 

1025 In addition to formal stakeholder outreach, EPA held numerous individual stakeholder 

1026 meetings as requested to discuss concerns and suggestions in detail. Stakeholders requesting 

1027 meetings included the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), the 

1028 American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE), the Association of American 

1029 Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO), the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory 

1030 Officials (ASPCRO), Crop Life America, and others. 

1031 3. Children’s health protection. Executive Order 13045 issued in 1997 (62 FR 19885; 

1032 April 23, 1997) and modified by Executive Order 13296 in 2003 (68 FR 19931; April 18, 2003) 

1033 requires Federal agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks that may 

1034 disproportionately affect children. Children who apply pesticides face risks of exposure. A 2003 

1035 study identified 531 children under 18 years old with acute occupational pesticide-related 

1036 illnesses over a 10-year period (Ref. 25). The same study raised concerns for chronic impacts: 

1037 “because [the] acute illnesses affect young people at a time before they have reached full 

1038 developmental maturation, there is also concern about unique and persistent chronic effects” 

1039 (Ref. 25). Although the study is not limited to RUPs, its findings indicate the potential risk to 

1040 children from working with and around pesticides. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 45 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1041 The Fair Labor Standard Act’s (FLSA) child labor provisions, which are administered by 

1042 DOL, permit children to work at younger ages in agricultural employment than in non1043 agricultural employment. Children under 16 years old are prohibited from doing hazardous tasks 

1044 in agriculture, including handling or applying acutely toxic pesticides. 29 CFR 570.71(a)(9). 

1045 DOL has established a general rule, applicable to most industries other than agriculture, that 

1046 workers must be at least 18 years old to perform hazardous jobs. 29 CFR 570.120. 

1047 Research has shown differences in the decision making of adolescents and adults that 

1048 leads to the conclusion that applicators that are children may take more risks than those who are 

1049 adults. Behavioral scientists note that responsible decision making is more common in young 

1050 adults than adolescents: “socially responsible decision making is significantly more common 

1051 among young adults than among adolescents, but does not increase appreciably after age 19. 

1052 Adolescents, on average, scored significantly worse than adults did, but individual differences in 

1053 judgment within each adolescent age group were considerable. These findings call into question 

1054 recent assertions, derived from studies of logical reasoning, that adolescents and adults are 

1055 equally competent and that laws and social policies should treat them as such” (Ref. 18). 

1056 Decision-making skills and competence differ between adolescents and adults. While research 

1057 has focused on decision making of juveniles in terms of legal culpability, the research suggests 

1058 similar logic can be applied to decision making for pesticide application. 

1059 In sum, children applying RUPs – products that require additional care when used to 

1060 ensure they do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment – may be at 

1061 a potentially higher risk of pesticide exposure and illness. The elevated risk to the adolescent 

1062 applicators, in addition to adolescents’ not fully developed decision-making abilities, warrant 

1063 careful consideration of the best ways to protect them. It is reasonable to expect that that the 

1064 proposed changes would mitigate or eliminate many of the risks faced by adolescents covered by 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 46 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1065 this rule. 

1066 4. Retrospective regulatory review. On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued 

1067 Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821; January 

1068 21, 2011), to direct each Federal agency to develop a plan, consistent with law and its resources 

1069 and regulatory priorities, under which the agency would periodically review its existing 

1070 significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, 

1071 streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective 

1072 or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives. The Executive Order also enumerates 

1073 a number of principles and directives to guide agencies as they work to improve the Nation’s 

1074 regulatory system. 

1075 In developing its plan, EPA sought public input on the design of EPA’s plan for the 

1076 periodic retrospective review of its regulations, and stakeholder suggestions for regulations that 

1077 should be the first to undergo a retrospective review (76 FR 9988, February 23, 2011), and 

1078 issued the final EPA plan, titled “Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic 

1079 Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations,” in August 2011 

1080 (http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/documents/eparetroreviewplan-aug2011.pdf). 

1081 The existing certification rule was nominated for retrospective review as part of the 

1082 public involvement process in 2011. In EPA’s final plan, EPA committed to review the existing 

1083 certification rule to determine how to clarify requirements and modify potentially redundant or 

1084 restrictive requirements, in keeping with Executive Order 13563’s directive to reduce regulatory 

1085 burden. 

1086 The results of EPA’s review, which included identified opportunities for improving the 

1087 existing regulation, were incorporated into this rulemaking effort. Based on extensive 

1088 interactions with stakeholders during review of the certification regulation, EPA has identified 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 47 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1089 the potential for streamlining activities which could reduce the burden on the regulated 

1090 community by promoting better coordination among the State, Federal, and Tribal partnerships; 

1091 clarifying requirements; and modifying potentially redundant or restrictive regulation. EPA 

1092 expects the proposed rule, if finalized, to achieve the benefits outlined throughout the preamble. 

1093 IV. Overview of the Proposed Revisions to Part 171

1094 Units II. and III. described the stakeholder engagement and reports highlighting the need 

1095 to update the certification regulation. In addition to stakeholder recommendations, EPA believes 

1096 the rule needs to be updated to address State variability and to support EPA registration 

1097 decisions. Each of these reasons for updating the rule are discussed in this unit. 

1098 As noted in Unit III., EPA has not updated the certification regulation substantially in 

1099 almost 40 years. However, many States have adopted updated standards for certification and 

1100 recertification. As a result, State requirements for certification of applicators are highly varied; 

1101 most States go beyond Federal requirements for applicator certification. This has created an 

1102 uneven regulatory landscape between States and inhibits recognition of an applicator 

1103 certification issued in one State by another State. 

1104 If certification does not represent a uniform degree of competence, this diversity also 

1105 compromises EPA’s ability to determine confidently that use of a pesticide product by certified 

1106 applicators will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. In order to retain or expand the number 

1107 and types of pesticides available to benefit agriculture, public health, and other pest control 

1108 needs, EPA plans to raise the Federal standards for applicator competency. By adopting the 

1109 proposed strengthened and additional competency standards, EPA could rely on a higher level of 

1110 applicator competence generally, and may be able to register pesticides under terms more 

1111 beneficial to users. 

1112 Units VI to XX describe the most significant of the proposed changes and alternative 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 48 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1113 options considered by EPA. Each discussion is generally structured to provide, where 

1114 appropriate: 

1115 • A concise statement of the proposed change. 

1116 • The current requirements of the certification regulation. 

1117 • Stakeholder feedback and research supporting the proposed change. 

1118 • A detailed description of the proposed change and the rationale for the change. 

1119 • An estimated cost. 

1120 • A description of primary alternatives considered by EPA and the reason for not 

1121 proposing them. 

1122 • Specific questions on which EPA seeks feedback. 

1123 V. Public Comments

1124 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or 

1125 email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

1126 information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD1127 ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

1128 information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that 

1129 includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

1130 information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so 

1131 marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

1132 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting comments, see the 

1133 commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 

1134 VI. Revise Private Applicator Certification Standards 

1135 A. Enhance Private Applicator Competency Standards 

1136 1. EPA’s proposal. Because private applicators have access to and can apply the same 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 49 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1137 RUPs as commercial applicators and therefore need to have similar knowledge and skills to 

1138 apply pesticides safely and effectively, EPA proposes to amend the private applicator 

1139 competency standards to include more specific information on pesticide application and safe use. 

1140 2. Existing regulation. The current rule has 5 topics under the competency standards for 

1141 private applicators: 

1142 • Recognize common pests to be controlled and damage caused by them. 

1143 • Read and understand the label and labeling information. 

1144 • Apply pesticides in accordance with label instructions and warnings. 

1145 • Recognize local environmental situations that must be considered during application to 

1146 avoid contamination. 

1147 • Recognize poisoning symptoms and procedures to follow in case of a pesticide 

1148 accident. 40 CFR 171.5(a)(1) through (5). 

1149 These topics are listed without specific detail or clarification of the areas to be covered under 

1150 each point. In contrast, the core standards of competency for commercial certification have nine 

1151 major areas of focus with more specific sub-points listed under each. 40 CFR 171.4(b)(1). 

1152 3. Stakeholder information. Starting in 1985, EPA received requests from stakeholders to 

1153 increase the level of detail and subject matter outlined in the competency standards for private 

1154 applicators. SFIREG’s taskforce report calls for EPA to make private applicator competency 

1155 standards parallel to those of commercial applicators (Ref. 19). CTAG recommended that all 

1156 applicators with access to RUPs meet a similar competency standard (Ref. 20). Members of the 

1157 PPDC workgroup also noted that since commercial and private applicators have access to the 

1158 same products, they should meet similar competency standards (Ref. 23). Over 90% of States 

1159 noted that their private applicator certification standards are comparable to the core standards for 

1160 commercial applicators (Ref. 1). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 50 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1161 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. Based on the importance of understanding and 

1162 following the pesticide’s labeling in managing risks to the applicator, the public, and the 

1163 environment, EPA is proposing to enhance the competency standards for private applicators to 

1164 more specifically define the necessary knowledge and skills to be demonstrated by private 

1165 applicators to become certified. More specific competency standards would better outline the 

1166 knowledge and skills EPA expects private applicators to have in order to apply RUPs effectively 

1167 and without unreasonable adverse effects. 

1168 The enhanced private applicator competency standards would cover: Label and labeling 

1169 comprehension; safety; environment; pests; pesticides; equipment; application techniques; laws 

1170 and regulations; responsibilities for supervisors of noncertified applicators; professionalism; and 

1171 agricultural pest control. EPA is proposing a set of competency standards substantially parallel to 

1172 the core standards for commercial applicators in the current rule at 40 CFR 171.4(a) and 

1173 proposed as 40 CFR 171.105(a), with the addition of some points from the agricultural plant 

1174 category and information particularly relevant to private applicators, such as the WPS. The 

1175 proposed competency standards specifically cover protecting pollinators under the 

1176 “environment” heading. In addition to the differences in the proposed general competency 

1177 standards for private and commercial applicators, EPA proposes to maintain the distinction 

1178 between private and commercial applicator competency standards required by FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 

1179 136i(e)) by not requiring private applicators to obtain a specific category certification in addition 

1180 to the proposed general certification. For commercial applicators to become certified, they must 

1181 pass the core and at least one category exam. 

1182 It is reasonable to expect that that the more detailed competency standards would 

1183 contribute to improving the overall competency of private applicators. 

1184 The proposed regulatory text would be located at 40 CFR 171.105(a). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 51 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1185 5. Costs/benefits. EPA estimated the cost of the proposed enhancements to private 

1186 applicator competency standards in conjunction with the requirement to strengthen private 

1187 applicator certification requirements. The cost for these combined proposals is presented in Unit 

1188 VI.B.5. 

1189 6. Alternative options. EPA considered adopting the core standards for commercial 

1190 applicators in the current rule at 40 CFR 171.4(a) for private applicator competency standards. 

1191 Private and commercial applicators have the same access to RUPs and need knowledge of basic 

1192 safety and application techniques related to the use of these products. However, FIFRA requires 

1193 that EPA establish separate standards for commercial and private applicators, thereby prohibiting 

1194 EPA from using the same core competency standards for commercial and private applicators. 7 

1195 U.S.C. 136i(e). In addition, because private applicators are engaged only in the production of 

1196 agricultural commodities, it is necessary for them to demonstrate specific competency related to 

1197 this type of RUP use rather than the broader range of commercial applicator competencies. 

1198 7. Request for comment. EPA seeks comment on the following: 

1199 • Should EPA consider adding points to or deleting points from the proposed private 

1200 applicator competency standards? If so, what points and why? 

1201 • Are the competencies necessary to protect pollinators adequately covered in the 

1202 proposed competency standards for private applicators? If not, please explain why and provide 

1203 alternatives to ensure that private applicators are competent to use RUPs in a manner that 

1204 protects pollinators. 

1205 B. Strengthen Private Applicator Certification Requirements

1206 1. EPA’s proposal. In order to address the need for private applicators to be competent to 

1207 use RUPs, EPA proposes to require that persons seeking certification as private applicators 

1208 complete a training program approved by the certifying authority that covers the standards of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 52 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1209 competency for private applicators or pass a written exam administered by the certifying 

1210 authority. 

1211 2. Existing regulation. The certification regulation requires States to ensure that private 

1212 applicators are competent and the certification process use a written or oral exam, or other 

1213 method approved as part of the State certification plan. 40 CFR 171.5(b). The rule does not have 

1214 a description of a certification system that is not a written or oral testing procedure. 

1215 3. Stakeholder information. SFIREG, the PPDC workgroup, and CTAG have 

1216 recommended that private applicators be required to take and pass a written exam to become 

1217 certified to use RUPs (Refs. 19, 23, 26). Based on data from State certification plans, 42 States 

1218 require private applicators to pass a written exam to become certified, and another 3 States offer 

1219 the option to certify by passing a written exam (Ref. 1). 

1220 Stakeholders recognize the provision in FIFRA that prohibits EPA from requiring private 

1221 applicators to take an exam to establish competency, 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1), and have suggested 

1222 that EPA set a minimum training requirement for those States that do not require private 

1223 applicators to take an exam. 

1224 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. To implement the enhanced competency standards 

1225 for private applicators, EPA proposes to require that private applicators complete a training 

1226 program approved by the certifying authority, or in the alternative, by passing a written exam. In 

1227 either case, the certification process must cover the private applicator core standards described in 

1228 Unit VI.A., and meet the procedural standards described in Unit IX. By allowing private 

1229 applicators to be certified by either attending a training program or taking an exam, EPA’s action 

1230 does not conflict with the FIFRA’s prohibition against EPA requiring private applicators of 

1231 RUPs take an exam to establish competency. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1). 

1232 Forty-two States already require private applicators to pass a written exam for 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 53 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1233 certification, so EPA is proposing standard procedures for such examinations. Those States 

1234 without a written exam requirement generally require some form of training, though the length, 

1235 quality, and content of the training vary considerably between States, so EPA is proposing 

1236 specific content requirements. It is reasonable to expect that that the risks associated with private 

1237 applicators’ use of RUPs can be reduced through setting more specific minimum requirements 

1238 for the content of and mechanisms to assess private applicator competency. This proposal 

1239 acknowledges the need for more specific requirements for the alternate mechanism for private 

1240 applicator certification and balances it with the recognition that certifying authorities are well1241 suited to develop training programs that cover the content EPA has deemed necessary to avoid 

1242 unreasonable adverse effects from the use of RUPs by private applicators and meet the needs of 

1243 the private applicators in their jurisdictions. 

1244 The proposed regulatory text would be located at 40 CFR 171.105(e). 

1245 5. Costs. EPA estimates this proposal would cost about $3.7 million annually for private 

1246 applicators. EPA also estimates that those States that do not currently require an exam or training 

1247 that last approximately 12 hours for private applicator certification would incur costs of about 

1248 $16,000 per year for the first two years after implementation to develop the programs, as well as 

1249 $61,000 per year thereafter for ongoing program administration. EPA plans to support the 

1250 development of exams and manuals for private applicator certification, which should reduce the 

1251 costs to States. 

1252 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. While maintaining the same 

1253 enhanced competency standards discussed in Unit VI.A., EPA considered alternative options of 

1254 allowing private applicator certification by completing a training program of a specific length – 

1255 either 4, 8, or 16 hours – that covers the content outlined in Unit VI.A. In developing the EPA1256 administered certification plan for Indian country, EPA developed a non-exam certification 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 54 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1257 option for private applicators. Because of the difficulty of reaching candidates in various parts of 

1258 the country and the need to make the training available throughout the year, the Federal Indian 

1259 country training program is a pre-recorded, narrated PowerPoint presented through the Internet 

1260 that runs 12 hours (Ref. 27). The training covers much of the content proposed in Unit VI.A., as 

1261 well as specific requirements for pesticide applicators in Indian country. However, EPA decided 

1262 not to propose a specific length for private applicator certification by training. EPA believes that 

1263 specifying that private applicator non-exam certification must be accomplished through training 

1264 and outlining the content that must be covered in the training would allow States and private 

1265 applicator educators - who understand the content, the audience, and how to convey the content 

1266 to the audience - to develop training programs that cover the content EPA deems necessary and 

1267 meet the needs of their audiences. For example, narrated PowerPoint presentations and webinars 

1268 may take a longer amount of time to cover the specified topics than an in-person training. 

1269 Additionally, a mandatory training length could encourage some training providers to either rush 

1270 through or draw out coverage of the content, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the 

1271 training. It is not clear that specifying the length of the training would better protect human 

1272 health or the environment. 

1273 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following: 

1274 • Please provide any relevant information on the efficacy of private applicator 

1275 certification training programs or comparisons between training and testing programs. 

1276 • Please comment on the proposed structure of the non-exam option for private applicator 

1277 certification. 

1278 • Would a different training requirement adequately convey the necessary information to 

1279 private applicators? If so, please describe the alternate requirement. 

1280 • Is it necessary for EPA to specify a minimum length of time for the training program for 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 55 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1281 private applicator certification? If so, please provide the minimum length of the training program 

1282 and explain its basis. 

1283 C. Eliminate Non-Reader Certification for Private Applicators 

1284 1. EPA’s proposal. Due to the importance of an applicator’s ability to read, understand, 

1285 and follow the labeling in order to apply pesticides in a manner that would not cause 

1286 unreasonable adverse effects to people or the environment, EPA proposes to delete the provision 

1287 of the rule that allows a non-reader to become a certified private applicator. 

1288 2. Existing regulation. The existing rule contains a provision for limited certification of 

1289 private applicators who cannot read by offering the option to obtain a product-specific 

1290 certification. 40 CFR 171.5(b)(1). This provision allows States to use a testing procedure 

1291 approved by the Administrator to assess the competence of the non-reader candidate related to 

1292 the use and handling of each individual pesticide for which certification is sought. This generally 

1293 means that someone has explained the labeling to the non-reader and the non-reader answers 

1294 questions on the same labeling asked by the State regulator. The person seeking certification is 

1295 not required to demonstrate the ability to read and understand pesticide labeling. 

1296 As discussed earlier, FIFRA prohibits EPA from requiring private applicators to pass an 

1297 exam to establish competency. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1). 

1298 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. CTAG recommended that EPA establish 

1299 a requirement for persons seeking certification to be able to read and understand English 

1300 language pesticide labeling. Most PPDC workgroup members did not oppose elimination of the 

1301 non-reader certification provision (Ref. 23). One State noted that there are small populations who 

1302 either cannot read English-language labeling or who could not pass an exam, but who could use 

1303 a single product without causing unreasonable adverse effects. EPA is only aware of two States 

1304 that employ limited certification. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 56 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1305 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the current provision that 

1306 allows States to offer limited certification to persons who cannot read the pesticide labeling. A 

1307 key element of applicator competency is the ability to read the labeling because understanding 

1308 the labeling is critical to preventing unreasonable adverse effects from the use of RUPs. Labeling 

1309 is increasingly relied upon to transmit product-specific information relative to subjects such as 

1310 worker protection, groundwater, endangered species, and human exposure. In addition, labeling 

1311 may change frequently. Approved uses, application rates, and application methods may be 

1312 deleted or added by a registrant voluntarily or as part of an EPA risk mitigation strategy. The 

1313 potential for misuse of RUPs presents an unreasonable risk unless the applicator is able to read 

1314 and correctly interpret the labeling that accompanies each product he or she uses. While the 

1315 current system is intended to ensure the applicator has knowledge of a specific product’s 

1316 labeling, there is no way to ensure the applicator would be aware of subsequent changes. It is 

1317 reasonable to expect that that by eliminating the specific certification method for applicators who 

1318 cannot read, RUPs are more likely to be applied as required by their labeling, and therefore will 

1319 be less likely to cause unreasonable adverse effects to people or the environment. 

1320 EPA recognizes that persons can be certified as private applicators by attending a training 

1321 course. In this case, EPA expects that the certifying body would ensure that the applicator 

1322 demonstrated all of the necessary competencies to apply RUPs, including the ability to read. 

1323 The proposed change does not affect non-certified persons applying RUPs under the 

1324 direct supervision of a certified applicator. It is conceivable that persons who cannot read 

1325 labeling could use RUPs properly while working under the direct supervision of a certified 

1326 applicator. EPA is proposing to strengthen the training and other requirements related to 

1327 noncertified applicators to ensure that they understand the labeling requirements for each 

1328 application, are supervised by a qualified applicator familiar with the specific product labeling 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 57 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1329 for each application, and have equipment available to contact the supervising applicator 

1330 immediately in the event of an emergency or with any questions. These strengthened standards 

1331 should provide sufficient training that a non-reader or a person who cannot read English could 

1332 apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator without causing unreasonable 

1333 adverse effects to the applicator, the public, or the environment. 

1334 5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be negligible. EPA is sensitive to 

1335 the fact that elimination of this provision may increase costs for a very small number of private 

1336 applicators, but it is reasonable to expect that this adverse impact would be small in comparison 

1337 to the potential reduction in risks to the applicator, the public, and the environment. If the 

1338 proposal is finalized, EPA would allow existing non-reader certifications to remain valid until 

1339 expiration or recertification is required under the implementation of the final rule. Because most 

1340 non-reader certifications are issued for a specific application in a single growing season, EPA 

1341 anticipates that non-reader certification would not continue for any significant period of time if 

1342 this proposal is finalized. 

1343 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA also considered retaining the 

1344 limited certification option for private applicator certification and strengthening the 

1345 requirements. For this alternative scenario, the limited certification would be valid for a single 

1346 product and for a single season. The State would have to evaluate each request for a limited 

1347 certification separately. This option would codify what EPA understands to be the current 

1348 practice in States that allow non-reader certification. Under this option, a person could be 

1349 certified to use a single product based on a specific product’s labeling, but might not be aware of 

1350 subsequent changes to the labeling of the same product purchased later in the season. Given the 

1351 importance of avoiding unreasonable adverse effects from the use of RUPs and the limited use of 

1352 this certification option, EPA decided not to propose this option. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 58 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1353 7. Request for comment. EPA requests comment on the following questions: 

1354 • Would the elimination of the non-reader provision cause hardship to specific groups of 

1355 private applicators? If so, please describe the group and the hardship. 

1356 • Should EPA allow private applicators currently certified under this provision to retain 

1357 their certification if the non-reader provision is eliminated? Please explain why. If so, how would 

1358 “grandfathering in” private applicators certified under this provision impact other proposed 

1359 changes, such as requirements for maintaining certification and supervising noncertified 

1360 applicators? 

1361 • Do alternatives to the non-reader certification option exist that would offer an adequate 

1362 level of protection while maintaining a narrow exception to certification requirements? If so, 

1363 please describe. 

1364 VII. Establish Application Method-Specific Certification Categories for Private and 

1365 Commercial Applicators 

1366 1. Overview. In order to address the elevated risks associated with certain specific 

1367 methods of application used by certified private and commercial applicators to apply RUPs, EPA 

1368 proposes to add application method-specific certification categories for private and commercial 

1369 applicators that use RUPs to conduct soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, and aerial 

1370 applications. These application method-specific categories would be independent of the pest 

1371 control categories in the existing rule, for example, a person certified in the aerial method 

1372 category would also need certification in one or more pest control categories, such as crop pest 

1373 control, forest pest control, or public health pest control. 

1374 2. Existing regulation. The existing rule has no categories for private applicators. For 

1375 commercial applicators, the existing rule does not have any application method-specific 

1376 categories, although it does have 11 pest control categories: Agricultural pest control – plant; 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 59 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1377 agricultural pest control – animal; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; seed 

1378 treatment; aquatic pest control; right-of-way pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and 

1379 health related pest control; public health pest control; regulatory pest control; and demonstration 

1380 and research pest control. 40 CFR 171.3. 

1381 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. Stakeholders, including SFIREG, CTAG, 

1382 AAPCO, and members of the PPDC workgroup, recommended that EPA consider adding 

1383 application method-specific certification categories for high-risk uses (Refs. 19, 20). States have 

1384 noted that certain application methods, specifically fumigation and aerial application, pose 

1385 elevated risks of exposure or harm to the applicator, bystanders, or the environment. 

1386 Some States have addressed these elevated risks related to these application methods by 

1387 adding specific categories for both private and commercial applicators seeking to use certain 

1388 application methods. States that have chosen to add categories have done so independently, 

1389 resulting in different standards and levels of protection across the country. EPA reviewed the 

1390 categories related to application methods adopted by the States and other stakeholders. 

1391 According to data from 2013, 32 States require commercial applicators to be certified for aerial 

1392 application and 1 State requires the same for private applicators. For soil fumigation, 16 States 

1393 require commercial applicators to obtain a specific certification and 10 States have a similar 

1394 requirement for private applicators. Finally, for non-soil fumigation, 41 States mandate that 

1395 commercial applicators be certified in this specific category to conduct non-soil fumigation 

1396 applications and 8 States have a similar requirement for private applicators. 

1397 The 2008 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for soil fumigants acknowledged the 

1398 elevated risks. As a result of these risks, EPA required additional training for soil fumigant 

1399 applicators through labeling amendments. The decision also acknowledged that a specific 

1400 certification category requiring demonstration of competency by passing a written exam related 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 60 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1401 to applying fumigants to soil would be an acceptable alternative risk mitigation measure. Several 

1402 States have opted to require applicators to be certified in a specific soil fumigation category. As 

1403 chemicals are reviewed as part of the ongoing registration review program, risks associated with 

1404 individual pesticides may be addressed through labeling requirements for additional training or 

1405 competency. 

1406 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to establish three application 

1407 method-specific certification categories for private and commercial applicators: Soil fumigation, 

1408 non-soil fumigation, and aerial. Based on the discussions with States and review of existing 

1409 State-adopted categories, EPA proposes these categories because EPA has concluded that these 

1410 categories of use for RUPs may cause unreasonable adverse effects without additional 

1411 regulation. These types of RUP application require specialized skills and present unique risks, 

1412 such that it is reasonable and appropriate for private and commercial applicators to acquire or 

1413 demonstrate the pertinent knowledge and skills before being certified to apply RUPs in any of 

1414 these three categories. For commercial applicators, certification in any of the application method1415 specific categories would only be available to persons certified in a relevant pest control category 

1416 as described in proposed 40 CFR 171.101(a). Private applicators would need to satisfy the 

1417 general competency standards described in Unit VI in order to qualify for additional certification 

1418 in an application method-specific category. 

1419 Pesticide application and agriculture both are becoming increasingly specialized. 

1420 Improper use of application equipment may lead to increased risks to the health of the applicator, 

1421 workers, the environment, and the public. Additionally, certain categories of pesticides, 

1422 including fumigants, pose an inherently higher risk of acute injury or death if the applicator does 

1423 not understand and follow the labeling. These increased risks can be mitigated by requiring 

1424 applicators to demonstrate a more specific set of competencies relative to certain application 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 61 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1425 methods. 

1426 Soil fumigation is a complicated process, and involves highly toxic pesticide products 

1427 that can cause acute, severe injury to the applicator, handler, bystanders, or the environment if 

1428 not used properly. Given the increased potential for harm to human health and the environment, 

1429 EPA proposes to establish soil fumigation categories for private and commercial applicators. 

1430 Under the re-registration decision for the soil fumigants, 72 FR 24295-24297, May 2, 2007 

1431 (Refs. 28, 29, 30), additional soil fumigation-specific training is required for applicators certified 

1432 to use RUPs registered for use as soil fumigants due to their increased potential for harm. 

1433 Because there was no generally applicable requirement or standard of competence for soil 

1434 fumigation, EPA required each registrant to develop and implement a soil fumigant training 

1435 program. In discussing this approach with States, EPA recognized that an applicator certification 

1436 category specific to soil fumigation with a single, uniform set of criteria would be less 

1437 burdensome than requiring separate, registrant-sponsored trainings for each soil fumigation 

1438 product. States have requested that EPA consider requiring all applicators using soil fumigants to 

1439 be certified in a single, soil fumigation category in lieu of each product’s labeling requirement 

1440 for registrant-sponsored training (Ref. 31). The labeling for soil fumigants provides the option 

1441 for applicators to qualify to purchase and use these products either by attending the registrant 

1442 training specified on the labeling for each specific chemical or by being certified in a soil 

1443 fumigation category that covers all active ingredients and meets the competency standards 

1444 approved by EPA. Recognizing the potential risks from soil fumigants and the importance of 

1445 applicator competency, EPA worked with State regulators, cooperative extension personnel, soil 

1446 fumigant applicators, and industry to develop a training manual and exam item bank (database of 

1447 questions related to soil fumigation that can be used on a certification exam) that States can use 

1448 for certification of applicators performing soil fumigation (Refs. 32, 33). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 62 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1449 Under the proposal, commercial applicator certification in the soil fumigation category 

1450 would require the applicator to demonstrate competency in soil fumigation by passing a written 

1451 exam and to hold concurrent certification in each of the pest control categories in which he or 

1452 she intends to conduct this type of application, e.g., agricultural pest control – plant; ornamental 

1453 and turf pest control; forest pest control; right-of-way pest control; regulatory pest control; or 

1454 demonstration and research. Private applicator certification in soil fumigation would require the 

1455 applicator to demonstrate competency by passing a written exam or completing a training 

1456 program covering the proposed competency standards for soil fumigation (proposed at 40 CFR 

1457 171.105(c)(1)) in addition to holding a valid general private applicator certification. 

1458 Other (non-soil) types of fumigation require different techniques and training than soil 

1459 fumigation, but have similar potential to harm the applicator, the environment, and the public. 

1460 For example, although fumigation of a shipping container requires different application 

1461 equipment, monitoring strategy, and mitigation of environmental concerns than soil fumigation, 

1462 both types of fumigation can cause acute, severe injury to the applicator, handler, bystanders, or 

1463 the environment if not conducted properly. Given the high potential for harm to human health 

1464 and the environment, EPA proposes to add non-soil fumigation application method-specific 

1465 certification categories for private and commercial applicators. Commercial applicator 

1466 certification in the non-soil fumigation category would require the applicator to demonstrate 

1467 competency in non-soil fumigation by passing a written exam and to hold concurrent 

1468 certification in each of the pest control categories in which he or she intends to conduct this type 

1469 of application, e.g., agricultural pest control – plant; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest 

1470 control; seed treatment; aquatic pest control; industrial, institutional, structural, and health1471 related pest control; public health pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and 

1472 research. Private applicator certification in non-soil fumigation would require the applicator to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 63 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1473 demonstrate competency by passing a written exam or completing a training program covering 

1474 the proposed competency standards for non-soil fumigation (proposed at 40 CFR 171.105(c)(2)) 

1475 in addition to holding a valid general private applicator certification. 

1476 Applying pesticides with a plane or helicopter poses a unique set of risks and challenges 

1477 to the applicator, bystanders, and the environment. There is heightened concern for spray drift, 

1478 elevated potential for off-target applications and bystander exposure, and an increased need for 

1479 application equipment to be calibrated accurately. Aerial applicators are required to comply not 

1480 only with EPA regulations for the application of pesticides, but also Federal Aviation 

1481 Administration requirements for pilots making applications using an aircraft. Recognizing the 

1482 potential risks and the importance of applicator competency when performing aerial applications, 

1483 EPA worked with State regulators, cooperative extension personnel, aerial applicators, and 

1484 industry to develop a training manual and exam item bank that States can use for certification of 

1485 aerial applicators (Ref. 34). The unique challenges posed by this application method warrant 

1486 establishing aerial application categories for private and commercial applicators. Accordingly, in 

1487 order for a commercial applicator to make aerial applications of RUPs, the commercial 

1488 applicator would be required to demonstrate competency in aerial application by passing a 

1489 written exam and to hold concurrent certification in each of the pest control categories in which 

1490 he or she intends to conduct aerial application, e.g., agricultural pest control – plant; ornamental 

1491 and turf pest control; forest pest control; aquatic pest control; right-of-way pest control; public 

1492 health pest control; demonstration and research; or regulatory pest control. Private applicator 

1493 certification in aerial application would require the applicator to demonstrate competency by 

1494 passing a written exam or completing a training program covering the proposed competency 

1495 standards for aerial application (proposed at 40 CFR 171.105(c)(3)) in addition to holding a valid 

1496 general private applicator certification. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 64 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1497 Requirements for general private applicator certification in each of the aforementioned 

1498 application method-specific categories would parallel the certification requirements proposed in 

1499 Unit VI.B. Private applicators would be required to either pass a written exam or complete a 

1500 training program for each application method-specific category that covers the proposed 

1501 competency standards and is approved by the certifying authority. A person who does not have a 

1502 general private applicator certification would not be eligible for certification in any of the 

1503 application method-specific categories. These additional categories of certification would 

1504 provide a measure of assurance that the private applicator has the specialized knowledge of 

1505 application methods, equipment, and the characteristics of the pesticides pertinent to a specific 

1506 category to use the pesticide without generally causing unreasonable adverse effects. 

1507 The regulatory text for the proposed commercial applicator application method-specific 

1508 categories would be located at 40 CFR 171.101(b). The regulatory text for the proposed private 

1509 applicator application method-specific categories would be located at 40 CFR 171.105(c). 

1510 5. Costs. The cost estimates are broken out by each category for private and commercial 

1511 applicators. As discussed in Unit VI.B., EPA plans to support the development of exams and 

1512 manuals for the proposed application-method specific categories, which should reduce the 

1513 overall burden to States associated with this proposal. EPA has already developed and made 

1514 available to State certification agencies free of charge training manuals and exam item banks for 

1515 the aerial and soil fumigation categories. States that elect to use the EPA-developed materials 

1516 would incur minimal development costs; however, the costs below reflect the full estimated cost 

1517 to States and do not include EPA assistance in developing exams and manuals. EPA expects the 

1518 actual costs to States would be lower. 

1519 Private applicators 

1520 EPA estimates the cost to private applicators of adding a private aerial category to be 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 65 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1521 about $2,000 annually. The low cost to applicators reflects the number of existing private 

1522 applicators certified in aerial application and the low estimated number of new private 

1523 applicators seeking aerial certification. The costs to States to develop and administer exams or 

1524 training for certification would be about $108,000 annually for the first 2 years of 

1525 implementation. Most of this cost would be borne within the first two years to develop the exams 

1526 and recognizes that nationally developed materials will be available for States to adapt for their 

1527 own programs. 

1528 EPA estimates that adding a soil fumigation category for private applicators would not 

1529 result in any additional cost to private applicators. The labeling for soil fumigation products 

1530 already requires applicators to either participate in registrant training for each product or to be 

1531 certified in a State soil fumigation category. 

1532 EPA estimates that the cost to private applicators of adding a non-soil fumigation 

1533 category to be about $78,000. 

1534 EPA estimates that the costs to States to develop and administer exams or training for 

1535 certification in the soil and non-soil fumigation categories would be $197,000 annually for the 

1536 first 2 years of implementation. 

1537 Commercial applicators 

1538 EPA estimates the cost to commercial applicators of adding an aerial category to be about 

1539 $98,000 annually. The low cost to applicators reflects the number of States that already require 

1540 commercial applicators to obtain a specific certification to perform aerial application and the 

1541 relatively low number of applicators that seek certification in an aerial category each year. The 

1542 cost to States to develop a certification exam for this category would be about $39,000 annually 

1543 for the first 2 years after implementation. 

1544 EPA estimates that adding a soil fumigation category for commercial applicators would 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 66 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1545 not result in any additional cost to commercial applicators. The labeling for soil fumigation 

1546 products already requires applicators to either participate in registrant training for each product 

1547 or to be certified in a State soil fumigation category. 

1548 EPA estimates the cost of adding requirements a non-soil fumigation category for 

1549 commercial applicators would be about $131,000 per year for commercial applicators. Many 

1550 States already require commercial applicators to be certified in either general fumigation, soil 

1551 fumigation, or another type of fumigation. However, the cost to add this category is higher than 

1552 for other commercial applicator categories proposed because most States do not already have 

1553 categories for both soil and non-soil fumigation. 

1554 The costs to States to develop non-soil fumigation certification exams would be about 

1555 $30,000 per year for the first 2 years following implementation. 

1556 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. The Agency considered six 

1557 alternatives to the proposed requirement. 

1558 i. Specify a certain number of training hours for private applicator certification in these 

1559 categories. 

1560 EPA considered requiring private applicators to complete a specific number of hours of 

1561 training (either 4 or 8 hours) or to pass an exam in order to become certified in an application 

1562 method-specific category. As discussed above in Unit VI.B., it is not clear that a mandatory 

1563 minimum length for private applicator certification training programs would not ensure specific 

1564 competency. 

1565 ii. Continue to rely on label-specific risk mitigation to address elevated risks associated 

1566 with certain application methods. 

1567 EPA considered relying on imposing risk mitigation measures through labeling, limiting 

1568 the use of high risk products or higher risk application methods. This approach would be 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 67 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1569 implemented on a case-by-case basis and not directly linked to pesticide applicator certification 

1570 programs. The Agency learned that applicators, States, and cooperative extension service 

1571 programs did not support this approach and faced significant burdens when this approach was 

1572 used to regulate soil fumigants (Refs. 35, 36, 37, 38). Based on the adverse reaction and impact 

1573 to States, as well as the need to promote applicator competency and national consistency, EPA 

1574 decided not to propose this option. It is reasonable to expect that adding categories at the Federal 

1575 level to cover many types of pesticides applied by specific mechanisms would be more efficient 

1576 than imposing similar but not identical requirements on each pesticide label. 

1577 iii. Consolidate soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation into a single fumigation 

1578 category. 

1579 To reduce the burden on State certification authorities and applicators who perform both 

1580 types of fumigation applications, EPA considered proposing a single general fumigation 

1581 concurrent category instead of separate soil and non-soil fumigation concurrent categories. The 

1582 knowledge and skills necessary to perform soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation differ 

1583 substantially. In addition, there are significant differences in risks to the applicator and 

1584 environmental concerns between the two methods for applying fumigants. The reregistration 

1585 decisions on the soil fumigants highlighted the specific use conditions and risk mitigation 

1586 measures necessary to apply soil fumigants without unreasonable adverse effects, not necessary 

1587 restrictions for applications of all fumigants. Combining these related categories may reduce the 

1588 burden on certifying agencies and on some applicators; however, applicators who perform only 

1589 soil fumigation or only non-soil fumigation would receive less instruction specific to their 

1590 particular application method and more instruction than they wish on a method for which they 

1591 may have no use. In order to ensure that applicators have a level of competency in the applicable 

1592 application method proportional to the potential risk, EPA decided not to propose a general 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 68 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1593 fumigation category. 

1594 iv. Add application method-specific standards as subcategories under the existing 

1595 commercial applicator categories. 

1596 EPA considered adding the categories discussed in this Unit as subcategories under the 

1597 applicable existing commercial applicator pest control categories. For example, a person seeking 

1598 to perform aerial application to agricultural fields and forests, and for mosquito control would 

1599 have to take an aerial exam specific to each of these categories. This would require creating 

1600 subcategories under almost every pest control category. An applicator would have to be certified 

1601 not only in each relevant pest control category, but also in a subcategory under each in order to 

1602 use a specific application method. Application method-specific certification requirements as 

1603 proposed are expected to impose a lower burden on applicators seeking certification, e.g., one 

1604 aerial method-specific certification exam rather than separate aerial subcategory exams under 

1605 agricultural plant, forest, and aquatic pest control. The competency necessary to employ a 

1606 specific application method, i.e., soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or aerial pest control, does 

1607 not appear to vary substantially based on where the application occurs. For example, an 

1608 applicator performing soil fumigation needs to know the same techniques and safety measures 

1609 whether doing it in for a field crop or for ornamental pest control. Therefore, EPA decided not to 

1610 propose the application method-specific certification as subcategories under the commercial 

1611 applicator pest control categories. 

1612 v. Add an application method-specific category for chemigation. 

1613 Chemigation, i.e., application of pesticides through irrigation systems, has a higher 

1614 potential for environmental contamination if not conducted properly and poses additional risks to 

1615 the applicator or those working under the applicator’s direct supervision due to the nature of the 

1616 equipment. Chemigation can contaminate ground and drinking water that flow directly into a 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 69 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1617 water supply, if uncalibrated equipment causes application over the rate specified on the 

1618 labeling, or improperly maintained equipment leaks treated water from the chemigation system. 

1619 Applicators need to be knowledgeable about the equipment specific to chemigation necessary to 

1620 prevent contamination of groundwater, including but not limited to anti-backflow devices, 

1621 injection pumps, storage tanks, safety valves, anti-pollution devices, and calibration devices. In 

1622 addition, applicators should be knowledgeable about the risks, benefits, and necessary 

1623 precautions associated with chemigation in order to protect themselves before, during, and after 

1624 the application. EPA considered adding an application method-specific category to perform 

1625 chemigation; however, very few States have added a specific category for this application 

1626 method and very few incidents involving this application method have been reported to EPA. 

1627 Absent more persuasive evidence that chemigation is causing adverse effects that could be 

1628 mitigated through a demonstration of competency by applicators who use this application 

1629 method, EPA is not proposing this as an application method-specific category at this time. 

1630 vi. Add a “limited use” category. 

1631 EPA considered adding a category for commercial applicators who would be certified for 

1632 limited uses of specific RUP pesticides or in niche application scenarios. For example, some 

1633 States require applicators to be certified to perform sewer line root control, wood treatment, 

1634 biocide use in fracking, or use of horse sterilization products. These types of applications require 

1635 use of a single product or very limited set of products and specific application techniques. 

1636 Frequently, the industry in which these applications are made (e.g., fracking) provides training to 

1637 applicators on proper use of the product(s) and other specific information related to use in the 

1638 specific situation. However, applicators often have to be certified by taking the core exam, a 

1639 category exam (e.g., industrial, institutional, structural, and health-related pest control), and an 

1640 additional exam for the limited use subcategory (e.g., sewer line root control), although they will 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 70 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1641 only be performing specific applications and using a few products. This places a substantial 

1642 burden on applicators to demonstrate competency related to types of applications they will not 

1643 perform. It also places a burden on States to maintain an infrastructure to address the needs of 

1644 niche applicator populations. 

1645 Some States have developed and updated exams and training programs in these limited 

1646 use categories that have fewer than 10 certified applicators. Other States handle limited use 

1647 applicators differently. They require commercial applicators to pass the core exam, 

1648 demonstrating competency in basic environmental safety; reading, understanding, and following 

1649 pesticide labeling; calculating application rates; and other general application techniques. The 

1650 State relies on the industry to provide the necessary training related to the limited use. The State 

1651 clearly marks on the applicator’s certification credential that the applicator is only certified for 

1652 the purchase and use of a limited subset of products, not all RUPs. States that follow the second 

1653 approach described above note they are confident that applicators are prepared to conduct 

1654 applications in a manner that will protect themselves, the public, and the environment. 

1655 EPA considered adding a “limited use” category for commercial applicators that would 

1656 allow States and applicators to reduce the burden associated with maintaining certification 

1657 categories for few applicators performing specific applications. Commercial applicators must 

1658 demonstrate competency in core and for the specific category in which they intend to use RUPs. 

1659 To address the need for category-specific certification for applicators performing “limited use” 

1660 applications of RUPs, EPA considered three options, other than a category-specific exam. First, 

1661 the applicator could be required to comply with industry-provided training or certification 

1662 requirements as specified on the product labeling. This is similar to the requirements for people 

1663 who treat water using chlorine gas – the labeling requires the applicator to use the product in 

1664 accordance with a manual from The Chlorine Institute that details proper use of the product and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 71 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1665 safety procedures. Second, the applicator could be required to hold applicable State or Federal 

1666 professional credentials in addition to passing the core exam. For example, a plumber performing 

1667 sewer line root control who uses a specific RUP as part of his services could be required to pass 

1668 the core exam and to hold a State-issued plumbing license to demonstrate his competency to use 

1669 the specific RUP safely in the limited circumstance. Third, the applicator could demonstrate 

1670 competency as required by a specific product’s labeling. For example, the labeling for sodium 

1671 fluoroacetate (Compound 1080 used in livestock protection collars) details specific competency 

1672 standards that the applicator must meet to use the product; certifying authorities that allow use of 

1673 this product must develop a specific certification category that covers the labeling-based 

1674 requirements. 

1675 A commercial applicator seeking certification in a limited use category would be required 

1676 to demonstrate competency by passing the core exam and satisfying one of the category-specific 

1677 methods described in this Unit. The applicator’s certification would be limited only to the 

1678 specific uses related to his certification. EPA would require that the certifying authority ensure 

1679 that any certification documentation, e.g., a license, clearly note the limited set of RUPs 

1680 available for purchase and use by an applicator certified in a limited use category. 

1681 EPA is actively seeking additional information from States, applicators, and industry on 

1682 the value of a limited use category and will consider any public comments received in deciding 

1683 whether to include this type of category in the final rule. 

1684 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

1685 • Would the proposed categories adequately establish competency for the specified 

1686 application methods? 

1687 • Should EPA consider adding or deleting any of the proposed private applicator 

1688 application method-specific certification categories? If so, which category(ies) and why? 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 72 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1689 • Please provide feedback on the proposed competency standards for private applicators 

1690 in each of the application method-specific categories. Do the proposed standards contain 

1691 sufficient detail? Are there any elements of these types of application that are not covered 

1692 adequately? 

1693 • Should EPA consider adding or deleting any of the proposed commercial applicator 

1694 application method-specific certification categories? If so, which category(ies) and why? 

1695 • Should EPA require that commercial applicators be certified in one or more pest control 

1696 categories in order to be certified in one of the application method-specific certification 

1697 categories? If so, please specify which other categories should be considered prerequisites for 

1698 each application method-specific certification (in addition to those proposed) and explain why. 

1699 • Should EPA add an application method-specific certification category for chemigation? 

1700 If so, why? 

1701 • Should EPA consider adding any categories (not application method-specific) for 

1702 commercial applicators? If so, which category(ies) and why? 

1703 • Please provide feedback on adding a “limited use” category for commercial applicators. 

1704 Would the proposed options for category-specific demonstrations of competency for limited use 

1705 certification minimize burden on applicators and State certification authorities while ensuring 

1706 that RUPs are applied in a manner that would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human 

1707 health or the environment? Are there other options for offering a limited use certification for 

1708 certain RUPs that EPA has not considered? If so, please describe. 

1709 • Please provide any relevant information on how the regulation could best balance 

1710 flexibility and uniformity of the certification categories used in different jurisdictions. 

1711 • Are the competencies necessary to treat bee hives adequately covered in the agricultural 

1712 pest control - animal category? If not, please explain why this category does not ensure that 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 73 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1713 applicators are competent to use RUPs to treat bee hives and provide alternatives to ensure that 

1714 applicators are competent to use RUPs in this manner. 

1715 • What were the impacts of EPA’s decision to make soil fumigants restricted use on state 

1716 certification programs and on the number of certified applicators? Would states expect a similar 

1717 impact if the proposed application method-specific categories are included in the final rule? 

1718 • For entities that have already developed certification requirements for persons using soil 

1719 fumigants, please provide a description of the costs incurred. 

1720 VIII. Establish Predator Control Categories for Commercial and Private Applicator 

1721 Certification 

1722 1. Overview. In order to address the specific risks and competency requirements 

1723 associated with the use of predator control products and to formalize the existing labeling-based 

1724 requirements for specific certification to use these products, EPA proposes to add categories for 

1725 both private and commercial applicators to use two mammalian predator control methods: 

1726 Sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080 used in livestock protection collars) and sodium cyanide 

1727 in an M-44 device.

1728 2. Existing regulation. The existing regulation does not have categories for the use of 

1729 sodium fluoroacetate in livestock protection collars or sodium cyanide in an M-44 device. 

1730 Registration decisions for these products have established specific competency standards and 

1731 require applicators to be competent in how to use the products properly (Refs. 39, 40). 

1732 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. Sodium fluoroacetate is a highly acutely 

1733 toxic predacide used to control coyotes that prey on sheep and goats. Currently registered end1734 use products are injected into the rubber reservoirs of livestock protection collars (LPC). These 

1735 collars are strapped to the throats of sheep or goats. Coyotes attempting to attack livestock 

1736 wearing LPCs are likely to puncture the LPCs and be fatally poisoned by sodium fluoroacetate as 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 74 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1737 a result. Sodium fluoroacetate is highly toxic to humans and to non-target mammals. No antidote 

1738 exists for sodium fluoroacetate. 

1739 Sodium cyanide dispensed through an M-44 device is another highly toxic predacide that 

1740 poses extreme risks to humans and non-target mammals. M-44 is an ejector device used to 

1741 dispense sodium cyanide as a single dose poison to control predators of livestock, poultry, or 

1742 Federally-designated threatened or endangered species, or those that are vectors of 

1743 communicable diseases. EPA has registered this product for use in pastures, range land, and 

1744 forests, only by trained and certified applicators under the direct supervision of a government 

1745 agency. 

1746 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to establish predator control 

1747 categories for commercial applicators and private applicators, codifying the current standards of 

1748 competency outlined in the specific registration decisions for each of these pesticides. Based on 

1749 the extreme risks posed by the use of sodium fluoroacetate in livestock protection collars and 

1750 sodium cyanide dispensed through M-44 devices, EPA only grants registrations to State, Tribal, 

1751 and Federal agencies. EPA’s existing registrations of these products prohibit their use except by 

1752 applicators who meet certain criteria. Each registration decision outlines specific competencies 

1753 the applicator must demonstrate and the process that must be used to certify applicators of these 

1754 products. EPA is adding specific categories to the rule to codify the competency standards 

1755 established by the products’ labeling and to facilitate the adoption of a certification category in 

1756 areas where these products are used. 

1757 The predator control categories for commercial applicators will be located at 40 CFR 

1758 171.101(a)(10) and the categories for private applicators will be located at 40 CFR 171.105(b).

1759 5. Costs. EPA estimates that this proposal will not impose any additional costs because 

1760 the labeling requirements of sodium fluoroacetate and sodium cyanide predator control products 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 75 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1761 already establish competency standards and require specific certification to use these products. It 

1762 is reasonable to expect that the costs associated with this proposal are de minimus because it 

1763 merely codifies in the regulation the requirement already imposed through the products’ labeling. 

1764 6. Request for comment. EPA requests comment on the proposed addition of pest control 

1765 categories for certification to use sodium fluoroacetate in livestock protection collars and sodium 

1766 cyanide dispensed through an M-44 device. 

1767 IX. Establish Requirements to Ensure Security and Effectiveness of Exam and Training 

1768 Administration 

1769 1. Overview. In order to address concerns that administration of pesticide applicator 

1770 exams and trainings currently affords opportunity for cheating or fraud, and to maintain the 

1771 integrity of exams, EPA proposes to add requirements for those seeking certification or 

1772 recertification to present identification at the time of the exam or training session. EPA also 

1773 proposes to codify the existing policy that all certification exams be closed book and proctored 

1774 (Ref. 41). 

1775 2. Existing regulation. The rule establishes that commercial applicators must demonstrate 

1776 competence by passing written exams, and as appropriate, through performance testing. 40 CFR 

1777 171.4(a). Private applicators may demonstrate competency through a written or oral exam, or 

1778 other method established by the State and approved by EPA. 171.5(b). The rule does not have 

1779 requirements for verification of the identity of persons seeking certification or recertification or 

1780 for exams to be proctored. 

1781 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. States have varying requirements for 

1782 exams because there are no minimum standards for exam development and administration. Some 

1783 States place a priority on developing content-relevant exams and administering them in a secure 

1784 manner, while other States allow candidates to bring notes and manuals into the exam which may 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 76 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1785 undermine the competency determination process. EPA is aware of at least one situation in 

1786 which a State offered a practice test in the study materials and administered exactly the same 

1787 exam for certification. In cases where exam security is not implemented, the integrity of the 

1788 entire certification process can be compromised. 

1789 CTAG recognized the gap in security in the applicator certification program and 

1790 developed the Exam Administration and Security Procedures Manual (Ref. 42). This document 

1791 recommends practical ways for States to ensure the integrity of their applicator certification 

1792 exams, including establishing chain of custody requirements, treating exam booklets and answer 

1793 sheets as controlled documents, proctoring exams, implementing security requirements such as 

1794 checking all booklets for missing pages before releasing exam candidates, and not allowing 

1795 candidates to bring in or remove scratch paper from the exam room. States invest significant 

1796 resources in developing and administering exams for applicator certification. A breach in 

1797 security, such as a person taking an exam booklet from the test site or copying questions and 

1798 answers on scratch paper and sharing them with others, compromises the exam’s integrity and 

1799 could require the State to invest substantial resources to develop another exam. Many States have 

1800 consulted CTAG’s document to incorporate elements of exam security into their certification 

1801 programs. 

1802 States have recognized the need to ensure that the candidate pursuing certification by 

1803 exam or training or attending a recertification session is the person seeking or currently holding a 

1804 certification. CTAG recommended that EPA require positive identification of candidates for 

1805 pesticide certification exams before the exam is issued and before any credentials are issued, 

1806 noting that the lack of such a requirement “calls into question the integrity of the entire 

1807 certification system and provides opportunity for abuse” (Ref. 43). CTAG suggests that States 

1808 that do not currently ask for any form of identification before administering exams review their 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 77 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1809 policies, regulations, and laws and consider adopting a mechanism to verify the identification of 

1810 all individuals taking their exams. CTAG also recommended that States verify the identity of 

1811 certified applicators attending recertification training sessions (Ref. 44). 

1812 Based on an EPA review of State program data, 36 States require persons seeking 

1813 commercial certification to present identification prior to taking the exam and 27 States have a 

1814 similar requirement for private applicators seeking certification through an exam or training. 

1815 Similarly, 22 States require commercial applicators to present identification at recertification 

1816 training sessions or exams, and 29 States require the same for private applicators (Ref. 8). Many 

1817 States seem to recognize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the pesticide applicator 

1818 certification and recertification programs, evidenced by the number of States that have adopted a 

1819 requirement to verify the identity of candidates. 

1820 States have raised the need for a standard definition of closed-book exams to ensure that 

1821 certifying authorities using EPA-developed exams or sharing a State-developed exam with 

1822 another State have confidence that the exam administration would meet a consistent security 

1823 standard. CTAG recommended that EPA require States using the EPA-developed exams to agree 

1824 to administer them as closed-book exams, meaning the candidate cannot bring in any materials, 

1825 e.g., study manuals, notebooks, or scrap paper. Any materials necessary, apart from non-memory 

1826 calculators and writing utensils, e.g., scratch paper or reference pesticide labeling, would be 

1827 provided by the proctor and collected at the end of the exam. CTAG believes this would help 

1828 preserve the integrity of the exam process and give confidence that the security of EPA1829 developed exams is not compromised by varying administration standards across States. 

1830 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require that applicator 

1831 certification exams for initial certification and recertification be closed book, proctored, and that 

1832 the identity of each test taker be verified. The identity of the applicant must also be verified 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 78 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1833 where the State or other agency certifies or recertifies applicators based on training rather than an 

1834 exam. EPA considers these requirements essential elements of the certification process because 

1835 exams and training programs are the means used to assure that those who are seeking to become 

1836 certified have adequate training and experience to use RUPs without causing unreasonable 

1837 adverse effects. It is also reasonable to expect that that these security requirements would give 

1838 States confidence that exams are administered consistently across the country in such a way to 

1839 ensure their integrity. 

1840 The Agency proposes to require that exams be “closed book,” that is, the test taker would 

1841 not be allowed to use any materials, for example notes or study guides, other than the materials 

1842 provided by the test administrator during the exam. EPA is proposing this requirement for two 

1843 reasons. First, a closed-book exam provides a more reliable gauge of the individual test taker’s 

1844 competency because the outcome depends more directly on the test taker’s personal knowledge 

1845 and understanding than does an exam where the test-taker may refer to his or her own notes or 

1846 other study aids. Second, limitations on outside materials reduce the likelihood of test takers 

1847 copying questions and removing them from the exam room to share with subsequent test takers. 

1848 Implementing closed-book exams is one step towards improving exam security and the 

1849 competency of certified applicators. 

1850 EPA proposes to require that proctors: 

1851 • Verify the identity and age of persons taking the exam by checking identification as 

1852 required under the proposed rule and have examinees sign an exam roster. 

1853 • Monitor examinees throughout the exam period. 

1854 • Instruct examinees in exam procedures before beginning the exam. 

1855 • Keep exams secure before, during, and after the exam period. 

1856 • Allow only examinees to access the exam and allow such access only in the presence of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 79 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1857 the proctor. 

1858 • Ensure that examinees have no verbal or non-verbal communication with anyone other 

1859 than the proctor during the exam period. 

1860 • Ensure that no copies of the exam or any associated reference materials are made and/or 

1861 retained by examinees. 

1862 • Ensure that examinees do not have access to reference materials other than those that 

1863 are approved by the certifying authority and provided by the proctor. 

1864 • Review reference materials provided to examinees when the exam is complete, to 

1865 ensure that no portion of the reference material has been removed or destroyed. 

1866 • Report to the certifying authority any exam administration inconsistencies or 

1867 irregularities, including but not limited to cheating, use of unauthorized materials, and attempts 

1868 to copy or retain the exam, 

1869 • Comply with any other instructions required by the certifying authority related to exam 

1870 administration. 

1871 EPA proposes to prohibit a proctor from seeking certification at any exam session that he 

1872 or she is proctoring. Where applicator exams require use of resource materials (for example, 

1873 requiring the candidate to identify pests based on depictions of plant damage, interpret specific 

1874 labels, or demonstrate other skills or abilities beyond the core requirements), the proctor would 

1875 provide the necessary materials (e.g., sample labeling, reference books) and collect them after 

1876 the exam is completed. 

1877 Finally, EPA proposes a requirement for States to ensure that test or training 

1878 administrators verify the identity of persons seeking initial applicator certification and 

1879 recertification. Many organizations and institutions require a person taking a test for possible 

1880 employment to present valid, government-issued photo identification. It is important that 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 80 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1881 pesticide applicator candidates are required to present valid photo identification when they sit for 

1882 the exam, receive their credentials, and purchase RUPs. This requirement would help to ensure 

1883 that the person who takes the exam is the same person who receives the certification, which 

1884 could help prevent a candidate from sending a more qualified or prepared person to take the 

1885 exam under his name, and to verify that the candidate meets the minimum age requirement. See 

1886 Units XII and XIII. Preventing abuse of the exam process is necessary to ensure the integrity of 

1887 the exams and that certified applicator credentials are issued only to those who are qualified and 

1888 certified as competent. Without such assurance, classification for restricted use offers an 

1889 uncertain level of protection. 

1890 If finalized, the requirements for initial certification administration security would be 

1891 located at 40 CFR 171.103(a) for commercial applicators and at 40 CFR 171.105(e) for private 

1892 applicators. The requirement for recertification administration security would be located at 40 

1893 CFR 171.107(b). 

1894 5. Costs. Not all States or applicators would be expected to incur costs to implement the 

1895 aforementioned proposals. For those that do, EPA expects the incremental costs to come into 

1896 compliance would be minimal. Many States already check identification at initial certification 

1897 events and already have proctors for some sessions. The aspects of a secure exam – written, 

1898 closed-book, proctored, and requiring positive identification of the candidate – would provide the 

1899 benefit of maintaining the credibility of the certification program, as well as to filter out 

1900 unqualified candidates. 

1901 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered imposing 

1902 only a requirement to verify the identity of the initial certification and recertification candidates 

1903 and not codifying the existing policy that requires exams to be proctored and closed book. A 

1904 requirement to verify a certification or recertification candidate’s identity implemented 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 81 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1905 independently of other exam security requirements could lead to a potential improvement 

1906 because by verifying that the candidates are the same person seeking the certification, false 

1907 attendance at training and exam sessions should decrease. It is also more likely that credentials 

1908 would be issued to the same candidate that demonstrated competency. However, it is reasonable 

1909 to expect that that the additional burden of implementing closed-book, proctored exams would 

1910 have substantial additional benefits by ensuring the security of the exams, reducing burden on 

1911 certifying authorities to update exams after security breaches, and limiting instances where 

1912 candidates taking an exam can cheat. It is reasonable to expect that the potential benefits of 

1913 requiring proctored, closed-book exams are sufficient to justify the burden. 

1914 7. Request for comment. EPA requests comments on the following: 

1915 • Should EPA consider allowing an exception to the requirement for candidates to present 

1916 a government-issued photo identification? If so, under what circumstances? Please provide 

1917 examples of how an exception could be implemented. 

1918 • Should EPA consider any other requirements to improve the security and integrity of 

1919 applicator certification and recertification exams? If so, please describe. 

1920 X. Strengthen Standards for Noncertified Applicators Working Under the Direct 

1921 Supervision of Certified Applicators 

1922 A. Enhance Competence of Noncertified Applicators Working Under the Direct Supervision of a 

1923 Certified Applicator 

1924 1. Overview. To improve the protection of noncertified applicators and to reduce the 

1925 chance for RUP applications to cause unreasonable adverse effects, EPA proposes to require that 

1926 noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator receive 

1927 annual training that covers pesticide labeling, safety precautions, application equipment and 

1928 techniques, environmental concerns, health effects of pesticide exposure, decontamination, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 82 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1929 emergency response, and protection of the applicator and the applicator’s family. The Agency 

1930 also proposes exemptions to this training requirement for persons qualified as a trained handler 

1931 under the WPS or who have passed the core exam covering general standards of competency for 

1932 commercial applicators, and to require periodic retraining or retesting. 

1933 2. Existing regulation. FIFRA section 2(e)(4) provides that a noncertified applicator 

1934 using an RUP must be competent and working under the direction of a certified applicator. The 

1935 certified applicator must be available when needed but does not need to be present physically at 

1936 the application.7 U.S.C. 136(e)(4). The regulation establishes: General requirements for the 

1937 certified applicator to demonstrate a practical knowledge of Federal and State supervisory 

1938 requirements; that when the certified applicator will not be present during application, he or she 

1939 must provide instruction to the noncertified applicator, including instructions for proper pesticide 

1940 applications and how to contact the certified applicator if necessary; and that certain labeling1941 specific restrictions require the certified applicator to be physically present for the application. 40 

1942 CFR 171.2(a)(28) and 171.6. 

1943 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. The need to upgrade the requirements for 

1944 the supervision of a noncertified applicator by the certified applicator was a major 

1945 recommendation of the SFIREG 1985 Taskforce report. The Taskforce concluded that the 

1946 existing requirements at 40 CFR 171.6 are general in nature and have resulted in some instances 

1947 where supervision of the noncertified applicator is conducted from locations far removed from 

1948 the application site. The issue has also been raised to EPA by the PPDC Worker Safety 

1949 Workgroup and by States at the Pesticide Regulatory Education Program (PREP), which 

1950 provides an avenue for information sharing between States and EPA about pesticide regulatory 

1951 issues and programs (Ref. 23). While some States have imposed more stringent supervision 

1952 requirements or eliminated the option for application of RUPs by noncertified applicators under 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 83 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1953 the direct supervision of a certified applicator, other States’ standards are similar to the existing 

1954 requirement at 40 CFR 171.6. 

1955 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to enhance protections for 

1956 noncertified applicators, i.e., those who use RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

1957 applicator, and to ensure that RUPs are used in a manner that does not pose unreasonable adverse 

1958 effects to the applicator, bystanders, or the environment by: Expanding the training content, 

1959 offering alternatives to the training requirement, and requiring periodic retraining. 

1960 i. Expanding training content. Noncertified applicators have a similar work profile to 

1961 agricultural handlers under the WPS (40 CFR 170); both are permitted to mix, load, and apply 

1962 pesticides with proper guidance from their employer or supervisor. In order to mix, load or apply 

1963 RUPs, however, all noncertified persons, including agricultural handlers, must be working under 

1964 the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Agricultural handlers must receive training that 

1965 covers self-protection; hazards associated with pesticide use; format and meaning of pesticide 

1966 labeling; protection from take home exposure to family members; proper pesticide use, 

1967 transportation, storage, and disposal; and protections required under the WPS. 40 CFR 

1968 170.230(c)(4). In addition, agricultural handlers must be provided a copy of the labeling and any 

1969 other information necessary to make the application without causing unreasonable adverse 

1970 effects. The existing part 171 regulation does not require that noncertified applicators receive 

1971 similar training before applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

1972 To foster a level of competency appropriate to the responsibilities of noncertified 

1973 applicators who apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator and 

1974 comparable to the competency currently required of agricultural pesticide handlers, EPA 

1975 proposes to add the following training requirements for noncertified applicators: 

1976 a. Training on information, techniques, and equipment that noncertified applicators need 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 84 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

1977 to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a 

1978 pesticide application, including all of the following: 

1979 • Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling, 

1980 including safety information, such as precautionary statements about human health hazards, and 

1981 hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and chronic effects, 

1982 delayed effects, and sensitization. 

1983 • Routes by which pesticides can enter the body. 

1984 • Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

1985 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

1986 • How to obtain emergency medical care. 

1987 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures. 

1988 • Need for, and appropriate use of, personal protective equipment. 

1989 • Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness associated with 

1990 the use of personal protective equipment. 

1991 • Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

1992 including general procedures for spill cleanup. 

1993 • Environmental concerns such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

1994 b. Training on all of the following elements, which noncertified applicators need to 

1995 protect their families from pesticides: 

1996 • Warnings against taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. 

1997 • Washing and changing work clothes before physical contact with family. 

1998 • Washing work clothes separately from the family’s clothes before wearing them again. 

1999 • Heightened precautions required to protect children and pregnant women. 

2000 c. Training on how to report suspected pesticide illness to the appropriate State agency. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 85 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2001 The proposed training requirements would promote the competence of noncertified 

2002 applicators who apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator by improving 

2003 their understanding of pesticide labeling, application methods, self-protection, risk mitigation, 

2004 and general pesticide safety principles. It is reasonable to expect that an understanding of this 

2005 information, together with the specific instructions for each application from a certified 

2006 applicator, would provide noncertified applicators with an adequate level of competency to use 

2007 RUPs without causing unreasonable adverse effects, consistent with the FIFRA requirement that 

2008 noncertified applicators be competent. 

2009 ii. Offering alternatives to the training requirement. In addition to the training proposed 

2010 in Unit X.A.4.i., EPA proposes to offer two alternative mechanisms for establishing the 

2011 competency of noncertified applicators who apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

2012 certified applicator: Demonstrating that the noncertified applicator has met the handler training 

2013 requirements of the WPS (40 CFR 170.230 of the current WPS or proposed 40 CFR 170.201(c) 

2014 of the proposed revisions to the WPS) or passing the exam on core standards of competency for 

2015 certified commercial applicators (currently 40 CFR 171.4(b)). 

2016 As mentioned in this unit, noncertified applicators working on agricultural establishments 

2017 and agricultural pesticide handlers have similar job responsibilities. The proposed training for 

2018 noncertified applicators mirrors the proposed training for agricultural pesticide handlers, except 

2019 it does not include specific requirements of the WPS. Including a provision in the rule to allow 

2020 noncertified applicators to meet the training requirement by following the training outlined in 

2021 this rule or that outlined in the WPS could reduce the burden on noncertified applicators, 

2022 certified applicators, agricultural pesticide handlers, and agricultural employers by allowing them 

2023 to provide substantially similar training to the same audience once, rather than twice, to comply 

2024 with both regulations. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 86 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2025 The second alternative mechanism, requiring noncertified applicators to pass a written 

2026 exam covering the core standards of competency for commercial applicators, would also 

2027 establish an adequate level of competency for noncertified applicators. The commercial 

2028 applicator core competency standards outlined at 40 CFR 171.4(b) of the existing regulation 

2029 cover label and labeling comprehension, proper application, potential environmental risks, 

2030 characteristics of pesticides, application equipment and techniques, and laws and regulations. 

2031 The content of these core competency standards encompasses the proposed noncertified 

2032 applicator training content. In some situations, it may be easier or more convenient to allow a 

2033 noncertified applicator to qualify by taking the core exam than to complete the noncertified 

2034 applicator training. For example, a person who has taken and passed the core exam and failed the 

2035 category exam, which generally has a lower pass rate, would not be certified as a commercial 

2036 applicator but would have demonstrated sufficient competency to apply RUPs under the direct 

2037 supervision of a certified applicator. Allowing such a person to qualify as a noncertified 

2038 applicator based on passing the core exam rather than requiring that he or she undergo another 

2039 training program would reduce the potential burden on noncertified applicators and their 

2040 employers without sacrificing protection of the noncertified applicators, the public, or the 

2041 environment. 

2042 iii. Requiring periodic retraining. EPA proposes to implement a requirement to refresh 

2043 the qualifications of non-certified applicators. Noncertified applicators who qualified through a 

2044 training program, either as proposed under 171.201(d) or as a handler under the WPS, would be 

2045 required to undergo retraining annually. Noncertified applicators who recertify by passing the 

2046 commercial applicator core exam would be required to requalify every 3 years. The proposed 

2047 training requirement for noncertified applicators who would apply RUPs under the direct 

2048 supervision of a certified applicator is comparable to the training required for agricultural 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 87 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2049 pesticide handlers. EPA has proposed a requirement under the WPS for handlers to receive 

2050 pesticide safety training annually. It is reasonable to expect that noncertified applicators must 

2051 maintain an ongoing level of competency similar to that required of certified applicators. 

2052 However, neither of the options to qualify by attending a training program requires passing a 

2053 written exam or attending a training course covering the proposed enhanced competency 

2054 standards for private applicators. Therefore, the proposed noncertified applicator training 

2055 programs would not provide the same assurance of competency as the certification process for 

2056 commercial and private applicators. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect that noncertified 

2057 applicators who qualify through training should receive training every year rather than every 3 

2058 years as proposed for the recertification of certified private and commercial applicators. 

2059 States require certified applicators to demonstrate continued competency through 

2060 recertification programs; noncertified applicators who establish competency must also 

2061 demonstrate that they maintain a level of competency to apply pesticides without unreasonable 

2062 adverse effects. An annual training requirement would be consistent with the proposed training 

2063 interval for agricultural handlers (79 FR 15444; March 19, 2014), thereby decreasing the burden 

2064 on agricultural employers to track two training timeframes. Additionally, studies have shown that 

2065 training participants begin to forget the content of the training almost immediately, and that often 

2066 90% or less of the training is remembered at 1 year after training, and that knowledge from 

2067 training on skills and decision making deteriorates more quickly information from training on 

2068 repetitive physical tasks (Ref. 11). Further, studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of 

2069 periodic retraining on retention of the knowledge necessary to implement self-protective 

2070 measures (Ref. 12). 

2071 Noncertified applicators who qualify through passing the core exam for commercial 

2072 applicators would be required to requalify every 3 years. Passing the core exam provides an 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 88 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2073 assurance of competency similar to that required of certified applicators. Therefore, it is 

2074 reasonable to expect that noncertified applicators who pass the core exam would maintain their 

2075 competency on the topics covered for a similar length of time as commercial applicators. EPA is 

2076 proposing a requirement for all certified applicators to renew their credentials every 3 years. 

2077 The regulatory text related to these proposals would be located at 40 CFR 171.201(c) and 

2078 (d). 

2079 5. Costs. Because noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of 

2080 commercial applicators and private applicators have different wage rates, the costs are presented 

2081 separately for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a commercial 

2082 applicator and for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a private 

2083 applicator. 

2084 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator 

2085 EPA estimates the cost of the proposed requirement to require noncertified applicators to 

2086 either complete the proposed training, be handlers under the WPS, or pass the core exam would 

2087 be about $6.6 million per year for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision 

2088 of a commercial applicator. 

2089 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a private applicator 

2090 EPA estimates the cost of the proposed requirement to require noncertified applicators to 

2091 either complete the proposed training, be handlers under the WPS, or pass the core exam would 

2092 be about $639,000 per year for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a 

2093 private applicator. 

2094 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered four 

2095 alternatives to this proposal. 

2096 i. Allow States to determine noncertified applicator training content. EPA considered 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 89 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2097 allowing each State to determine what training or qualifications are appropriate for noncertified 

2098 applicators, rather than adhering to the standard established in this proposal. For example, some 

2099 States have specific requirements for noncertified applicators to be qualified, such as through an 

2100 apprenticeship program, or completing a State-developed training program or minimum number 

2101 of hours of privately-provided training. Although the State programs with various requirements 

2102 may adequately ensure the competency of noncertified applicators, allowing States to adopt 

2103 varying standards would result in classification for restricted use providing differing levels of 

2104 protection from State to State. In order to ensure that RUPs are used by competent persons in a 

2105 way that would not cause unreasonable adverse effects, it is necessary for noncertified 

2106 applicators to receive instruction that covers a specific set of basic competency information. The 

2107 consistent minimum standard would not be met if States adopted their own programs that did not 

2108 meet or exceed the standards proposed by EPA. 

2109 EPA recognizes that State programs may adequately prepare a noncertified applicator to 

2110 use pesticides effectively and without unreasonable adverse effect on human health or the 

2111 environment. However, under the proposed option, States can modify existing programs to 

2112 ensure they cover the content and requirements of the proposed standard and do not need a 

2113 specific exception. If the State training program provides instruction on the training requirements 

2114 listed above, the supervising certified applicator would still be required to verify that the 

2115 noncertified applicators working under his or her direct supervision have received the training. 

2116 The proposed option balances flexibility for States to adopt more stringent standards with the 

2117 need to ensure that noncertified applicators meet a consistent standard of competency. 

2118 ii. Require all noncertified applicators to pass the core exam. EPA considered requiring 

2119 all noncertified applicators to pass the core exam for commercial applicator certification. The 

2120 current requirements concerning the core exam for commercial applicators covers all the topics 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 90 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2121 that would help ensure general knowledge of pesticide application by noncertified applicators. 

2122 The Agency decided against proposing a requirement that noncertified applicators 

2123 demonstrate competence only by taking the core exam for commercial applicators because in 

2124 some instances, that requirement may impose additional burden on the certified applicators and 

2125 the noncertified applicators. Some noncertified applicators may have a more difficult time 

2126 preparing for and passing a written exam than meeting training requirements. Although 

2127 noncertified applicators may be able to demonstrate their competency to make applications 

2128 without unreasonable adverse effects with proper supervision, some noncertified applicators may 

2129 have literacy and language issues that would stand in the way of passing a written exam. By 

2130 limiting a noncertified applicator’s options for demonstrating competence to passing a written 

2131 exam, the number of noncertified applicators available could decrease because fewer people 

2132 would qualify. A decrease in the number of noncertified applicators available would increase 

2133 costs because certified applicators would be required to perform the applications themselves. In 

2134 addition, States would have to administer approximately five times the current number of exams, 

2135 increasing their administrative burden. 

2136 EPA decided not to propose this option because it would impose a significant burden on 

2137 noncertified applicators, the supervising certified applicators, and the States, and the benefits 

2138 associated with the alternate options do not appear to justify the burden. 

2139 iii. Establish different standards for noncertified applicators working under the direct 

2140 supervision of commercial and private applicators. EPA considered establishing separate 

2141 standards for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of commercial and private 

2142 applicators. Under this alternative, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision 

2143 of a private applicator would be required to complete the proposed training or the training for 

2144 handlers under the proposed revisions to the WPS. 79 FR 15444; March 19, 2014. EPA considers 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 91 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2145 this to be the minimum level of training that could reasonably be expected to prevent 

2146 unreasonable adverse effects associated with the use of RUPs. EPA considered requiring a higher 

2147 level of training for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a 

2148 commercial applicator; specifically, EPA considered requiring them to pass the core exam for 

2149 certified applicators as described in the alternate option discussed in this unit. 

2150 EPA decided not to propose this alternative for two reasons. First, EPA does not believe 

2151 there is a significant difference in the risks faced by, or posed by, a noncertified applicator under 

2152 the direct supervision of a private applicator and a noncertified applicator under the direct 

2153 supervision of a commercial applicator. As the risks appear to be the same, the same level of 

2154 training seems appropriate. Second, having a single standard would allow noncertified 

2155 applicators to work for both commercial and private applicators without having to meet different 

2156 standards. 

2157 iv. Implement longer retraining interval. Lastly, EPA considered requiring all 

2158 noncertified applicators to be retrained using the same timeframes as certified applicator 

2159 recertification (currently proposed as every 3 years, see Unit XIV.). However, commercial 

2160 applicators are required to demonstrate their competency through a written exam; the more 

2161 rigorous standard establishes a higher level of confidence in commercial applicators’ knowledge 

2162 and ability to protect themselves, the public, and the environment. Training is a less reliable 

2163 indicator of competency than passing an exam and knowledge from training deteriorates rapidly 

2164 (Refs. 11, 12). EPA recognizes a distinction between the noncertified applicators that qualify 

2165 through training and those that qualify through an exam. That distinction and EPA’s confidence 

2166 in the exam process prompted EPA to reject the option to establish the same requalification 

2167 timeframe for all noncertified applicators parallel to the recertification period for certified 

2168 applicators. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 92 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2169 7. Request for comment. EPA requests specific feedback on the following: 

2170 • Should EPA allow States to adopt noncertified applicator training programs different 

2171 than what EPA proposes? If so, please explain why, and how portability of the varied programs 

2172 might be addressed. 

2173 • Should EPA require States to adopt the proposed noncertified applicator training 

2174 program and allow States to add other qualifications or requirements? 

2175 • Are there other points that EPA should include in the noncertified applicator training 

2176 outlined in the proposal? If so, what points should be added and why? 

2177 • Should EPA consider a single requalification interval for all noncertified applicators, 

2178 regardless of their method of qualification, i.e., should EPA consider requiring noncertified 

2179 applicators who qualify by passing the core exam to requalify annually, or for those who qualify 

2180 by training to requalify every 3 years? Please explain why. 

2181 B. Establish Qualifications for Training Providers 

2182 1. Overview. In order to ensure that noncertified applicators receive training that 

2183 communicates the nature of their work and the potential risks of pesticide exposure in a manner 

2184 they understand, EPA proposes to require that noncertified applicator training be provided by a 

2185 currently certified applicator, a State-designated trainer of certified applicators, or a person who 

2186 has completed a train-the-trainer course under the WPS. 

2187 2. Existing regulation. The rule has no requirement for training and therefore, no 

2188 restrictions on who may provide training to noncertified applicators. 

2189 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. Stakeholders, including the PPDC, State 

2190 associations, and CTAG, have noted the similar work profiles between WPS handlers and 

2191 noncertified applicators working on agricultural establishments. They recommended that 

2192 noncertified applicator trainers have similar qualifications to WPS handler trainers because of the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 93 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2193 importance of conveying information related to safe pesticide use, understanding labeling 

2194 requirements, and how to contact the employer in the event of an emergency. 

2195 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to allow noncertified applicators to 

2196 receive training from an applicator with a valid certification issued under 40 CFR 171, a State2197 designated trainer of certified applicators, or a person who has completed a pesticide safety train2198 the-trainer program under the WPS, 40 CFR 170. Given the elevated risks associated with 

2199 applying RUPs, it is critical to have a high level of confidence in the competence of those who 

2200 will make applications. Commercial applicators have to pass a written exam to demonstrate their 

2201 competency. The qualifications of the trainer become more important where the competency of 

2202 noncertified applicators is established through training rather than through passing a written 

2203 exam. It is important to have the information presented by trainers who are knowledgeable about 

2204 pesticide safety requirements. 

2205 Certified applicators supervising noncertified applicators have knowledge of the 

2206 information necessary to ensure that applications are made effectively and without unreasonable 

2207 adverse effects and commercial applicators have passed an exam demonstrating their 

2208 competency. The core standards of competency for both private and commercial applicators 

2209 would cover supervising noncertified applicators using RUPs, including how to convey 

2210 information about proper application techniques, understanding the labeling, and contacting the 

2211 supervisor if necessary. In addition, the competency standards would cover communicating with 

2212 noncertified applicators in a manner they understand. State designated trainers, mainly 

2213 cooperative extension service pesticide safety educators and county agents, have expertise in 

2214 educating adult populations about how to conduct pesticide applications and the risks associated 

2215 with pesticide exposure. Lastly, trainers who have undergone a train-the-trainer program have 

2216 learned techniques to effectively transfer information on application techniques, risks of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 94 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2217 exposure, and other necessary information required to protect agricultural handlers before, 

2218 during, and after application. EPA anticipates that most people likely to be training noncertified 

2219 applicators would already be within one of the aforementioned categories of qualified trainers. 

2220 The regulatory text related to this proposal would be located at 40 CFR 171.201(d)(2). 

2221 5. Costs. EPA expects this proposal to have negligible cost. Certified applicators are 

2222 qualified as trainers by virtue of their certification and would not incur any additional costs to be 

2223 qualified under this proposal. EPA assumes most training would be provided by certified 

2224 applicators to noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. Therefore, EPA 

2225 does not believe many people who are not already certified applicators would seek to be 

2226 qualified trainers under this proposal. Allowing State-designated trainers of applicators and those 

2227 who have completed a WPS pesticide safety train-the-trainer program would provide flexibility 

2228 to the certified applicators and offer a variety of options to ensure noncertified applicators are 

2229 trained. 

2230 C. Establish Qualifications for Certified Applicators Supervising Noncertified Applicators 

2231 1. Overview. In order to ensure that noncertified applicators do not apply RUPs in a 

2232 manner that would cause unreasonable adverse effects, EPA proposes to establish specific 

2233 requirements for the supervising applicator. 

2234 2. Existing regulation. The current regulation requires supervising certified applicators to 

2235 demonstrate a practical knowledge of Federal and State supervisory requirements related to the 

2236 application of RUPs by noncertified applicators. 40 CFR 171.6(a). In addition, the current rule 

2237 requires the availability of the certified applicator and the hazard of the situation to be directly 

2238 related. 40 CFR 171.6(a). For certain products, the labeling requires the applicator to be on-site 

2239 for the application or prohibits application by noncertified applicators even under the direct 

2240 supervision of a certified applicator. Wherever noncertified applicators are applying RUPs under 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 95 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2241 the direct supervision of a certified applicator, the existing regulation requires the certified 

2242 applicator provide verifiable instruction to the noncertified applicator, which includes detailed 

2243 guidance for applying the pesticide properly, and provisions for contacting the certified 

2244 applicator in the event that he or she is needed. 40 CFR 171.6. 

2245 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. States indicated overall support for 

2246 establishing qualifications for certified applicators supervising noncertified applicators; however 

2247 they noted that some limitations would be impractical or difficult to enforce (Ref. 23). For 

2248 example, States noted that they would not be able to verify whether the supervising applicator 

2249 was within a certain distance or time of the noncertified applicator conducting the application, 

2250 and it would be impossible to note how many noncertified applicators were working under the 

2251 direct supervision of a certified applicator at one time (Ref. 45). The SBAR panel recommended 

2252 that EPA require “communication capability between certified applicators and those under their 

2253 supervision during RUP applications” (Ref. 24). 

2254 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that certified applicators 

2255 who supervise noncertified applicators to be certified in the category of the supervised 

2256 application in order to protect the noncertified applicator and the environment from risks 

2257 associated with insufficient supervision or qualification. EPA proposes to require that certified 

2258 applicators ensure that noncertified applicators under their direct supervision have satisfied one 

2259 of the qualification methods discussed in Unit X.B. For specific applications, EPA proposes to 

2260 require the certified applicator to provide a copy of all applicable labeling to each noncertified 

2261 applicator for each supervised application; ensure that means are available for immediate 

2262 communication between the certified applicator and the noncertified applicators working under 

2263 their direct supervision; provide specific instructions related to each application, including the 

2264 site-specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain and comply with all labeling 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 96 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2265 restrictions. 

2266 It is critical that the supervising applicator be competent in the specific types of 

2267 application that he or she is supervising, know the requirements related to application of RUPs 

2268 by noncertified applicators, and ensure that noncertified applicators are competent. It is 

2269 reasonable to expect that many supervising applicators currently provide instruction to the 

2270 noncertified applicators under their supervision and are certified in the appropriate category. The 

2271 proposed change would codify more precise requirements to ensure that supervising certified 

2272 applicators are prepared adequately to supervise specific types of applications and to provide the 

2273 appropriate protections to noncertified applicators. 

2274 EPA proposes to add a requirement for the certified applicator to provide a copy of the 

2275 labeling to noncertified applicators applying RUPs under his or her supervision. Providing the 

2276 product labeling to noncertified applicators is important for several reasons. First, product 

2277 labeling communicates critical information to the pesticide user on how to use and apply the 

2278 product. The labeling contains use directions, health and safety information, and instructions for 

2279 proper storage and disposal. By law, users must follow the use instructions on the labeling for 

2280 registered products. Second, in the event that the noncertified applicator cannot contact the 

2281 supervising applicator, the labeling contains critical information that the noncertified applicator 

2282 or a literate person nearby could consult in order to understand special use restrictions, make a 

2283 proper application, or respond in the event of a spill or accident, including providing proper 

2284 medical treatment. Third, the WPS requires employers to provide handlers access to the product 

2285 labeling during handling activities in order to provide protections parallel to those provided 

2286 under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). OSHA requires that persons working 

2287 with or around hazardous chemicals receive information (generally in the form of the product 

2288 label or safety data sheet (SDS)) prior to working with the hazardous chemicals. Fourth, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 97 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2289 noncertified applicators have similar job responsibilities to agricultural pesticide handlers under 

2290 the WPS and have an equal need for labeling information. For these reasons, it is important to 

2291 make the labeling available to all noncertified applicators working with RUPs, even if some may 

2292 not be able to read or understand the labeling. 

2293 Communication between the supervising applicator and the noncertified applicator is 

2294 critical if the noncertified applicator has a question before application or encounters an 

2295 emergency situation related to the misapplication. The current rule requires provisions for 

2296 contacting the certified applicator, but it is very general and provides no assurance of timely 

2297 contact. The intent of the existing provision was to enable communication between the 

2298 supervising applicator and the noncertified applicator throughout the application process. 

2299 Telecommunications options have improved dramatically over the last 35 years, and the 

2300 proposed requirement to ensure means are available for immediate communication would take 

2301 advantage of those changes to more fully accomplish the intent of the original provision. 

2302 Requiring means to be available for immediate communication would allow flexibility for the 

2303 supervising applicator; if the certified and noncertified applicator are working at the same 

2304 location, means for immediate communication could be speaking to one another directly. In the 

2305 event the noncertified applicator is using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

2306 applicator when the certified applicator is not present, means of immediate communication could 

2307 include cellular phones or two-way radios, among other mechanisms. 

2308 The regulatory text related to this proposal would be located at 40 CFR 171.201(b). 

2309 5. Costs. EPA assumes that the current requirement to provide detailed guidance for 

2310 applying the pesticide properly and the proposed requirement to provide application-specific 

2311 instructions are substantially similar and will not result in a significant increase in the cost of 

2312 compliance. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 98 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2313 EPA estimates the cost for ensuring means for immediate communication are available 

2314 would be negligible because according to CTIA – The Wireless Association, as of December 

2315 2012, wireless penetration in the United States was 102% (the number of wireless subscriptions 

2316 divided by the U.S. population) (Ref. 46). 

2317 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered different 

2318 application-specific requirements for supervising applicators, including a requirement for the 

2319 supervising applicator to keep noncertified applicators within their line of sight or to be on site 

2320 during applications, a limit on the number of noncertified applicators that could be supervised at 

2321 one time, or a limit on the distance between the certified applicator and the noncertified 

2322 applicators. 

2323 EPA may limit who may apply RUPs and the type of supervision required on a product2324 by-product basis. Some RUP labeling requires certified applicators to keep noncertified 

2325 applicators within their line of sight during applications. EPA considered requiring line of sight 

2326 supervision wherever noncertified applicators are applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

2327 a certified applicator. For example, labeling for fumigant products requires the supervising 

2328 applicator to be on site because of the significant danger to the applicator if not used properly. 

2329 However, a universal requirement that certified applicators keep noncertified applicators in their 

2330 line of sight or to be on site during application would be inconsistent with 7 U.S.C. 136(e)(4), 

2331 which allows use of RUPs even if the certified applicator providing direct supervision is not on 

2332 site at the time of application. 

2333 EPA considered establishing a limit on the number of noncertified applicators that a 

2334 certified applicator could supervise for each application of RUPs, e.g., 10 noncertified 

2335 applicators could use RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator at any specific 

2336 time. Limiting the number of noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 99 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2337 a certified applicator could better ensure that the applications are conducted in a manner that 

2338 would not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the applicator, the public, or the environment. 

2339 EPA does not have information on the maximum number of noncertified applicators that a 

2340 certified applicator could supervise without causing unreasonable adverse effects. There may be 

2341 limits on the capability of a certified applicator to supervise noncertified applicators using RUPs, 

2342 but the limits seem circumstantial. For example, a certified applicator supervising the application 

2343 of RUPs through backpack sprayers on a single agricultural establishment may be able to 

2344 supervise many noncertified applicators without causing unreasonable adverse effects. However, 

2345 a certified applicator supervising noncertified applicators fumigating a warehouse with RUPs 

2346 may not be able to supervise other applications of RUPs at the same time in a safe manner. 

2347 EPA chose not to propose a limit on the number of noncertified applicators that can use 

2348 RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. EPA regulates specific risks related 

2349 to the use of RUPs on a product by product basis, including limiting or restricting the use of 

2350 RUPs by noncertified applicators. The certified applicator is liable for all applications conducted 

2351 under his or her supervision. To become certified, applicators must demonstrate competency in 

2352 conducting and supervising applications in a manner that will not result in adverse effects to 

2353 human health or the environment. It is reasonable to expect that the certified applicator will 

2354 generally recognize the limits of his or her capacity to appropriately supervise multiple 

2355 noncertified applicators. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of certified applicators’ 

2356 competency in making and supervising applications of RUPs, product-specific limitations on the 

2357 use of RUPs by noncertified applicators, combined with the proposed requirement that the 

2358 supervising applicator ensure that a mechanism for communication between certified applicators 

2359 and noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision, would adequately protect 

2360 the noncertified applicator, the public, and the environment. Recognizing that EPA has 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 100 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2361 insufficient data to support a limit on the number of noncertified applicators that can be 

2362 supervised by a certified applicator or data to establish the number if a limit is required, EPA is 

2363 soliciting additional information related to this option. 

2364 EPA also considered proposing a maximum physical distance or travel time between the 

2365 certified applicator and noncertified applicator using RUPs under his or her direct supervision. 

2366 For instance, the certified applicator would have to be within X yards or Y minutes of the 

2367 noncertified applicator. This option would make it more likely that the certified applicator could 

2368 physically reach the noncertified applicator within a reasonable timeframe in the event assistance 

2369 was needed. Time-based and distance-based limitations would have different impacts in urban 

2370 and rural areas – in a city, the certified applicator might take an hour to get to an application site 

2371 within 5 miles, whereas in a rural area, the applicator could cover the same distance in a few 

2372 minutes. EPA does require the supervising certified applicator to be on site when certain RUPs 

2373 are used by noncertified applicators. These restrictions are imposed on a product by product 

2374 basis. EPA does not have sufficient information on a specific time or distance between certified 

2375 applicators and noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision that would 

2376 make meaningful reductions in the overall risk of adverse effects from RUP use by noncertified 

2377 applicators. Rather than set an arbitrary time or distance, EPA chose to propose a requirement for 

2378 the certified applicator to ensure a mechanism for the supervisor and noncertified applicator 

2379 using RUPs under his or her direct supervision to be in immediate communication. It is 

2380 reasonable to expect that ensuring that noncertified applicators are able to immediately contact 

2381 their supervisors in the event of a spill, emergency, or question about the application would 

2382 reduce the potential for unreasonable adverse effects from RUP application by noncertified 

2383 applicators. 

2384 7. Request for comment. EPA requests specific comment on the following: 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 101 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2385 • Would supervising certified applicators and noncertified applicators rely on cell phones 

2386 rather than two-way radios as a means to ensure immediate communication? 

2387 • Please provide any additional information that would assist EPA in more accurately 

2388 estimating the cost associated with this proposal. 

2389 • Should EPA consider other qualifications for supervising applicators? If so, what 

2390 qualifications and why? 

2391 • Should EPA require certified applicators to be within a certain distance or time of the 

2392 noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision? Please explain why. If so, 

2393 what distance or time should EPA require? 

2394 • Should EPA limit the number of noncertified applicators that a certified applicator can 

2395 supervise? Please explain why. If so, how should EPA select the maximum number?

2396 XI. Expand Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping to Include Noncertified Applicator 

2397 Training 

2398 1. Overview. In order to facilitate inspectors’ ability to verify that noncertified applicators 

2399 have been trained in accordance with the rule, EPA proposes to require commercial applicators 

2400 to maintain records of noncertified applicator training for two years. 

2401 2. Existing regulation. The current rule does not require any person to keep records of the 

2402 information or training provided to noncertified applicators. 

2403 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require commercial applicators to 

2404 maintain records of noncertified applicators’ training. The proposed recordkeeping requirement 

2405 includes: The trained noncertified applicator’s printed name, and signature; the date of the 

2406 training; the name of the person who provided the training; and the supervising commercial 

2407 applicator’s name. It is reasonable to expect that that requiring commercial applicators to 

2408 maintain records of noncertified applicators’ training would increase the likelihood that the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 102 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2409 noncertified applicators will be trained in accordance with the proposed requirements. In 

2410 addition, records can help ensure that noncertified applicators meet the proposed minimum age 

2411 requirement. Records are a key component of an effective enforcement program. EPA is not 

2412 proposing to require commercial applicators to document the qualifications of noncertified 

2413 applicators who satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 171.201(c) as agricultural handlers or by 

2414 having passed the core exam. The WPS already requires agricultural employers to maintain 

2415 records of pesticide safety training provided to handlers. It is reasonable to expect that certifying 

2416 authorities would be able to verify whether a noncertified applicator has passed the core exam. 

2417 FIFRA prohibits EPA from issuing regulations that require private applicators to 

2418 maintain records. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to make the recordkeeping requirements 

2419 outlined in this Unit apply to private applicators. Nevertheless, private applicators still would be 

2420 subject to the proposed requirements for ensuring that noncertified applicators under their direct 

2421 supervision have met the proposed training requirements. In the absence of training records 

2422 maintained by private applicators, EPA would gauge compliance with the training requirement 

2423 during routine compliance inspections. The inspector could question noncertified applicators 

2424 regarding the content of the training and the labeling of any products being applied. If the 

2425 noncertified applicators’ answers are not consistent with the content of the required training and 

2426 the labeling of any products being applied, it may support a presumption that the private 

2427 applicator has failed to adequately comply with the noncertified applicator training requirement. 

2428 Where private applicators keep records, either on their own initiative or in response to State, 

2429 Tribal, or local requirements, that are sufficient to verify compliance with the requirements for 

2430 training and supervising noncertified applicators, EPA expects that it would ordinarily rely on 

2431 such records to assess compliance, rather than evaluating individual noncertified applicators. 

2432 The regulatory text related to this proposal would be located at 40 CFR 171.201(e). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 103 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2433 4. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to require commercial applicators to 

2434 maintain records of the training provided to noncertified applicators working under their direct 

2435 supervision for 2 years would be $324,000 annually. 

2436 5. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered requiring the 

2437 training record to include the noncertified applicator’s date of birth. The Department of 

2438 Homeland Security (DHS) requires every employer to have a completed I-9 form for every 

2439 employee. The I-9 form already requires employers to obtain and keep records on a number of 

2440 pieces of information about the employee to verify employability, including the employee’s date 

2441 of birth. The employer must retain the I-9 form for inspection by DHS or other federal agencies. 

2442 Rather than impose a duplicative requirement for recordkeeping on employers, EPA chose not to 

2443 propose a requirement for the training record to include the noncertified applicators date of birth. 

2444 6. Request for comment. EPA requests specific comment on the following: 

2445 • Should EPA consider requiring the commercial applicator to provide a copy of the 

2446 training record to the noncertified applicator? What would be the value of this record to the 

2447 noncertified applicator and subsequent employers? Should EPA require the record to be 

2448 provided to all noncertified applicators as a matter of course or only to those noncertified 

2449 applicators who request such documentation from the certified applicator? 

2450 • Should EPA consider requiring commercial applicators to maintain records of 

2451 noncertified applicator training for a different length of time? If so, for how long should training 

2452 records be maintained and why? 

2453 • Should EPA consider requiring commercial applicators to document the noncertified 

2454 applicator’s qualification regardless of the method used to qualify? Should EPA require 

2455 commercial applicators to document the WPS training or core exam? If so, why? 

2456 XII. Establish a Minimum Age for Certified Applicators 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 104 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2457 1. Overview. In order to reduce the risks of exposure to applicators, bystanders, the 

2458 public, and the environment, EPA proposes to establish a minimum age of 18 for any person to 

2459 become certified as a private or commercial applicator. 

2460 2. Existing regulation. The rule has no age restrictions for certified applicators. 

2461 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. Stakeholders including Farmworker 

2462 Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, 

2463 members of the PPDC workgroup, and State regulatory agencies recommended establishing a 

2464 minimum age for pesticide applicators. 

2465 In 2002, CTAG surveyed State lead agencies for pesticide applicator certification. 

2466 Responses were provided from 49 States, with 30 States implementing a minimum age for 

2467 commercial applicators and 27 States establishing a minimum age for private applicators. The 

2468 commercial applicator minimum ages were 16 (6 States) and 18 (24 States); the private 

2469 applicator minimum ages ranged from 15 to 18 (15 years, 1 State; 16 years, 10 States; 17 years, 1 

2470 State; 18 years, 15 States) (Ref. 47). CTAG also evaluated State support of a minimum age 

2471 requirement for applicator certification. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents supported such a 

2472 requirement. Twenty-six States supported a minimum age of 18, 12 States supported a minimum 

2473 age of 16, and the remainder did not respond with a specific age or provided different required 

2474 minimum ages, depending on type of certification (Ref. 47). 

2475 As of 2013, 35 States had implemented a minimum age of 18 for commercial applicators 

2476 and 8 States had implemented a minimum age of 16 for commercial applicators. For private 

2477 applicators, 16 States established a minimum age of 18, 1 State established a minimum age of 

2478 17, and 17 States established a minimum age of 16 (Ref. 8). 

2479 DOL has established a general rule, applicable to non-agricultural employment, that 

2480 workers must be at least 18 years old to perform hazardous jobs. 29 CFR 570.120. For example, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 105 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2481 those under the age of 18 may not perform most tasks in manufacturing or mining industries; 

2482 communications or public utilities; construction or repair; in transporting people or property; and 

2483 in warehousing and storage. The FLSA establishes a minimum age of 16 for youth in agriculture 

2484 engaged in occupations deemed hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2). This 

2485 includes persons handling toxicity category I and II pesticides in agriculture. 29 CFR 

2486 570.71(a)(9). By regulation, DOL prohibits youth under the age of 16 engaged in nonagricultural 

2487 employment from any work involving pesticides unless employed by a parent or someone 

2488 standing in place of the parent. 29 CFR 570.32. 

2489 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to establish a minimum age of 18 for 

2490 persons to become certified as commercial and private applicators. 

2491 Aside from any increased risks that adolescents may suffer from pesticide exposures, 

2492 adolescents generally lack the experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unnecessary 

2493 exposure. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health also demonstrates that because 

2494 their brains are still developing, adolescents may have trouble balancing risk-reward decision2495 making and goal-oriented decision-making (Ref. 17). Although adolescents may understand the 

2496 possible consequences of their actions, they are more likely to make decisions based upon their 

2497 initial emotional responses, which will often lead them to make suboptimal choices (Ref. 16). 

2498 Additionally, adolescents are less likely to be aware of their rights and how to recognize hazards 

2499 in the workplace (Ref. 16). 

2500 Pesticide applicators must exercise good judgment and responsible behavior to best 

2501 protect themselves and others as they work with these potentially toxic materials. Research has 

2502 shown differences in the decision making of adolescents and adults that reasonably supports the 

2503 conclusion that applicators who are children may take more risks than those who are adults. 

2504 Behavioral scientists note that responsible decision making is more common in young adults 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 106 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2505 than adolescents: “socially responsible decision making is significantly more common among 

2506 young adults than among adolescents, but does not increase appreciably after age 19. 

2507 Adolescents, on average, scored significantly worse than adults did, but individual differences in 

2508 judgment within each adolescent age group were considerable. These findings call into question 

2509 recent assertions, derived from studies of logical reasoning, that adolescents and adults are 

2510 equally competent and that laws and social policies should treat them as such” (Ref. 18). 

2511 Decision-making skills and competence differ between adolescents and adults. A NIOSH 

2512 compilation of studies demonstrates “[y]outh are at increased risk of injury from lack of 

2513 experience. Inexperienced workers are unfamiliar with the requirements of work, are less likely 

2514 to be trained to recognize hazards, and are commonly unaware of their legal rights on the job. 

2515 Developmental factors – physical, cognitive, and psychological – may also place them at 

2516 increased risk” (Ref. 17). While some research has focused on decision-making of adolescents in 

2517 terms of legal culpability, the findings on decision-making skills and competence can be applied 

2518 reasonably to pesticide application. 

2519 Society has established 18 as the age of majority in many circumstances, and research has 

2520 shown that by 18 years old, most people have developed a level of competence that makes 

2521 responsible decision making more likely. For example, persons must wait until they are 18 to 

2522 vote, join the military, use tobacco, and give medical consent. For the one major exception to 18 

2523 as the age of majority, issuance of driver’s licenses, States have recognized the increased risks 

2524 associated with new, immature drivers. Forty-nine States have established a graduated driver’s 

2525 license program, under which the young drivers do not get full rights and independence upon 

2526 passing the necessary tests; rather they get limited privileges that expand over time to result in 

2527 full rights and independence when they reach 17 or 18 years old. Overall, this approach has 

2528 resulted in fewer accidents by teenage drivers between 16 and 18 years old (Refs. 48, 49). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 107 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2529 Society does not entrust individuals with the right to conduct some high risk activities until they 

2530 have met a certain age because the risk of harm to the underage person and others is too great. 

2531 Pesticide application presents comparable risks, with the potential for significant harm to the 

2532 applicator, the public, and the environment. 

2533 In addition to differences between adolescents and adults in terms of decision-making 

2534 ability, children may be more susceptible to pesticides because their physiological systems are 

2535 developing, and that development may be altered by pesticide exposure. Most pesticides 

2536 classified as RUPs are so classified based on an increased potential for acute harm to human 

2537 health. A level of exposure to RUPs considered safe for an adult may not be safe for a child. 

2538 EPA expects that restricting certification to persons 18 years of age or older would 

2539 prevent children from being exposed while performing and supervising application activities and 

2540 protect other persons and the environment from misapplication due to children’s poor judgment 

2541 or inadequate decision-making skills. EPA’s proposal would harmonize the age requirements for 

2542 pesticide applicators with the minimum age requirements for workers performing hazardous jobs 

2543 in other industries. 

2544 The regulatory text for these provisions would be located at 40 CFR 171.103(a)(1) for 

2545 commercial applicators and at 40 CFR 171.105(d) for private applicators. 

2546 5. Costs. EPA separates the cost of establishing a minimum age for commercial and 

2547 private applicators in this unit. 

2548 i. Commercial applicators. EPA estimates the cost of requiring commercial applicators to 

2549 be 18 would be $294,000 per year. The costs would reflect the difference in the wage rates 

2550 between commercial applicators who are 18 years or older and those who are younger in States 

2551 that do not currently have a minimum age of 18. As discussed in this unit, many States already 

2552 have a requirement that certified applicators must be at least 18 years old. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 108 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2553 ii. Private applicators. EPA estimates the cost of requiring private applicators to be 18 

2554 would be $174,000 per year. The costs would reflect the difference in the wage rates between 

2555 private applicators who are 18 years or older and those who are younger in States that do not 

2556 currently have a minimum age of 18. 

2557 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered two 

2558 alternatives: Allowing flexibility in the minimum age of 18 for applicators on a family farm, and 

2559 establishing a minimum age of 16 for commercial and private applicators. 

2560 The SBAR panel, comprised of pesticide applicators and business owners convened to 

2561 evaluate the impact of the proposed changes on small business, recommended that EPA establish 

2562 a minimum age of 18 for commercial and private applicator certification, with an exception 

2563 allowing private applicators working on a farm owned by an immediate family member (as 

2564 defined in the WPS at 40 CFR 170) to be certified at 16 years old (Ref. 24). This option would 

2565 allow flexibility for earlier certification for private applicators working on farms owned by 

2566 immediate family members; however, it provides a different level of protection for private and 

2567 commercial applicators and to those who would be impacted by their applications of RUPs. 

2568 EPA’s primary concern is the protection of human health and the environment from pesticide 

2569 hazards; the SBAR panel alternative does not adequately protect a vulnerable segment of the 

2570 population, youths 16 and 17 years old. It also puts at risk neighbors, bystanders, the food supply 

2571 (from misapplication), and the environment. RUPs pose greater potential for unreasonable 

2572 adverse effects if they are misused than do other pesticides. Persons younger than 18 may 

2573 possess less maturity and good judgement than adults, and they may be careless in making 

2574 applications. It is reasonable to expect that there would be additional risk to the applicator, the 

2575 public, and the environment from RUP applications by persons younger than 18, and despite the 

2576 benefit of flexibility offered by a reduced minimum age on family owned enterprises, EPA does 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 109 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2577 not consider that flexibility justified in light of the associated risks. 

2578 The second alternative considered by EPA was to set a minimum age of 16 for persons to 

2579 become certified as commercial or private applicators. This option would require fewer States to 

2580 incorporate the new requirement because most States have a minimum age of at least 16. Under 

2581 this alternative, States could adopt or retain a requirement for a higher minimum age. In addition, 

2582 a minimum age of 16 would match the requirements of the FLSA for handling or applying 

2583 products in toxicity category I and II in agricultural employment and the minimum age for 

2584 handlers under the proposed changes to the WPS. 79 FR 15444; March 19, 2014. However, this 

2585 option would provide significantly less protection to the applicator, the public, and the 

2586 environment. Moreover, this option could create a scenario in which a minor could be directing 

2587 the actions of an adult by supervising the application of RUPs. States have noted that it can be 

2588 difficult to take enforcement actions against minors. Under this scenario, States may have no 

2589 recourse if the pesticide was misapplied by the noncertified applicator because responsibility 

2590 ultimately rests with the certified applicator, in this case, a minor. Certified applicators use 

2591 RUPs, pesticides with a higher potential for harming human health and the environment, and 

2592 must possess an appropriate level of competence, maturity and decision-making skills to ensure 

2593 these products are used safely. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the difference in cost 

2594 between the proposed option and this alternative justifies the associated risk to youth applicators, 

2595 the public, and the environment. 

2596 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2597 • Are there alternatives that have not been considered that would improve protections for 

2598 adolescent certified applicators using RUPs, either those under 16 or 18 years old, while 

2599 allowing flexibility for pesticide use for agriculture? 

2600 • What would be the impact on State programs of establishing a minimum age of either 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 110 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2601 16 or 18 for certified applicators? What would be the impact on pesticide application businesses? 

2602 • Are there additional benefits or burdens associated with establishing a minimum age of 

2603 16 or 18 for certified applicators? If so, please provide data to support either position. 

2604 • Would this proposal have an impact on training programs for adolescents? If so, please 

2605 describe the impact. 

2606 XIII. Establish a Minimum Age for Noncertified Applicators Working Under the Direct 

2607 Supervision of Certified Applicators 

2608 1. Overview. EPA proposes to require that noncertified applicators who use RUPs under 

2609 the direct supervision of a certified applicator be at least 18 years old. EPA expects this change 

2610 would result in reduced risks to children and improved competency in the use of RUPs, resulting 

2611 in reduced exposure to noncertified applicators, bystanders, and the environment. 

2612 2. Existing WPS regulations. The current rule does not establish a minimum age for 

2613 noncertified applicators. 

2614 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. As of 2013, 16 States had implemented a 

2615 minimum age of 18 for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of commercial 

2616 applicators and 4 States had implemented a minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicators 

2617 under the direct supervision of commercial applicators. For private applicators, 5 States 

2618 established a minimum age of 18 and 2 States established a minimum age of 16. Two States 

2619 prohibit use of RUPs by noncertified applicators, eliminating the option for use of RUPs under 

2620 the direct supervision of a certified applicator (Ref. 8). 

2621 EPA also considered the information discussed in Unit XII.3. 

2622 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to establish a minimum age of 18 for 

2623 noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators. The 

2624 proposed age restriction would include a requirement for commercial applicators supervising the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 111 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2625 noncertified applicator to record the training and the birth date of any noncertified applicator 

2626 using RUPs under their direct supervision. 

2627 EPA considered the rationale discussed in Unit XII.4. in developing this proposal. As 

2628 discussed in the previous section, research shows the differences in the decision-making of 

2629 adolescents and adults leads to the conclusion that noncertified applicators who are adolescents 

2630 may take more risks than those who are adults. The use of RUPs presents demonstrable risks of 

2631 significant harm to the applicator, the public, and the environment, and these risks are 

2632 significantly influenced by the user’s judgment and decision-making skills. Requiring 

2633 noncertified applicators to be 18 years of age or older would prevent youth under 18 from being 

2634 exposed while using RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator and would reduce risks 

2635 to other persons and the environment from misapplication owing to users’ poor judgment or 

2636 decision-making skills. This proposal would also align with society’s general trend toward 

2637 increasing the ages at which persons are eligible to do certain things that present recognized 

2638 risks, such as purchasing alcohol or becoming a licensed driver. 

2639 Because noncertified applicators use RUPs, their activities entail a heightened level of 

2640 risk that requires maturity and good decision-making skills if unreasonable adverse effects are to 

2641 be avoided. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that establishing a minimum age of 18 for 

2642 noncertified applicators would improve protections from misapplication of RUPs to applicators, 

2643 the public, the food supply, and the environment. 

2644 The regulatory text establishing a minimum age for noncertified applicators would be 

2645 located at 40 CFR 171.201(b)(5). 

2646 5. Costs. EPA separated the cost for establishing a minimum age of 18 for noncertified 

2647 applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators and for those under 

2648 the direct supervision of private applicators in this unit. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 112 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2649 i. Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 

2650 applicators. EPA estimates the cost of requiring noncertified applicators working under the 

2651 direct supervision of commercial applicators to be 18 would be $12.8 million per year. The costs 

2652 reflect the difference in the wage rates between these noncertified applicators who are 18 years 

2653 or older and those who are younger. 

2654 ii. Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 

2655 applicators. EPA estimates the cost of requiring noncertified applicators working under the 

2656 direct supervision of private applicators to be 18 would be $1.1 million per year. The costs 

2657 reflect the difference in the wage rates between these noncertified applicators who are 18 years 

2658 or older and those who are younger. 

2659 For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the economic 

2660 analysis for this proposal (Ref. 8). 

2661 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, it is reasonable 

2662 to expect that this proposal would improve the health of adolescent noncertified applicators, as 

2663 well as other bystanders and the environment. As discussed in Units XII. and XIII., adolescents’ 

2664 judgment is not fully developed. It is reasonable to expect that restricting adolescents’ ability to 

2665 handle pesticides would lead to less exposure potential for the noncertified applicators 

2666 themselves, and less potential for misapplication that could cause negative impacts on other 

2667 persons nearby, the food supply, and the environment. 

2668 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered two alternatives: 

2669 Proposing a minimum age of 16 for all noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct 

2670 supervision of commercial and private applicators, and proposing a minimum age of 18 for all 

2671 noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator with an 

2672 exception for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a private 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 113 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2673 applicator on a farm owned by an immediate family member. 

2674 Establishing a minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicators would roughly align with 

2675 the DOL’s age restrictions related to pesticide handling. It would also correspond with the 

2676 proposed minimum age of 16 for pesticide handlers under the WPS that EPA is considering. 

2677 Finally, this alternative would give noncertified applicators the opportunity to gain knowledge 

2678 and experience about the proper use of RUPs at a younger age while working under the direct 

2679 supervision of a certified applicator. EPA recognizes similarities between noncertified 

2680 applicators and handlers under the WPS. However, noncertified applicators use RUPs, products 

2681 that pose a higher risk of harm to human health and the environment if not used properly. For 

2682 this reason, it is critical that those who use RUPs, even with proper supervision, have developed 

2683 the necessary maturity and decision-making skills to use the products in a manner that avoids 

2684 unreasonable adverse effects to themselves, other persons, and the environment. EPA does not 

2685 believe that harmonizing the minimum age for noncertified applicators with the proposed 

2686 minimum age for handlers under the WPS and the Department of Labor’s requirements would 

2687 offer benefits sufficient to justify the increased potential risk from improper use of an RUP by a 

2688 noncertified applicator who is not at least 18 years old. 

2689 The SERs on the SBAR panel recommended that EPA establish a minimum age of 18 for 

2690 commercial and private applicator certification, with an exception allowing private applicators 

2691 working on a farm owned by an immediate family member (as defined at 40 CFR 170.2) to be 

2692 certified at 16 years old (Ref. 24). EPA considered adopting a similar requirement for 

2693 noncertified applicators or establishing a minimum age of 18 for those working under the direct 

2694 supervision of commercial applicators and 16 years old for those working under the direct 

2695 supervision of private applicators. These options would allow flexibility for earlier certification 

2696 on family-owned farms or for private applicators; however, they would provide a different level 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 114 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2697 of protection to noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of private and 

2698 commercial applicators. A noncertified applicator is likely to have less experience and 

2699 knowledge than a certified applicator. A person younger than 18 may also have less maturity and 

2700 good judgement. It is reasonable to expect that that it is more likely that there would be 

2701 additional risk to the applicator, the public, and the environment from RUP applications by 

2702 noncertified persons younger than 18, and despite the benefit of flexibility offered by a reduced 

2703 minimum age on family owned enterprises, EPA does not consider that flexibility justified in 

2704 light of the associated risks. 

2705 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2706 • Are there alternatives that have not been considered that would improve protections for 

2707 adolescent noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

2708 applicator, either those under 16 or 18 years old, while allowing flexibility for pesticide use for 

2709 agriculture? 

2710 • What would be the impact on State programs of establishing a minimum age of either 

2711 16 or 18 for noncertified applicators? What would be the impact on pesticide application 

2712 businesses? 

2713 • Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing a minimum age of 16 or 18 

2714 for noncertified applicators? If so, please provide data to support either position. 

2715 • Would this proposal have an impact on training programs for adolescents? If so, please 

2716 describe the impact. 

2717 • Would it be possible for EPA to include in the final rule include exceptions the 

2718 proposed minimum age requirement for persons participating in adolescent vocational training 

2719 programs and high school educational programs, where persons who do not meet the minimum 

2720 age work under the direct supervision of certified applicators, while ensuring that adolescents, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 115 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2721 others, and the environment are protected adequately? If so, explain how EPA could ensure 

2722 adequate protections. Please suggest a framework for such an exemption. 

2723 XIV. Establish a National Certification Period and Standards for Recertification 

2724 A. National Recertification Period 

2725 1. Overview. To ensure certified applicators maintain core competencies and keep pace 

2726 with the changing technology of pesticide application, and to ensure that the public, environment 

2727 and applicators are protected from misapplication and misuse, EPA proposes to establish a 

2728 maximum certification period of 3 years. This would require all applicators to renew their 

2729 certification, i.e., recertify, at least every 3 years. 

2730 2. Existing regulation. The current rule requires States to ensure applicators maintain a 

2731 continuing level of competency and ability to apply pesticides safely and properly as part of their 

2732 State plans. 40 CFR 171.8(a)(2). The rule requires that under plans administered by EPA, 

2733 commercial applicators must be recertified every 3 years and private applicators must be 

2734 recertified every four years. 40 CFR 171.11. A policy published in the Federal Register 

2735 applicable to Federal agency plans (42 FR 41907; August 19, 1977) directs Federal agencies to 

2736 include in their certification plans a requirement for applicators to recertify every 3 years. There 

2737 are no corresponding regulatory requirements or policies establishing a maximum certification 

2738 period under State and Tribal certification plans. 

2739 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. CTAG, SFIREG, State regulatory 

2740 agencies and members of the PPDC workgroup all requested that EPA establish a standard 

2741 maximum certification period. State and Tribal participants at the 2006 Worker Safety PREP 

2742 generally supported the proposed 3-year maximum certification period, though States with 5-

2743 year periods expressed concerns for the potential impacts to their programs (Ref. 23). 

2744 In a survey of State requirements, EPA determined that 31 States already have a 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 116 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2745 certification period of 3 years or fewer for commercial applicators. Twenty-five States already 

2746 require recertification every 3 years or fewer for private applicators (Ref. 1). 

2747 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes that all pesticide applicator 

2748 certifications be valid for no more than 3 years. This proposal corresponds with the existing 

2749 requirements for commercial applicators under EPA-administered plans and Federal agency 

2750 plans. 

2751 Ensuring the ongoing competency of applicators of RUPs is crucial in preventing 

2752 unreasonable adverse effects when RUPs are used. Applicators must be knowledgeable about 

2753 changing technology, product reformulations, new labeling and regulatory requirements, and 

2754 other essential labeling information. Applicators also must be reminded about personal safety 

2755 and basic application principles. To ensure ongoing competency, it is necessary to require 

2756 renewal of an applicator’s certification within a specific period. The more frequently applicators 

2757 receive training, the more likely they are retain the substance of the training and apply it on the 

2758 job. Studies show that information retained from training sessions declines significantly within a 

2759 year (Refs. 11, 12). However, preparing for and demonstrating competency by passing an exam 

2760 requires a higher level of preparation and a more reliable demonstration of the competencies 

2761 needed. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that allowing certified applicators to renew their 

2762 certifications over a slightly longer period would not adversely impact human health and the 

2763 environment. EPA already requires applicators under an EPA-administered plan to recertify 

2764 every 3 years and it is reasonable to extend this requirement to all applicators certified under any 

2765 plan approved by EPA. 

2766 It is reasonable to expect that requiring all applicators certified by States, Tribes and 

2767 Federal agencies to be recertified at least every 3 years would set an acceptable minimum 

2768 standard for continued competency in the applicator certification program. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 117 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2769 The regulatory text for this proposal would be located at 40 CFR 171.107(a). 

2770 5. Costs. EPA estimated the cost of this proposal in conjunction with the proposal to 

2771 establish requirements for recertification programs. See Unit XIV.B. The cost of this proposal is 

2772 provided in combination with the cost of the proposal for recertification requirements in Unit 

2773 XIV.B.5. 

2774 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered proposing a 

2775 maximum certification period of 5 years for private and commercial applicators. As discussed in 

2776 this unit, learned knowledge diminishes over time (Refs. 11, 12). EPA must ensure that 

2777 applicators maintain ongoing competency to protect themselves, other persons, and the 

2778 environment from unreasonable adverse effects from RUP exposure. It is reasonable to expect 

2779 that applicators retain less knowledge over a 5 year recertification period than they would over a 

2780 3 year recertification period, thereby increasing the potential risk posed by applicators who do 

2781 not maintain an ongoing level of competency. EPA estimates that the difference in cost between 

2782 a 3 year and 5 year recertification would be negligible. For these reasons, it is reasonable to 

2783 expect that the potential small cost savings associated with a 5 year recertification period instead 

2784 of a 3 year recertification period are not significant enough to warrant the increased risks 

2785 associated with applicators who do not maintain an ongoing level of competency in the use of 

2786 RUPs. 

2787 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2788 • Should EPA consider a different maximum recertification period? If so, what period 

2789 and why? 

2790 B. Recertification Requirements 

2791 1. Overview. To ensure certified applicators maintain core competencies and keep pace 

2792 with the changing technology of pesticide application, and to ensure that the public, environment 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 118 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2793 and applicators are protected from misapplication and misuse, EPA proposes to require State, 

2794 Tribal, and Federal agencies to require applicators to complete a continuing education program 

2795 that meets or exceeds specific standards or to pass exams related to their certification(s) in order 

2796 to be recertified. 

2797 2. Existing regulation. The current rule requires States to require applicators to 

2798 demonstrate ongoing competency as part of their State plans. 40 CFR 171.8(a)(2). The rule has 

2799 no requirements for the recertification standards such as content or manner in which ongoing 

2800 competency is evaluated. 

2801 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. In a survey of State certification program 

2802 personnel, CTAG found most States agreed that the credibility of training presenters, programs, 

2803 and recertification exams should be subject to review and approval by the agency that assigns the 

2804 recertification program credits or oversees exams. Participants at the 2006 Worker Safety PREP 

2805 noted that most States offer applicators the option to take an exam for recertification if 

2806 recertification is not accomplished through accruing continuing education units by the required 

2807 deadline. Additionally, States noted that some applicator categories have so few applicators or 

2808 the substance of the categories changes so infrequently that developing and updating training 

2809 materials may be cost-prohibitive for States or cooperative extension services; therefore, States 

2810 requested the option to offer or require retesting for recertification (Ref. 23). 

2811 State and Tribal participants at the 2006 Worker Safety PREP generally supported having 

2812 a requirement for the minimum number of credits that must be earned by an applicator in a 

2813 continuing education program during the recertification period. Some States expressed concern 

2814 that minimum requirements established at the Federal level could cause States with more 

2815 stringent requirements to lower their requirements. For example, if EPA required an applicator to 

2816 earn 6 credits per category every 3 years, those States with higher requirements (e.g., 12 credits 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 119 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2817 per category) might face resistance from their applicators. Conversely, they appreciated that a 

2818 Federal standard would make issuing and monitoring reciprocal certificates to applicators less 

2819 burdensome, because all States would meet a minimum standard for recertification programs. 

2820 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to establish minimum 

2821 standards for continuing education programs, including: The minimum number of continuing 

2822 education units (CEUs) that must be earned by an applicator in order to be recertified in core and 

2823 each category; the standard length of a CEU; and a requirement for applicators to earn at least 

2824 half of the required CEUs in the 18 months preceding expiration of the applicator’s certification. 

2825 States, Tribes, and Federal agencies would be required to include a continuing education 

2826 program that meets or exceeds these standards as part of their certification plan. EPA also 

2827 proposes to allow States to require recertification only by exam. The exam and its administration 

2828 would have to meet the standards outlined in Unit IX. 

2829 EPA proposes to require that private applicator continuing education programs require 

2830 instruction in the general competency standards as well as each relevant application method2831 specific category. The more training applicators receive, the more likely they are retain the 

2832 substance of the training and apply it on the job. Under EPA’s proposal, a private applicator 

2833 would need to earn a minimum of 6 CEUs of instruction that covers the content proposed as 40 

2834 CFR 171.105(a) every 3 years to maintain core certification. The CEUs must be part of a 

2835 continuing education program approved by the appropriate State, Tribal, or Federal agency for 

2836 recertification. To qualify for recertification in the proposed application-method specific 

2837 categories of soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or aerial application, or in the predator control 

2838 category, a private applicator would need to earn a minimum of an additional 3 CEUs specific to 

2839 each relevant application method that covers the content proposed as 40 CFR 171.105(b) and (c) 

2840 every 3 years. A commercial applicator would need to earn a minimum of 6 CEUs related to his 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 120 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2841 or her core certification every 3 years to maintain his or her core certification. For each category 

2842 (pest control and application method-specific) in which the applicator is certified, he or she 

2843 would need to obtain at least 6 CEUs specific to each category every 3 years. For example, a 

2844 commercial applicator certified in agricultural pest control and aerial application would be 

2845 required to obtain 6 CEUs of core material to satisfy recertification requirements for commercial 

2846 core, as well as an additional 6 CEUs in agricultural pest control and 6 CEUs in aerial 

2847 application in order to satisfy recertification requirements for maintaining his or her overall 

2848 certification in the appropriate categories. 

2849 EPA proposes to allow applicators to earn CEUs in a program administered by or 

2850 approved by the certifying State, Tribal, or Federal agency. The certifying authority’s 

2851 certification plan would need to detail how it would review and approve content for the 

2852 continuing education program and how it would ensure that applicators satisfy the necessary 

2853 requirements. The certifying authority could either conduct the continuing education program 

2854 directly (some States refer to this type of program as a workshop), or could approve continuing 

2855 education programs administered by cooperative extension services at State universities, other 

2856 States, or private training providers. To approve the program, the State would have to ensure that 

2857 the continuing education program meets the competency requirements established for 

2858 commercial core certification, general private applicator certification, or the specific category or 

2859 application method-specific category covered by the continuing education program. 

2860 EPA also proposes to set 50 minutes of active training time as the standard for a CEU. 

2861 There is a wide range of time across States and professions for what constitutes a CEU. A 

2862 minimum standard of 50 minutes of education per CEU would be consistent with most State 

2863 standards. Setting a minimum standard for acceptable CEUs across all States, Tribes, and Federal 

2864 agencies will ensure a baseline level for recertification programs that employ training and may 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 121 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2865 facilitate applicators earning credits for recertification in more than one State. With a more 

2866 standardized baseline for a CEU, States may be more likely to approve or accept continuing 

2867 education programs presented in other States. Interstate collaboration for recertification would 

2868 reduce the burden on State lead agencies and educators to develop and present new materials for 

2869 each category. In addition, applicators certified in the same category in more than one State 

2870 could be able to earn CEUs in one State and apply them to recertification in their other State of 

2871 certification, reducing the overall burden associated with recertification in multiple States. 

2872 EPA also proposes to require that the applicator earn a minimum of one-half of the 

2873 required CEUs during the 18 month period preceding the expiration date of his or her 

2874 certification. A more recently trained applicator is more likely than less frequently trained 

2875 applicators to apply what he or she learned from the training on the job. This should ensure that 

2876 the applicator maintains an ongoing level of competence throughout the period that the 

2877 certification is valid. The proposal would support applicators staying abreast of current 

2878 information and technology related to their category of pesticide application. 

2879 EPA is also proposing to allow certifying authorities to require applicators to pass exams 

2880 relevant to their categories of certification in order to be recertified. Exams are a reliable gauge 

2881 of competency and can be used to ensure that applicators continue to demonstrate an appropriate 

2882 level of competency. 

2883 For a discussion of the requirement for verification of the recertification candidate’s 

2884 identity, see Unit IX. 

2885 The regulatory text for the proposed addition of recertification standards would be 

2886 located at 40 CFR 171.107(b). 

2887 5. Costs. The estimated costs for this proposal and the proposal in Unit XIV.A. are 

2888 presented by impact to commercial applicators and private applicators. The costs to the States are 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 122 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2889 incorporated in each section. 

2890 i. Commercial applicators. EPA estimates that the proposed requirement for commercial 

2891 applicators to recertify would cost a total of $6.5 million per year. EPA estimated this cost based 

2892 on an applicator being required to complete 6 hours of training in core competency standards and 

2893 6 hours of training for each category of certification. The recertification costs include applicators 

2894 recertifying in the proposed application-method specific categories and the new predator control 

2895 categories. EPA estimates that State costs to administer the proposed recertification program for 

2896 commercial applicators would be $39,000 because most States already have recertification 

2897 programs in place and would only need to adjust it to match the proposed regulatory 

2898 requirement. 

2899 ii. Private applicators. EPA estimates the cost of the proposed requirement for private 

2900 applicators to recertify at $16.8 million annually. EPA estimated this cost based on an applicator 

2901 being required to complete 6 hours of training in general private applicator competency 

2902 standards and 3 hours of training for each application method-specific category of certification. 

2903 The recertification costs include applicators recertifying in the proposed application-method 

2904 specific categories and the new predator control categories. EPA estimates that State costs to 

2905 administer the proposed recertification program for private applicators would be $11,000 

2906 because most States already have a recertification program in place and would only need to 

2907 adjust it to match the proposed regulatory requirement. 

2908 6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered a range of 

2909 continuing education requirements but does not have a specific alternative proposal. EPA 

2910 reviewed recertification and continuing education requirements for several other types of 

2911 professional occupations and found wide variability in continuing education requirements across 

2912 States or organizations within a single profession (e.g., nursing), and found little information to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 123 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2913 explain the variation in requirements. Similarly, EPA reviewed the existing State continuing 

2914 education requirements for pesticide applicator recertification and found that the requirements 

2915 ranged from two up to 40 continuing education units per cycle, and cycles ranged from 1 to 5 

2916 years, but there was little or no information available to support why a particular number of 

2917 continuing education units was selected. 

2918 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2919 • Is the proposed number of recertification CEUs is too low or too high? If so, please 

2920 provide specific information on the number of continuing education units that you believe should 

2921 be required for professional recertification and the rationale behind the number. 

2922 • Should EPA consider a different time period for applicator recertification? If so, please 

2923 explain what period EPA should consider and why. 

2924 • Should EPA require commercial and private applicators to have the same recertification 

2925 requirements for category recertification? If so, why? 

2926 • Should EPA do more to harmonize requirements for recertification to further facilitate 

2927 reciprocity? Please describe what actions EPA should take and how they would further facilitate 

2928 reciprocity. 

2929 XV. Revise State Certification Plan Requirements 

2930 1. Overview. In order to clarify requirements for content, submission and approval of 

2931 State plans, raise the minimum standards for State pesticide applicator certification programs, 

2932 and update the requirements for State plans, EPA proposes to revise the provisions of the rule 

2933 related to submission, approval, and maintenance of State plans. Since the requirements for 

2934 Tribal and Federal agency plans reference the standards for State plans, the proposed changes 

2935 would also impact the requirements for Tribal and Federal agency plans. 

2936 2. Existing regulation. The current provisions at 40 CFR 171.7 and 171.8 establish the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 124 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2937 requirements for the submission, approval and maintenance of State plans. These sections of the 

2938 rule set the content of State plans and outline the specific regulatory provisions, legal authorities, 

2939 and components that States must have in order for EPA to approve a State plan. An EPA2940 approved State plan allows the State to certify and recertify RUP applicators. 

2941 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise the provisions covering the 

2942 submission, approval, and maintenance of State plans. The revisions will cover: Revision of 

2943 State plans to conform with proposed changes; additional reporting and accountability 

2944 information; States’ need to have both civil and criminal penalty authority to enforce their State 

2945 plans; recordkeeping requirements for commercial applicators; recordkeeping requirements for 

2946 RUP dealers; standards for certification credentials; requirements for States’ recognition of 

2947 certifications issued by other States (known as reciprocal certification); and maintenance, 

2948 modification, and withdrawals of State plans. 

2949 i. State plan modification to implement proposed changes. EPA’s proposal would add 

2950 appropriate provisions to ensure that State plans conform to new standards and requirements 

2951 being proposed in other parts of the rule. This includes proposed standards for the certification of 

2952 private and commercial applicators, recertification, and direct supervision of noncertified 

2953 applicators. States would continue to be permitted to adopt, as they considered appropriate, the 

2954 Federal categories appropriate for their States, add subcategories under the Federal categories, 

2955 delete Federal categories not needed, and add State-specific categories not reflected by the 

2956 Federal categories 

2957 EPA considered several alternatives. First, EPA considered requiring States to adopt all 

2958 applicable Federal categories proposed as 40 CFR 171.101 and 171.105. At the present time, few 

2959 States have defined their certification categories to align exactly with the Federal categories – 

2960 many have either split existing Federal categories into multiple categories or added a number of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 125 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2961 subcategories under categories similar to the Federal categories. Some stakeholders believe that 

2962 requiring all certifying authorities to use the Federally-established categories could benefit 

2963 applicator mobility, stating that if the standards for certification were consistent across States, 

2964 States would be able to more easily evaluate requests for reciprocal certification. However, 

2965 requiring States to adopt the Federal categories would burden States and applicators, and would 

2966 not necessarily result in improved protection for applicators, the public, or the environment. 

2967 Because the Federal categories may be broad, applicators may be required to learn material in 

2968 areas not relevant to their actual applications, potentially reducing protections. Consequently, 

2969 EPA expects that many States would still require applicators to certify in their State-specific 

2970 subcategories to ensure specific competency. If a significant number of States continue to require 

2971 applicators to certify in State-specific subcategories, it would defeat the goal of facilitating 

2972 reciprocal certification. In this scenario, requiring States to adopt the Federal categories would 

2973 increase the burden to the States to revise their certification systems to accommodate the 

2974 changes, and to applicators required to pass another exam, without any clear benefit in either 

2975 efficiency or protection. Because there is little, if any, gain in protection from this option, and 

2976 because it would be a burden to States and applicators, it is not proposed. 

2977 EPA also considered subdividing the national pest category 7 (industrial, institutional, 

2978 structural and health-related pest control) into component parts. This category covers a range of 

2979 specific application types – for example, applications in food handling areas to control insects 

2980 and rodents, termite control in infested buildings, and treatments to nursing homes and schools. 

2981 Safe and effective applications to these different sites require different skills and knowledge. 

2982 Subdividing the category at the Federal level would allow the certification to focus on the 

2983 competencies most relevant to applicators in the subdivided categories. However, 47 States have 

2984 already created appropriate categories for their needs and their applicators learn information 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 126 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

2985 relevant to their specific applications and are being tested on that specific information. Because 

2986 of the State-specific divisions, there is little consistency in how the States have subdivided the 

2987 category. Retaining the category in its current form and allowing States to adjust it as needed 

2988 would avoid imposing an increased burden on States to adjust their categories to a newly 

2989 developed Federal standard with little or no improvement in protection. 

2990 For a discussion on EPA’s proposal for applicator reciprocity, please refer to Unit 

2991 XV.3.vii. 

2992 For standards for direct supervision of noncertified applicators, EPA proposes to require 

2993 States to adopt the proposed standards at 40 CFR 171.201 for commercial and/or private 

2994 applicators that supervise noncertified applicators. This would not require States to allow the use 

2995 of RUPs by noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified applicators; States 

2996 that choose to restrict use of RUPs to certified applicators would be exempted from the 

2997 requirement to adopt the proposed standards as 40 CFR 171.201. These options would continue 

2998 to allow the States the flexibility to decide whether or not to allow use of RUPs by noncertified 

2999 applicators. EPA’s criteria for approving the registrations of RUPs are based, in part, on 

3000 presumptions that any uncertified applicators have at least the level of training mandated in 40 

3001 CFR 171.201. Therefore, EPA only proposes that States adopt EPA’s standards for noncertified 

3002 applicators exactly, with the flexibility to adopt additional standards at the State’s discretion to 

3003 address State-specific issues. 

3004 The proposed regulatory text would be located at 40 CFR 171.303(a) and (b). 

3005 ii. Program reporting and accountability. To reflect the proposed changes to applicator 

3006 certification categories and to ensure EPA receives adequate information to monitor the State’s 

3007 implementation of its certification plan, EPA proposes to require States to report the information 

3008 below to EPA annually. EPA is also proposing to require Tribes and Federal agencies with their 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 127 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3009 own certification plans to submit similar relevant information to EPA. 

3010 • The numbers of new, recertified, and total applicators holding a valid general private 

3011 certification at the end of the last 12-month reporting period. 

3012 • For each application method-specific category specified in 40 CFR 171.105(c), the 

3013 numbers of new, recertified, and total private applicators holding valid certifications for the last 

3014 12-month reporting period. 

3015 • The numbers of new, recertified, and total commercial applicators holding a valid core 

3016 and at least one category certification at the end of the last 12-month reporting period. 

3017 • For each commercial applicator certification category specified in 40 CFR 171.101(a), 

3018 the numbers of new, recertified, and total commercial applicators holding a valid certification in 

3019 each of those categories at the end of the last 12-month reporting period. 

3020 • For each application method-specific category specified in 40 CFR 171.101(b), the 

3021 numbers of new, recertified, and total valid certifications for the last 12 month reporting period. 

3022 • If a State has established subcategories within any of the commercial categories, the 

3023 report must include the numbers of new, recertified, and total commercial applicators holding 

3024 valid certifications in each of the subcategories. 

3025 • A description of any modifications made to the approved certification plan during the 

3026 last 12-month reporting period that have not been previously evaluated by EPA. 

3027 • A description of any proposed changes to the certification plan that the State anticipates 

3028 making during the next reporting period that may affect the certification plan. 

3029 • The number and description of enforcement actions taken for any violations of Federal 

3030 or State laws and regulations involving use of RUPs during the last 12-month reporting period. 

3031 • A narrative summary describing the misuse incidents or enforcement activities related 

3032 to use of RUPs during the last 12-month reporting period, including specific information on the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 128 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3033 pesticide(s) used, circumstances of the incident, nature of the violation, and information on the 

3034 applicator’s certification. This section should include a discussion of potential changes in policy 

3035 or procedure to prevent future incidents or violations. 

3036 EPA considers these additional reporting elements necessary to improve performance 

3037 measurement and accountability for the applicator certification program. Standardized data 

3038 reporting requirements assist in uniform program measurement, an important element of the 

3039 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The limited requirements for, and the 

3040 wide variation in, the current State program reporting present impediments to national program 

3041 monitoring and management. Fair and equitable assessment of State programs and the national 

3042 program should be based on the review of standardized reports. Uniform data collection and 

3043 submission would assist EPA in accurately measuring the success of the program and would 

3044 facilitate the development and use of program measures to gauge program success. Areas 

3045 requiring improvement and targeted outreach to address problems could be identified during data 

3046 analysis. 

3047 The proposed regulatory language for the program reporting would be located at 40 CFR 

3048 171.303(c). 

3049 iii. Civil and Criminal Penalty Authority. The current rule is not clear on whether States 

3050 must have authority to impose both criminal and civil penalty provisions for commercial and 

3051 private applicators. EPA has concerns that in the absence of either civil or criminal penalty 

3052 provisions, a State would not have an adequate range of enforcement options and capabilities to 

3053 respond appropriately to the wide range of pesticide misuse situations that could arise. EPA 

3054 proposes to revise the regulation to expressly require that States have both civil and criminal 

3055 penalty provisions. 

3056 The proposed regulatory language for civil and criminal penalty authority would be 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 129 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3057 located at 40 CFR 171.303(b)(6)(iii). 

3058 iv. Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping. EPA proposes to clarify what records 

3059 commercial applicators must maintain. The current rule mandates that State plans include 

3060 requirements for certified commercial applicators maintain for at least two years routine 

3061 operational records containing information on kinds, amounts, uses, dates, and places of 

3062 application of RUPs. 40 CFR 171.7(b)(1)(iii)(E). Under this proposal, commercial applicators 

3063 would be required to keep and maintain all of the following records for the RUPs they apply: 

3064 • The name and address of the person for whom the pesticide was applied. 

3065 • The location of the pesticide application. 

3066 • The size of the area treated. 

3067 • The crop, commodity, stored product, or site to which the pesticide was applied. 

3068 • The time and date of the pesticide application. 

3069 • The brand or product name of the pesticide applied. 

3070 • The EPA registration number of the pesticide applied. 

3071 • The total amount of the pesticide applied. 

3072 • The name and certification number of the certified applicator that made or supervised 

3073 the application, and if applicable, the name of any noncertified applicator(s) that made the 

3074 application under the direct supervision of the certified applicator. 

3075 • Records related to the supervision of noncertified applicators working under the direct 

3076 supervision of a certified applicator described in Unit XI. 

3077 This proposed recordkeeping parallels the recordkeeping requirements established for 

3078 private applicators under the USDA Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and 

3079 agreed to by USDA and EPA in a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (Ref. 50). This proposal 

3080 would ensure consistency between State recordkeeping requirements for commercial applicators 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 130 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3081 and existing Federal recordkeeping requirements, which govern recordkeeping by commercial 

3082 applicators certified under EPA-administered certification programs. 

3083 The proposed regulatory language for commercial applicator recordkeeping would be 

3084 located at 40 CFR 171.303(b)(6)(vi). 

3085 v. RUP Dealer Recordkeeping. EPA proposes to require States to have provisions 

3086 requiring RUP retail dealers to keep and maintain at each individual dealership, for a period of at 

3087 least two years, records of each transaction where a RUP is distributed or sold by that dealership 

3088 to any person. Records of each such transaction must include all of the following information: 

3089 • Name and address of the residence or principal place of business of each person to 

3090 whom the RUP was distributed or sold, or if applicable, the name and address of the residence or 

3091 principal place of business of each noncertified applicator to whom the RUP was distributed or 

3092 sold for use by a certified applicator. 

3093 • The applicator’s unique certification number on the certification document presented to 

3094 the dealer evidencing the valid certification of the certified applicator authorized to purchase the 

3095 RUP; the State, Tribe or Federal agency that issued the certification document; the expiration 

3096 date of the certified applicator's certification; and the categories in which the certified applicator 

3097 is certified. 

3098 • The product name and EPA registration number of the RUP(s) distributed or sold in the 

3099 transaction, and the State special local need registration number on the label of the RUP if 

3100 applicable. 

3101 • The quantity of the pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the transaction. 

3102 • The date of the transaction. 

3103 All 50 States currently have RUP dealer recordkeeping requirements; EPA proposes this 

3104 Federal standard to ensure consistency across the States and to ensure all necessary information 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 131 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3105 is collected. This proposal would also ensure consistency between State recordkeeping 

3106 requirements for RUP dealers and existing Federal recordkeeping requirements, which govern 

3107 recordkeeping by RUP dealers that operate in areas covered by EPA-administered certification 

3108 programs. 

3109 The proposed regulatory language for the proposed RUP dealer recordkeeping 

3110 requirement would be located at 40 CFR 171.303(b)(6)(vii). 

3111 vi. Certified Applicator Credentials. The certification regulation does not currently have 

3112 requirements for what information States must include on applicator certification documents. 

3113 EPA proposes to require States to issue appropriate credentials or documents verifying 

3114 certification of applicators, containing all of the following information: 

3115 • The full name of the certified applicator. 

3116 • The certification, license, or credential number of the certified applicator. 

3117 • The type of certification (private or commercial). 

3118 • The category(ies), including any application method-specific category(ies) and 

3119 subcategories of certification, in which the applicator is certified, as applicable. 

3120 • The expiration date of the certification. 

3121 • A Statement that the certification is based on a certification issued by another State, 

3122 Tribe or Federal agency, if applicable, and the identity of that State, Tribe or Federal agency. 

3123 It is reasonable to expect that requiring consistent information on applicator certification 

3124 across all certifying agencies would assist States in evaluating certification documents presented 

3125 by applicators certified in another State, would assist dealers in reviewing certification 

3126 information, and would assist enforcement agents in evaluating the applicator’s certification 

3127 document during an inspection. 

3128 The proposed regulatory text for applicator certification credentials would be located at 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 132 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3129 40 CFR 171.303(a)(6). 

3130 vii. Reciprocal Applicator Certification. The current provisions do not require States to 

3131 provide specific information about State requirements and procedures for reciprocity. States have 

3132 requested that EPA take action to establish standards to allow reciprocal certification between 

3133 States and to standardize the process. Based on the request by States and to facilitate the 

3134 certification of applicators working in more than one State, EPA proposes to require State 

3135 certification plans to specify whether (and if so, under what circumstances) the State would 

3136 certify applicators based, in whole or in part, on the applicator having been certified by another 

3137 State, Tribe, or Federal agency. Under the proposed rule, such certifications would be subject to 

3138 all of the following conditions: 

3139 • A State may only rely on current, valid certifications issued under an approved State, 

3140 Tribal or Federal agency certification plan, and may only rely on a certification issued by a State, 

3141 Tribe or Federal agency that issued its certification based on an independent determination of 

3142 competency without reliance on any other existing certification or authority. For each category of 

3143 certification that will be accepted, the standards of competency in the State, Tribe or Federal 

3144 agency that originally certified the applicator must be comparable to the standards of the 

3145 accepting State. 

3146 • Any certification that is based, in whole or in part, on the applicator having been 

3147 certified by another State, Tribe or Federal agency must terminate immediately if the applicator’s 

3148 original certification terminates for any reason. 

3149 • Any State which chooses to certify applicators based, in whole or in part, on the 

3150 applicator having been certified by another State, Tribe, or Federal agency, must implement a 

3151 mechanism to ensure the State will immediately terminate an applicator's certification if the 

3152 applicator’s original certification terminates for any reason. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 133 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3153 • The State issuing a certification based, in whole or in part, on the applicator having 

3154 been certified by another State, Tribe or Federal agency must issue an appropriate credential or 

3155 document in accordance with the requirements of this section. 

3156 The proposed regulatory text related to States issuing certifications based on applicator 

3157 certification credentials obtained in other jurisdictions would be located at 40 CFR 

3158 171.303(a)(7). 

3159 viii. State plan maintenance, modification, and withdrawal. EPA proposes to replace the 

3160 existing provisions related to maintenance, modification, and withdrawals of State certification 

3161 plans. The proposed revisions would clarify the types of plan changes that constitute substantial 

3162 modifications and therefore require additional review and approval by EPA. The proposed 

3163 revisions would codify existing interim program policy and guidance issued by EPA in 2006 

3164 (Ref. 41). 

3165 The regulatory text for modification and withdrawal of State plans will be located at 40 

3166 CFR 171.309. 

3167 4. Costs. EPA estimates the proposed revisions to the State certification plan 

3168 requirements will include 3 costs: Revising State requirements to meet EPA’s proposed 

3169 standards, updating State plans for submission to and approval by EPA, and adding a 

3170 requirement for dealers to maintain records of RUP sales. The current rule requires States to 

3171 require commercial applicators to keep records; the proposal merely clarifies the content of the 

3172 records and therefore is not expected to result in costs to the applicator or States. 

3173 EPA estimates that States would incur a one-time cost of about $119,000 annually for the 

3174 first two years to revise and finalize pesticide applicator laws and regulations that meet or exceed 

3175 EPA’s proposed requirement. Once States have revised their laws and regulations, they will need 

3176 to draft and submit a revised plan for applicator certification to EPA for approval. Since EPA 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 134 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3177 already requires States to update plans as appropriate and to report necessary information to EPA 

3178 annually, EPA estimates the cost of this process would be about $4,000 annually for the first two 

3179 years after implementation across all States. 

3180 Finally, it is reasonable to expect that the requirement for RUP dealers to maintain 

3181 records of RUP sales will not impose any burden on the regulated community. All States already 

3182 require RUP applicators to maintain such records. However, a few States may have to do 

3183 additional revisions to their laws and regulations to ensure the State recordkeeping requirement 

3184 mirrors the proposed Federal requirement. There is no estimated cost associated with this 

3185 proposal because all States already require RUP dealers to maintain records of sales. 

3186 5. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered requiring 

3187 States to make available publically a list of all applicators certified by the State. Under this 

3188 alternative, such a list could be made available electronically, e.g., via the internet. Such a list 

3189 could be used by the public to verify whether the pest control operator hired to perform the 

3190 application was certified. States already maintain information on the persons who hold valid 

3191 certifications. States maintain the information in varying formats – some keep paper files, while 

3192 others maintain an electronic database that is updated in real time as certifications are earned and 

3193 expired. Some States have chosen to publish the information on the internet. Some States may 

3194 have restrictions on publishing information online, but would make it available upon request. 

3195 Because the States do not have a uniform manner to track and make available electronically the 

3196 names of all certified applicators, and the public may already have access to this information in 

3197 varying forms in each State, it is not necessary impose a requirement at the Federal level. 

3198 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3199 • EPA is not proposing to require States to adopt all applicable Federal categories to 

3200 address reciprocity between jurisdictions, because it would burden States and applicators, and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 135 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3201 protections may not be improved. Are there approaches to facilitate reciprocity that would 

3202 minimize burdens and disruption at the lead agency level and improve protections? Please 

3203 describe these approaches and how they may be implemented. 

3204 • Are there benefits, that EPA has not considered, to requiring States to adopt Federal 

3205 certification categories? If so, please explain the benefits and how they would impact 

3206 competency standards for national certification categories. 

3207 • Would the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements impose unnecessary 

3208 burden on States, farmers, small businesses, or other entities? If so, who would bear unnecessary 

3209 burden and why? 

3210 • Should EPA consider requiring records to be retained for a different period? If so, what 

3211 how long should records be retained and why? 

3212 • Are there other types of information that EPA should consider collecting from States, 

3213 RUP dealers, or commercial applicators? 

3214 • Is there any other information related to reciprocal certification that EPA should 

3215 consider incorporating into the regulation? If so, please indicate which information should be 

3216 added or deleted and why. 

3217 • Should EPA consider adding to or deleting from the required elements of the applicator 

3218 certification document? If so, please indicate which information should be added or deleted and 

3219 why. 

3220 • Should EPA consider requiring States to make available publically a list of all 

3221 applicators holding a valid certification? If so, should the list be available electronically? Should 

3222 the list be updated in real time, or would periodic updates be acceptable? If periodic updates are 

3223 chosen, what period would be reasonable? 

3224 • Should EPA consider requiring certifying authorities to require their commercial 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 136 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3225 applicators to report incidents that would meet the reporting criteria of 40 CFR 159.184 of this 

3226 chapter if known to the pesticide registrant 

3227 XVI. Establish Provision for Review and Approval of Federal Agency Plans 

3228 1. Overview. In order to codify Agency policy on Federal agency certification plans, EPA 

3229 proposes to delete from the current regulation the section on GAP (40 CFR 171.9) and to codify 

3230 EPA’s 1977 policy on review and approval of Federal agency plans. 

3231 2. Existing regulation. The certification rule covers GAP certifications, outlining a 

3232 process for certifying employees of Federal agencies to use RUPs in the course of their duties 

3233 under a government-wide GAP. 40 CFR 171.9. The 1974 proposal (39 FR 6730; February 22, 

3234 1974) included a special process for certifying employees of Federal agencies, but the process 

3235 was not included in the final rule. A subsequent Federal Register Notice (40 FR 2528; January 

3236 13, 1975) outlined a proposed process for certifying employees of Federal agencies under a 

3237 government-wide GAP. The GAP certification process was included in the final revised rule (40 

3238 FR 11699; March 12, 1975), but a GAP was never developed or implemented by EPA or the 

3239 Federal government. In 1977, EPA announced a policy that provided an alternative approach for 

3240 Federal employee certification (42 FR 41907; August 19, 1977). Under this policy, EPA allows 

3241 Federal agencies to submit their own plans for the certification of RUP applicators; EPA 

3242 approves the Federal plans provided they meet or exceed EPA’s standards. In the policy, EPA 

3243 noted that the standards for Federal agency plans were to be essentially equal to or more 

3244 stringent than requirements for State plans. Four Federal agencies currently have EPA-approved 

3245 Federal agency plans. The Departments of Agriculture and Defense have certification plans that 

3246 were revised and approved in 2009. The Departments of Energy and the Interior have plans that 

3247 were approved prior to 1990. 

3248 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to delete the current text at 40 CFR 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 137 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3249 171.9. EPA proposes to codify the August 19, 1977, policy covering Federal agency plans, and 

3250 to clarify the standards that Federal agencies must meet. The proposed revisions include the 

3251 following requirements: Federal agencies must comply with all applicable standards for 

3252 certification, recordkeeping, and other similar requirements for State/Tribal plans; Federal 

3253 agencies must ensure compliance with applicable State pesticide use laws and regulations, 

3254 including those pertaining to special certification requirements and use reporting, when applying 

3255 pesticides on State lands; Federal agencies must comply with all applicable Executive Orders; 

3256 and Federal agencies must conform to standards established for States related to maintenance of 

3257 plans and annual reporting. 

3258 The proposed regulatory language concerning Federal agency plans will be located at 40 CFR 

3259 171.305. 

3260 4. Costs. EPA estimates negligible burden associated with this requirement. Although 

3261 Federal agencies with existing plans would be required to revise and resubmit their certification 

3262 plans to be in compliance with the revised proposed rule resulting in some administrative burden 

3263 for these Federal agencies, EPA believes that the administrative burden associated with plan 

3264 revisions would not be significant for two reasons. First, the four Federal agencies currently 

3265 administering certification plans appear to be the only Federal agencies interested in certifying 

3266 applicators and so this proposal will not have a substantial impact on most Federal agencies. 

3267 Second, Federal agencies with existing certification plans have revised their plans to address 

3268 changing needs within their certification programs, so revisions required by this proposal would 

3269 not significantly increase the burden above that which they already incur. 

3270 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3271 • Is there any reason for EPA to retain the GAP provisions in the current rule? If so, why? 

3272 XVII. Clarify Options for Establishing a Certification Program in Indian Country 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 138 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3273 1. Overview. In order to provide more workable applicator certification options in Indian 

3274 country, EPA proposes to revise the mechanisms available to Tribes for certifying pesticide 

3275 applicators. 

3276 2. Existing regulation. The current rule provides three options for applicator certification 

3277 programs in Indian country: Tribes may utilize State certification to certify applicators (requires 

3278 concurrence by the State(s) and an appropriate State-Tribal cooperative agreement); Tribes may 

3279 develop and implement a Tribal certification plan (requires Tribes to develop and submit an 

3280 appropriate Tribal certification plan to EPA for approval); or EPA may administer a Federal 

3281 certification plan for applicators in Indian country, such as EPA’s national plan for Indian 

3282 country (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014). 

3283 Currently, only a few Tribes have been approved by EPA to administer certification 

3284 plans. In those areas of Indian country without an EPA-approved State or Tribal certification 

3285 plan in effect, EPA administers a certification plan to ensure that RUPs are used only by certified 

3286 applicators or noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. 

3287 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. Consistent with EPA’s Indian Policy and 

3288 Tribal Consultation Policy, EPA engaged in a formal consultation process with Tribes 

3289 summarized in Unit XXII. 

3290 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise the mechanisms for 

3291 establishing applicator certification programs in Indian country. EPA would revise the option 

3292 where a Tribe relies on State certification and the option for EPA-administered certification 

3293 plans in Indian country. EPA would also amend the requirements for Tribal-implemented 

3294 certification plans to require Tribal plans to incorporate the proposed revisions to applicator 

3295 certification standards. 

3296 First, the proposal would revise the current option for Tribes to rely on State certification 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 139 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3297 by eliminating the requirement for Tribes to enter into cooperative agreements with States. This 

3298 option would be replaced by an option to enter into agreements with EPA Regional offices to 

3299 establish certification programs in Indian country. The proposed revisions would allow Tribes to 

3300 enter into agreements with EPA to recognize the certification of applicators who hold a 

3301 certificate issued under one or more specific EPA-approved State, Tribal or Federal agency 

3302 certification plans, without the need for State-Tribal cooperative agreements and with little 

3303 burden on States or Tribes. EPA would retain relevant enforcement responsibilities in areas of 

3304 Indian country covered by a certification plan implemented in this manner. 

3305 Second, EPA proposes to clarify that EPA can include multiple Tribes and/or multiple 

3306 geographic areas of Indian country under one single EPA-administered plan. This option makes 

3307 explicit EPA’s authority to implement a nation-wide certification plan that would cover 

3308 applicators using RUPs in any part of Indian country unless a Tribe specifically requests to be 

3309 excluded from the plan prior to the conclusion of the public comment period or elects to use one 

3310 of the other mechanisms available to certify applicators. This proposal is merely a clarification 

3311 of the existing rule, and EPA has already established a national plan for certification of 

3312 applicators in Indian country. EPA implemented the EPA Plan for the Federal Certification of 

3313 Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) within Indian Country in 2014. 79 FR 7185; 

3314 February 6, 2014. The EPA-administered plan serves those areas of Indian country throughout 

3315 the United States where no other certification mechanism exists. 

3316 Third, the proposal would update the requirements for Tribal plans by requiring those 

3317 Tribes that choose to manage their own certification plan to adopt the new standards being 

3318 proposed for State and Federal agency certification plans in regard to initial certification and 

3319 recertification of private and commercial applicators and the training and supervision of 

3320 noncertified applicators who apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 140 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3321 The proposal would also eliminate current requirements for States to include in their State 

3322 certification plans references to any agreements with Tribes for recognizing the States’ 

3323 certificates. 

3324 The proposed revisions would ensure that Tribes are generally subject to the same 

3325 certification program standards applicable to States, Federal agencies, and EPA-administered 

3326 programs. However, certain separate requirements would be included in the Indian country 

3327 provision relating to the exercise of criminal enforcement authority. EPA recognizes that certain 

3328 limitations exist regarding Tribes’ ability to exercise criminal enforcement authority. In such 

3329 circumstances, it is appropriate to retain primary criminal enforcement authority with the Federal 

3330 government and has proposed requirements for Tribes and EPA to enter into relevant agreements 

3331 regarding the exchange of potential investigative leads. These requirements are similar to EPA’s 

3332 approach to criminal enforcement authority in the context of other EPA rules addressing Tribal 

3333 programs under Federal environmental laws. See, e.g., 40 CFR 49.8. The proposed revisions 

3334 would enhance the ability of Tribal programs to develop and implement certification plans and 

3335 programs for those Tribes that choose to manage their own certification plans, and would 

3336 provide practicable alternatives for those Tribes that do not. The proposed revisions may require 

3337 some Tribes with a current, EPA-approved certification plan to make changes to Tribal laws, 

3338 regulations, or code. EPA intends to consider the potential impacts of Tribal legislative changes 

3339 and Tribal plan revision when establishing effective dates for the final rule. 

3340 Once final, the regulatory language for the proposed options for applicator certification in 

3341 Indian country would be located at 40 CFR 171.307. 

3342 5. Costs. The costs associated with these changes should be negligible because they 

3343 primarily result in clarification of requirements and policy, not in the imposition of substantial 

3344 new requirements or obligations on the part of Tribes. EPA does not believe the proposed 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 141 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3345 revisions would place any unreasonable burden on Tribes because they do not require Tribes to 

3346 implement certification programs. These proposed revisions would require existing Tribal 

3347 certification plans to be revised and resubmitted to EPA for review and approval. EPA estimates 

3348 the costs to these Tribes would be similar to the costs to States for updating and submitting to 

3349 EPA for approval a revised certification plan. Because there are currently only four Tribes with 

3350 an EPA-approved certification plan the proposed changes to certification mechanisms in Indian 

3351 country should not result in a significant impact on Tribal entities or programs as a whole. 

3352 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3353 • Are there other mechanisms EPA should consider for certification of RUP applicators in 

3354 Indian country? If so, please describe the additional mechanism(s), how they would be 

3355 implemented, and the benefit to Tribes, applicators, human health, and the environment. 

3356 XVIII. Revise Provisions for EPA-Administered Plans 

3357 1. Overview. To update requirements for EPA-administered plans to conform with the 

3358 proposed changes to the regulation, EPA proposes to amend the section of the rule dealing with 

3359 EPA-administered plans. 

3360 2. Existing regulation. The current rule establishes requirements for EPA-administered 

3361 certification in States or areas of Indian country without EPA-approved certification plans in 

3362 place, including specific standards for certification and recertification of pesticide applicators. 40 

3363 CFR 171.11. 

3364 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise the current section outlining 

3365 the requirements for an EPA-administered Federal certification plan to incorporate the proposed 

3366 changes to State certification plans related to RUP applicator certification, recertification, and 

3367 noncertified applicator qualifications, as well as plan reporting and maintenance requirements. 

3368 The rules governing EPA-administered certification programs should be constructed in a way 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 142 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3369 that minimizes administrative burden on EPA and the regulated community and reduces costs to 

3370 taxpayers, while still providing EPA with the tools necessary to protect human health and the 

3371 environment. The proposed revisions would make requirements for the certification and 

3372 recertification of RUP applicators and supervision of noncertified applicators parallel to the 

3373 requirements proposed for States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies. 

3374 The proposed regulatory language covering EPA-administered plans would be located at 

3375 40 CFR 171.311. 

3376 4. Costs. EPA estimates the costs associated with this proposal would be negligible. EPA 

3377 currently administers two certification plans – one for the Navajo Tribe (72 FR 32648; June 13, 

3378 2007) and one for certification in Indian country (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014). It is reasonable 

3379 to expect that the costs of updating these plans to conform to the proposed changes would be 

3380 relatively low. 

3381 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3382 • Should EPA consider other revisions to the provisions for EPA-administered plans? If 

3383 so, please describe the additional revision(s), how they would be implemented, and the benefit(s) 

3384 to applicators, human health, and the environment. 

3385 XIX: Revise Definitions and Restructure 40 CFR Part 171 

3386 A. Improved Definitions 

3387 EPA proposes to revise the definitions in the certification regulation to add several new 

3388 definitions and to eliminate several unnecessary definitions. EPA expects that improved 

3389 definitions would reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and thereby improve compliance and 

3390 enforceability. 

3391 These proposed revisions to the definitions adopt more widely used and commonly 

3392 accepted “plain English” language, and add clarity and consistency to the rule. The proposed 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 143 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3393 revisions to the definitions also help address issues raised by State regulatory partners and other 

3394 program stakeholders. EPA does not believe the proposed revisions to the definitions will add 

3395 new regulatory requirements on the regulated community or substantially increase regulatory 

3396 burden. 

3397 The revised and new definitions would be located at 40 CFR 171.3. 

3398 1. Revised definitions. The Agency proposes to revise the following existing definitions: 

3399 “act,” “dealership,” “compatibility,” “non-target organism,” “ornamental,” “principal place of 

3400 business,” and “toxicity.” 

3401 2. New definitions. The Agency also proposes to add the following new definitions: 

3402 “application,” “application method,” “fumigant,” “fumigation, “Indian country,” “Indian Tribe,” 

3403 “noncertified applicator,” “personal protective equipment,” “use,” and “use site specific 

3404 guidance.” 

3405 3. Definitions to be deleted. The Agency proposes to delete the following existing 

3406 definitions from 40 CFR part 171 because they are no longer necessary as a result of other 

3407 proposed revisions to the existing rule or are already defined in FIFRA: “Act,” “Agency,” 

3408 “forest,” “uncertified person,” and “hazard.” 

3409 4. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3410 • Are there other terms that EPA should consider adding, clarifying, redefining, or 

3411 eliminating from the rule? If so, please provide detail about the term(s) and rationale for change. 

3412 B. Restructuring of 40 CFR Part 171 

3413 In order to improve clarity and implement the principles of using plain language in 

3414 regulations, EPA proposes to reorganize the structure of 40 CFR 171. EPA expects the revised 

3415 40 CFR 171 will be easier to read and understand, improving compliance by applicators and 

3416 other program stakeholders. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 144 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3417 1. Existing 40 CFR 171. At this time 40 CFR 171 is a single part with no subparts. The 

3418 first sections (40 CFR 171.1-6) describe the standards for commercial and private applicators, 

3419 requirements for persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, 

3420 definitions, and a statement of purpose. The second half of the rule (40 CFR 171.7-11) describes 

3421 the procedures for States, Tribes, Federal agencies, and EPA to administer a certification 

3422 program. The rule has a section titled “Government Agency Plan” describing a plan covering the 

3423 entire Federal government that was not implemented. EPA has received feedback that this 

3424 section is difficult to understand and seems irrelevant. 

3425 2. This proposal. The proposal would reorganize the rule into four subparts: “General 

3426 Provisions,” “Certification Requirements for Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides,” 

3427 “Supervision of Noncertified Applicators,” and “Certification Plans.” The General Provisions 

3428 section would include the sections on scope, definitions, and effective date. The Certification 

3429 Requirements for Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides section would include all standards 

3430 for the certification and recertification of commercial and private applicators. The Supervision of 

3431 Noncertified Applicators section would include all relevant standards for the certified applicator 

3432 and the noncertified applicator using RUPs under his or her direct supervision. The Certification 

3433 Plans section would include requirements for States, Tribes, and Federal agencies to submit and 

3434 modify their certification plans, as well as a description of an EPA-administered applicator 

3435 certification plan. 

3436 EPA expects that the restructured rule will facilitate understanding of the rule by 

3437 applicators and authorized agencies because it deletes obsolete provisions and uses clearer 

3438 language. 

3439 3. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. EPA considered two 

3440 additional changes to the organization of the regulation. First, EPA considered moving the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 145 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3441 paragraph titled “Determination of Competency” proposed as 40 CFR 171.103(a) to the 

3442 beginning of subpart B as an independent, introductory section. Second, EPA considered moving 

3443 the paragraph titled “Examination Standards” proposed as 40 CFR 171.103(b) to subpart D 

3444 related to certification plans. Keeping the standards related to determining competency and 

3445 administering competency exams in the same section as the specific competency standards that 

3446 applicators must meet is a more reasonable organization of the regulation because these two 

3447 sections are related to how commercial applicator competency is determined. Therefore, EPA 

3448 does not propose the two changes discussed in this unit. 

3449 4. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3450 • Is the restructuring clearer? Is it easier to read and understand? 

3451 • Are there other ways that EPA could simplify or clarify 40 CFR 171? If so, please 

3452 describe. 

3453 • Should EPA consider alternate organizations of the regulation? If so, please provide a 

3454 proposal and rationale for reorganization. 

3455 XX. Implementation 

3456 EPA proposes to make the final rule effective 60 days after the promulgated rule is 

3457 published in the Federal Register. Compliance with certain provisions of the rule would be 

3458 delayed. Existing certification plans could remain in effect for up to four years after the effective 

3459 date of the final rule. Beginning four years after the effective date of the final rule, a State, Tribe, 

3460 Federal agency, and EPA would only be permitted to certify applicators of RUPs in accordance 

3461 with a certification plan that meets or exceeds all of the applicable requirements of the final 

3462 regulation and that has been approved by EPA after the effective date of the rule. 

3463 States, Tribes, and Federal agencies administering EPA-approved certification plans 

3464 would be required to submit amended certification plans to EPA for approval within two years of 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 146 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3465 the effective date of the final rule. EPA intends to review and respond to all certification plans 

3466 submitted within 2 years of the effective date. This would allow ample time for EPA, Tribes, 

3467 Federal agencies, and State regulators time to make the necessary changes to certification plans, 

3468 and for these and other stakeholders to implement the new certification procedures. EPA expects 

3469 that applicators may need to be certified in new categories and noncertified applicators could 

3470 need training to meet the new standard. States, Tribes, and Federal agencies administering EPA3471 approved certification plans would need to become familiar with the new regulation and conduct 

3472 outreach to the regulated community. Certified applicators and trainers of noncertified 

3473 applicators would have to become familiar with the noncertified applicator training content, 

3474 ensure that they meet any eligibility requirements, and obtain training materials if necessary. As 

3475 resources permit and if the final rule includes the relevant provisions from the proposal, EPA 

3476 intends to develop training materials for noncertified applicators working under the direct 

3477 supervision of a certified applicator and for certification in a non-soil fumigation category. 

3478 Materials currently exist that can be modified to support general certification for private 

3479 applicators, and EPA has developed and distributed to States training materials for aerial 

3480 applicators and soil fumigation categories. 

3481 To facilitate implementation, EPA plans to issue a guidance document at the time the 

3482 final rule is published, to provide assistance to States, and to conduct outreach to potentially 

3483 affected parties. 

3484 EPA requests comment on the proposed implementation of the rule. Specifically, EPA 

3485 requests feedback on the following: 

3486 • Would States and Tribes be able to amend and submit revised certification plans for 

3487 EPA approval within 2 years of the effective date of the final rule? 

3488 • If the proposed implementation schedule does not seem reasonable, please provide 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 147 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3489 specific comments on why the proposal is not reasonable and provide specific suggestions of an 

3490 alternate schedule and why it would be reasonable. 

3491 • Would States, Tribes, and Federal agencies need additional time after EPA approves the 

3492 revised certification plan that meets or exceeds the requirements of the final rule in order to bring 

3493 certified applicators into compliance with the new requirements? If so, how much time would be 

3494 needed? What activities would be conducted? 

3495 • Would the implementation schedule be reasonable if EPA provided exams and training 

3496 materials for the proposed additional categories? 

3497 • What support would States, Tribes, and Federal agencies require from EPA during the 

3498 implementation of the provisions of the final rule? 

3499 • If EPA evaluates the effectiveness and/or the impacts and benefits of the rule, what 

3500 timeframe should be used to conduct the evaluation, e.g., should EPA begin a review after the 

3501 rule is fully implemented or a specific time period after full implementation? For how long 

3502 should EPA conduct the evaluation? Please provide additional information on methodology that 

3503 could be used to conduct any evaluation. 

3504 XXI. References

3505 The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 

3506 rulemaking. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA. For 

3507 assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR 

3508 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

3509 1. Certification Plan and Reporting Database. http://cpard.wsu.edu/reports/menu.aspx. 

3510 2. EPA. 1987-2004 Annual Certified Applicator Data. 

3511 http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/data.htm. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 148 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3512 3. DOL. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 

3513 Library Edition. Bulletin 2800. Washington, DC. 

3514 4. EPA. OPP Report on Incidence Information: The Baseline. 2007. 

3515 5. Harchselroad, F., et al. Treated vs reported toxic exposures: discrepancies between a 

3516 poison control center and a member hospital. Vetinary and Human Toxicology, April 1990, Vol. 

3517 32, pp. 156-159. 

3518 6. Bahamon, C., Chafee, et al. Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a Regional Poison 

3519 Information Center. American Journal of Public Health. April 4, 1983. Vol. 73, pp. 396-400. 

3520 7. Veltri, et al. Interpretation and uses of data collected in poison control centres in the 

3521 United States. Medical Toxicology and Adverse Drug Experience, November-December 1987. 

3522 Vol. 6, pp. 389-97. 

3523 8. EPA. Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Applicator Certification 

3524 Regulation. 2014. 

3525 9. NIOSH. Data from the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk – 

3526 Pesticides Program. 2014. 

3527 10. National Institutes of Health. Agricultural Health Study. http://aghealth.nih.gov. 

3528 11. Arthur, W., Bennett Jr., W., Stanush, P., and McNelly, T. Factors That Influence Skill 

3529 Decay and Retention: A Quantitative Review and Analysis. Human Performance. 1998, Vol. 11, 

3530 pp. 57-101. 

3531 12. Calabro, K, Bright, K and Kouzekanani, K. Long-Term Effectiveness of Infection 

3532 Control Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Medical Education Online, Vol. 5, pp. 

3533 1-7. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 149 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3534 13. Lee, S-J., Mehler, L., Beckman, J., Diebolt-Brown, B., Prado, J., Lackovic, M., et al. 

3535 Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural 

3536 Applications. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2011, Vol. 119, pp. 1162-1169. 

3537 14. EPA. Review of Methyl Parathion Incident Reports. February 5, 1998. 

3538 15. EPA. Office of the Inspector General. Result of Assessment of Controls Over 

3539 Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites. Sept. 23, 1997. Report No. E1SFB7-06-

3540 0020-7400069. 

3541 16. Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M. and Hare, T.A. The Adolescent Brain. Annals of the New 

3542 York Academy of Sciences. March 2008, pp. 111-126. 

3543 17. HHS, PHS, CDC, NIOSH. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

3544 (NIOSH) Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor for Changes to Hazardous Orders. 

3545 May 3, 2002. 

3546 18. (Im)maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Why Adolescents May Be Less Culpable 

3547 Than Adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2000, Vol. 18, pp. 741-760. 

3548 19. State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group. Report of the EPA/SFIREG 

3549 Certification and Training Task Force. August 1985. 

3550 20. Certification and Training Assessment Group. Pesticide Safety for the 21st Century. 

3551 1999. 

3552 21. EPA. National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program. 

3553 http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workshops.htm. 

3554 22. EPA, OPP. Report on the National Assessment of EPA's Pesticide Worker Safety 

3555 Program. 2005. 

3556 23. EPA, OPP. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety Regulation 

3557 Change Subgroup, Summary of PREP and PPDC Comments. Washington, DC 2007. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 150 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3558 24. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions to Two Related 

3559 Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and 

3560 Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Final Report. November 3, 2008. 

3561 25. Calvert, G M, et al. Acute Pesticide-related Illnesses Among Working Youths, 1988-

3562 1999. American Journal of Public Health. April 2003, Vol. 93, pp. 605-610. 

3563 26. CTAG. Requiring Written Examinations for Approval of State Certification 

3564 Programs. 2003. 

3565 27. EPA. Pesticide Applicator Certification in Indian Country. 

3566 http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification-indian-country/training-private3567 applicators-indian-country. 

3568 28. EPA, OPP. Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dazomat. 2009. 

3569 29. EPA, OPP. Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision for the 

3570 Methyldithiocarbamate Salts (Metam-sodium, Metam-potassium) and Methyl Isothiocyanate 

3571 (MITC). 2009. 

3572 30. EPA, OPP. Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Methyl Bromide. 2009. 

3573 31. AAPCO. Letter to EPA Re: Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Soil 

3574 Fumigant Dockets. October 30, 2008. 

3575 32. EPA. Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training for Soil Fumigation 

3576 Category/Subcategory. Last updated: November 2012. http://www2.epa.gov/soil-fumigants/soil3577 fumigant-training-certified-applicators. 

3578 33. NASDARF. Soil Fumigation Manual. 2012. 

3579 34. NASDARF. Aerial Applicator's Manual. 2009. 

3580 35. AAPCO. Letter to EPA. January 26, 2010. 

3581 http://www.aapco.org/documents/FumigantLtr_Owens012610.pdf. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 151 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3582 36. Dwinell, Steven on behalf of SFIREG. Letter to EPA. December 23, 2010. 

3583 http://www.aapco.org/documents/SFIREGtoBradburyKeigwin122310.pdf . 

3584 37. AAPSE. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Soil Fumigant Dockets. 

3585 Letter to EPA. October 29, 2008. 

3586 http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/aapse/sites/default/files/AAPSE%20comments%20on%20fumigants%20R

3587 ED.pdf. 

3588 38. AAPSE. Letter to EPA. July 28, 2009. 

3589 http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/aapse/sites/default/files/FINAL%20EPA_LabelMandatedTraining2008.pd

3590 f. 

3591 39. EPA, OPP. Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Sodium Fluoroacetate. EPA 738-R3592 95-025. September 1995. 

3593 40. EPA, OPP. Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Sodium Cyanide. EPA 738-R-94-020. 

3594 September 1994. 

3595 41. EPA. Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA's 

3596 Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (40 CFR Part 171). July 2006. 

3597 42. CTAG. Exam Administration and Security Procedures Manual. National Association 

3598 of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 2006. 

3599 43. CTAG. Positive Identification Requirement for Pesticide Applicator Certification 

3600 Exams. 2006. 

3601 44. CTAG. Pesticide Applicator Recertification: Verifying Attendance at Recertification 

3602 Events. 2009. 

3603 45. EPA. PREP Discussion Report. 2007. 

3604 46. CTIA, The Wireless Association. Wireless Quick Facts. Last updated: November 

3605 2013. http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless-works/wireless-quick-facts. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 152 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3606 47. CTAG. Minimum-Age Requirement for Certification to Use Restricted Use Pesticides 

3607 (RUP). 2004. 

3608 48. Masten, S., Foss, R., Marshall, S. Graduated driver licensing program component 

3609 calibrations and their association with fatal crash involvement. Accident Analysis and 

3610 Prevention. August 2013, Vol. 57, pp. 105-113. 

3611 49. Williams, A. and Shults, R. Graduated Driver Licensing Research, 2007–Present: A 

3612 Review and Commentary. Journal of Safety Research. April 2010, Vol. 41, 2, pp. 77-84. 

3613 50. EPA and USDA. Memorandum of Understanding: Restricted Use Pesticide 

3614 Applicator Recordkeeping. 1995. 

3615 51. EPA. Amended ICR for Certification Rule, 2499.01. 2014. 

3616 52. EPA, OPP. Summary of Consultation with Tribes on the Certification of Pesticide 

3617 Applicators Regulation. 2010. 

3618 XXII. FIFRA Review Requirements 

3619 Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has submitted a draft of the proposed rule to the 

3620 Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate Congressional Committees. Their 

3621 comments on this proposed rule and EPA’s responses are located in the docket for this 

3622 rulemaking. 

3623 The Scientific Advisory Panel waived its review of this proposal on September 4, 2014.

3624 XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

3625 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and, Executive Order 13563: 

3626 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

3627 This action is a significant regulatory action because it may raise novel legal or policy 

3628 issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in 

3629 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted the action 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 153 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3630 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 

3631 Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to 

3632 OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic 

3633 analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, which is summarized in 

3634 Unit III.B. This economic analysis is available in the docket (Ref. 8). 

3635 B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

3636 The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

3637 approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request 

3638 (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2499.01 (OMB 

3639 Control No. 2070-NEW). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, 

3640 and it is briefly summarized here (Ref. 51). 

3641 The information collection activities related to the existing certification regulation are 

3642 already approved by OMB in an ICR titled “Certification of Pesticide Applicators” (EPA ICR 

3643 No. 0155.10; OMB Control No. 2070-0029). Therefore, EPA ICR number 2499.01 (OMB 

3644 Control No. 2070-NEW) only addresses the proposed changes to the certification regulation. 

3645 These include: 

3646 • Updating the information States, Tribes, and Federal agencies report to EPA 

3647 • Updating the process and requirements for modifying a certification plan 

3648 • Adding a provision for States to require recordkeeping by RUP dealers 

3649 • Adding specific requirements for noncertified applicator qualification through training 

3650 • Adding a provision for commercial applicators to maintain records of noncertified 

3651 applicator training 

3652 Respondents/affected entities: Certified applicators; private and commercial. The number of 

3653 applicators is based on the Certification Plan and Reporting Database for the years 2008 to 2013 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 154 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3654 (CPARD, 2014), there are 364,579 commercial applicators and 455,278 private applicators. 

3655 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified applicators. It is 

3656 estimated that there are 947,275 noncertified applicators who apply RUPs under the direct 

3657 supervision of commercial certified applicators, and there are 81,678 noncertified applicators 

3658 under the direct supervision of private certified applicators. 

3659 RUP dealers. EPA estimates that there are approximately 10,000 retail dealers. 

3660 According to the Agricultural Retailers Association, there are approximately 9,000 agricultural 

3661 retailers in the United States. Not all are licensed to sell RUPs. EPA estimates that there are far 

3662 fewer nonagricultural pesticide retailers licensed to sell RUPs, given that RUPs are generally not 

3663 labeled for use in residential and other public areas, even by a certified applicator. 

3664 Authorized agencies. Authorized agencies are the entities that are federally authorized to 

3665 administer applicator certification plans under 40 CFR 171. Authorized agencies includes States, 

3666 territories, federally recognized Tribes and Federal agencies authorized to operate certification 

3667 programs. In addition to the 50 States, there are 4 plans for the US territories (Puerto Rico, DC, 

3668 US Virgin Islands, and Pacific Islands), 4 Tribal plans, and 5 approved Federal agency 

3669 certification plans. Federal agencies include DOD, DOE, USDA APHISPPQ, USDA Forest 

3670 Service (the 2 USDA plans are separate plans), and DOI (the DOI plan covers 3 agencies within 

3671 DOI BLM, BIA and NPS, but no others). Wage rates vary according to the entity 

3672 Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (7 U.S.C. 136–136y, particularly 

3673 sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w). 

3674 Estimated number of respondents: 1,749,265 

3675 Frequency of response: Rule familiarization will occur annually for the first 3 years. 

3676 Revising and submitting certification plans will occur one time. Training of noncertified 

3677 applicators will occur annually. Recordkeeping of training of noncertified applicators working 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 155 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3678 under the direct supervision of commercial applicators will occur annually. Recordkeeping of 

3679 RUP sales will occur each time an RUP is sold, which EPA estimates will be 39 times per year. 

3680 Total estimated burden: 1,853,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

3681 1320.3(b).

3682 Total estimated cost: $57,363,250 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. 

3683 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

3684 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

3685 control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and on 

3686 applicable collect instruments. 

3687 Submit your comments on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

3688 burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using 

3689 the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 

3690 comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 

3691 oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to 

3692 make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive 

3693 comments no later than [insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

3694 The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. 

3695 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

3696 I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

3697 number of small entities under RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the 

3698 requirements of this action are private applicators, commercial applicators, and noncertified 

3699 applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision. The Agency has determined that for 

3700 private applicators, average impacts of the rule represent less than 1% of annual sales revenue for 

3701 the average small farm and even to small-small farms with sales of less than $10,000. Impacts to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 156 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3702 the smallest farms, especially in high-impact States, could exceed 2% of annual sales revenue but 

3703 the number of farms facing such impacts is small relative to the number of small farms affected 

3704 by the rule. For commercial applicators, average impacts of the rule represent less than 0.1% of 

3705 annual revenue for the average small firm. The impacts are expected to be around 0.1% of annual 

3706 revenue even for the high cost scenarios. Details of this analysis are presented in the Economic 

3707 Analysis for this action (Ref. 8). 

3708 Although EPA is not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business Advocacy 

3709 Review (SBAR) Panel because this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a 

3710 substantial number of small entities, EPA has nevertheless convened a panel to obtain advice and 

3711 recommendations from small entity representatives potentially subject to this rule’s 

3712 requirements. A copy of the SBAR Panel Report is included in the docket for this rulemaking 

3713 (Ref. 24). 

3714 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

3715 This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

3716 in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

3717 The proposed rule requirements would primarily affect certified applicators of RUPs. The total 

3718 estimated annualized cost of the proposed rule is $47.2 million. 

3719 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

3720 This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 

3721 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

3722 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

3723 responsibilities among the various levels of government. However, this action may be of 

3724 significant interest to State governments. Consistent with the EPA’s policy to promote 

3725 communications between the EPA and State and local governments, EPA consulted with State 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 157 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3726 officials early in the process of developing this rulemaking to permit them to have meaningful 

3727 and timely input into its development. EPA worked extensively with State partners when 

3728 considering revisions to the existing regulation and solicited feedback from States in a number of 

3729 ways, as discussed in Unit III. EPA carefully considered the input of State partners during the 

3730 development of this rulemaking in meetings with State pesticide regulatory officials and with 

3731 groups representing State pesticide regulatory agencies. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

3732 EPA specifically solicits comment on this rulemaking from State and local officials. 

3733 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

3734 This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

3735 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action would require Tribes that certify applicators to 

3736 perform RUP applications in Indian country to comply with the revised regulation. EPA 

3737 currently directly administers a national certification plan for Indian country (79 FR 7185; 

3738 February 6, 2014) and has implemented a specific certification plan for the Navajo Nation (72 

3739 FR 32648; June 13, 2007). As proposed, this rule provides Tribes with the option to develop and 

3740 administer their own applicator certification programs, to participate in the EPA-administered 

3741 applicator certification program for Indian country, or to enter into an agreement with EPA 

3742 regarding administration of an applicator certification program. As explained in Unit XVII., EPA 

3743 does not believe the proposed revisions would place any unreasonable burden on Tribes because 

3744 the proposed rule does not require Tribes to implement certification programs. There are 

3745 currently only four Tribes with an EPA-approved certification plan. The proposed rule would 

3746 require existing Tribal certification plans to be revised and resubmitted to EPA for review and 

3747 approval. The costs associated with the proposed changes should be negligible because they 

3748 primarily result in clarification of requirements and policy, not the imposition of substantial new 

3749 obligations on the part of Tribes. EPA estimates the costs to these Tribes would be similar to the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 158 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3750 costs to States for updating and submitting to EPA for approval a revised certification plan, and 

3751 that they would not result in a significant impact on Tribal entities or programs. Thus, Executive 

3752 Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

3753 Consistent with EPA’s Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA 

3754 consulted with Tribal officials during the development of this action. A summary of that 

3755 consultation is provided in the docket for this action (Ref. 52). 

3756 EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from Tribal 

3757 officials. 

3758 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

3759 Risks

3760 This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

3761 1997) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 

3762 Order 12866. However, it is reasonable to expect that the environmental health or safety risks 

3763 addressed in this proposed rule may have a disproportionate effect on children. 

3764 The primary risk to children that is within the scope of this rulemaking is exposure to 

3765 RUPs during their work as applicators of RUPs. The proposed rule is intended to minimize these 

3766 exposures and risks. By establishing a minimum age for persons to become a certified applicator 

3767 or to use RUPs as a noncertified applicator under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, 

3768 children would receive less exposure to pesticides that may lead to chronic or acute pesticide3769 related illness. In addition, the proposal expands training for noncertified applicators to include 

3770 topics that should also assist in reducing potential risks to children from incidental pesticide 

3771 exposure, such as avoiding bringing pesticide residues home on clothing. 

3772 Like DOL’s regulations that implement the FLSA, the proposed rule seeks to regulate the 

3773 ages at which children can apply pesticides. The proposed rule would establish a minimum age 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 159 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3774 of 18 for persons to become certified to apply RUPs and to apply RUPs as noncertified persons 

3775 under the direct supervision of certified applicators. Since many RUPs present heightened risks 

3776 to harm human health relative to other pesticides, EPA feels that they warrant special 

3777 consideration. EPA expects that the proposals to establish minimum ages would mitigate or 

3778 eliminate many risks faced by young applicators. 

3779 Additional information on EPA’s consideration of the risks to children in development of 

3780 this action can be found in Unit III.C.3. and in the economic analysis for this action (Ref. 8). 

3781 The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that 

3782 assess effects of early life exposure to pesticides. 

3783 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 

3784 Supply, Distribution, or Use 

3785 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

3786 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect 

3787 on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse 

3788 energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of 

3789 energy. 

3790 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

3791 This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would require Agency 

3792 consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. 

3793 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

3794 Populations and Low-Income Populations

3795 EPA believes that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse 

3796 human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, as 

3797 specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it increases the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 160 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3798 level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

3799 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

3800 including any minority or low-income population. 

3801 EPA engaged with stakeholders from impacted communities extensively in the 

3802 development of this rulemaking in order to seek meaningful involvement of all parties. The 

3803 Agency’s efforts to address environmental justice through this rulemaking were reviewed 

3804 repeatedly during the development of the rule and its supporting documents. The proposed 

3805 changes demonstrate EPA’s commitment to improving the health and safety of certified 

3806 applicators and noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision by changes 

3807 such as adding application method-specific categories, strengthening competency standards for 

3808 private applicators, adding training for noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct 

3809 supervision of a certified applicator, and establishing a minimum age for all persons using RUPs. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 161 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3810 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171

3811 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Certified applicator, 

3812 Commercial applicator, Indian Country, Indian Tribes, Noncertified applicator, Pesticides and 

3813 pests, Private applicator, Restricted use pesticides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

3814 Dated: ____________________ 

3815 _______________________________________ 

3816 Administrator. 

3817 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 162 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3818 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 171 be revised to read as follows: 

3819 PART 171-CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS 

3820 Subpart A-General Provisions 

3821 Sec. 

3822 171.1 Scope. 

3823 171.3 Definitions. 

3824 171.5 Effective dates 

3825 Subpart B-Certification Requirements for Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides 

3826 171.101 Commercial applicator certification categories. 

3827 171.103 Standards for certification of commercial applicators. 

3828 171.105 Standards for certification of private applicators. 

3829 171.107 Standards for recertification of certified applicators. 

3830 Subpart C-Supervision of Noncertified Applicators 

3831 171.201 Requirements for direct supervision of noncertified applicators by certified applicators. 

3832 Subpart D-Certification Plans 

3833 171.301 General. 

3834 171.303 Requirements for State certification plans. 

3835 171.305 Requirements for Federal agency certification plans. 

3836 171.307 Certification of applicators in Indian country. 

3837 171.309 Modification and withdrawal of certification plans. 

3838 171.311 EPA-administered applicator certification programs. 

3839 

3840 AUTHORITY: 7 U.S.C. 136I AND 136W.

3841 Subpart A-General Provisions 

3842 § 171.1 Scope. 

3843 (a) This part establishes Federal standards for the certification and recertification of 

3844 applicators of restricted use pesticides. The standards address the requirements for certification 

3845 and recertification of applicators using restricted use pesticides, requirements for certified 

3846 applicators supervising the use of restricted use pesticides by noncertified applicators, 

3847 requirements for noncertified persons using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision 

3848 of a certified applicator, and requirements for pesticide applicator certification plans 

3849 administered by States, Tribes and Federal agencies. 

3850 (b) A person is a certified applicator for purposes of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

3851 and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., only if the person holds a certification issued 

3852 pursuant to a plan approved in accordance with this part and currently valid in the pertinent 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 163 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3853 jurisdiction. As provided in section 12(a)(2)(F) of the Act, it is unlawful for any person to make 

3854 available for use or to use any pesticide classified for restricted use other than in accordance with 

3855 the requirements of this part. 

3856 § 171.3 Definitions. 

3857 Terms used in this part have the same meanings they have in FIFRA and 40 CFR part 

3858 152. In addition, the following terms, when used in this part, shall mean: 

3859 Agricultural commodity means any plant, or part thereof, or animal, or animal product, 

3860 produced by a person (including, but not limited to, farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant 

3861 propagators, Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchardists, foresters, or other 

3862 comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by man or 

3863 animals. 

3864 Application means the dispersal of a pesticide on, in, at, or around a target site.

3865 Application method means the application using a particular type of equipment, 

3866 mechanism, or device used in the application of a pesticide, including, but not limited to, ground 

3867 boom, air-blast sprayer, wand, and backpack sprayer, as well as methods such as aerial, 

3868 chemigation, and fumigation. 

3869 Application method-specific certification category means a defined set of competencies 

3870 related to the use of a specific application method to apply restricted use pesticides. 

3871 Applicator means any individual using a restricted use pesticide. An applicator may be 

3872 certified as a commercial or private applicator as defined in FIFRAor may be a noncertified 

3873 applicator as defined in this part. 

3874 Calibration means measurement of dispersal or output of application equipment and 

3875 adjustment of such equipment to establish a specific rate of dispersal and, if applicable, droplet 

3876 or particle size of a pesticide dispersed by the equipment. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 164 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3877 Certification means a certifying authority’s issuance, pursuant to this part, of 

3878 authorization to a person to use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. 

3879 Certifying authority means the Agency, or a State, Tribal, or Federal agency that issues 

3880 restricted use pesticide applicator certifications pursuant to a certification plan approved by the 

3881 Agency under this part. 

3882 Compatibility means the extent to which a pesticide can be combined with other 

3883 chemicals without causing undesirable results. 

3884 Competent means having the practical knowledge, skills, experience, and judgment 

3885 necessary to perform functions associated with restricted use pesticide application without 

3886 causing unreasonable adverse effects, where the nature and degree of competency required relate 

3887 directly to the nature of the activity and the degree of independent responsibility. 

3888 Dealership means any establishment owned or operated by a restricted use pesticide retail 

3889 dealer where restricted use pesticides are distributed or sold. 

3890 Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or forms a vapor or gas 

3891 upon application, and whose pesticidal action is achieved through the gaseous or vapor state. 

3892 Fumigation means the application of a fumigant. 

3893 Host means any plant or animal on or in which another species of plant or animal lives 

3894 for nourishment, development, or protection. 

3895 Indian country means: 

3896 (1) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

3897 United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of3898 way running through the reservation. 

3899 (2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether 

3900 within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 165 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3901 limits of a State. 

3902 (3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including 

3903 rights-of-way running through the same. 

3904 Indian Tribe or Tribe means any Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 

3905 village, or community included in the list of Tribes published by the Secretary of the Interior 

3906 pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act. 

3907 Mishap means an event that may adversely affect man or the environment and that is 

3908 related to the use or presence of a pesticide, whether the event was unexpected or intentional. 

3909 Non-target organism means any plant, animal or other organism other than the target 

3910 pests which a pesticide is intended to affect. 

3911 Noncertified applicator means any person who is not certified in accordance with this 

3912 part to use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in the pertinent jurisdiction, but who is 

3913 using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a person certified as a commercial 

3914 or private applicator certified in accordance with this part. 

3915 Ornamental means trees, shrubs, flowers, and other plantings intended primarily for 

3916 aesthetic purposes in and around habitations, buildings and surrounding grounds, including 

3917 residences, parks, streets, and commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings. 

3918 Personal protective equipment means devices and apparel that are worn to protect the 

3919 body from contact with pesticides or pesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, 

3920 chemical-resistant suits, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant footwear, respirators, 

3921 chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, and protective eyewear. 

3922 Practical knowledge means the possession of pertinent facts and comprehension 

3923 sufficient to properly perform functions associated with application of restricted use pesticides, 

3924 including properly responding to reasonably foreseeable problems and situations. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 166 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3925 Principal place of business means the principal location, either residence or office, where 

3926 a person conducts a business of applying restricted use pesticides. A person who applies 

3927 restricted use pesticides in more than one State or area of Indian country may designate a 

3928 location within a State or area of Indian country as its principal place of business for that State or 

3929 area of Indian country. 

3930 Regulated pest means a particular species of pest specifically subject to Tribal, State or 

3931 Federal regulatory restrictions, regulations, or control procedures intended to protect the hosts, 

3932 man and/or the environment. 

3933 Restricted use pesticide means a pesticide that is classified for restricted use under the 

3934 provisions of section 3(d) of FIFRA. 

3935 Restricted use pesticide retail dealer means any person who distributes or sells restricted 

3936 use pesticides to any person, excluding transactions solely between persons who are pesticide 

3937 producers, registrants, wholesalers, or retail sellers, acting only in those capacities. 

3938 Toxicity means the property of a pesticide that refers to the degree to which the pesticide 

3939 and its related derivative compounds are able to cause an adverse physiological effect on an 

3940 organism as a result of exposure. 

3941 Use, as in “to use a pesticide” means any of the following: 

3942 (1) Pre-application activities, including, but not limited to: 

3943 (i) Arranging for the application of the pesticide. 

3944 (ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide. 

3945 (iii) Making necessary preparations for the application of the pesticide, including 

3946 responsibilities related to providing training, a copy of a label and use-specific instructions to 

3947 noncertified applicators, and complying with any applicable requirements under part 170 of this 

3948 chapter. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 167 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3949 (2) Applying the pesticide, including supervising the use of a pesticide by a noncertified 

3950 applicator. 

3951 (3) Post-application activities, including, but not limited to, transporting or storing 

3952 pesticide containers that have been opened, cleaning equipment, and disposing of excess 

3953 pesticides, spray mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other materials 

3954 contaminated with or containing pesticides. 

3955 Use-specific instructions means the information and requirements specific to a particular 

3956 pesticide product or work site that are necessary in order for an applicator to use the pesticide in 

3957 accordance with applicable requirements and without causing unreasonable adverse effects. 

3958 § 171.5 Effective date. 

3959 This part is effective [insert date 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the 

3960 Federal Register]. Certification plans approved by EPA before the effective date remain 

3961 approved except as provided in §§ 171.301(b) and 171.309. 

3962 Subpart B-Certification Requirements for Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides 

3963 § 171.101 Commercial applicator certification categories. 

3964 (a) Pest control certification categories. Certification in any of the pest control 

3965 certification categories listed in this paragraph (a) alone is not sufficient to lawfully use or 

3966 supervise the use of products intended to be applied using a method specified in paragraph (b) of 

3967 this section. 

3968 (1) Agricultural pest control. 

3969 (i) Crop pest control. This category applies to commercial applicators who use or 

3970 supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in production of agricultural crops, including but not 

3971 limited to grains, vegetables, small fruits, tree fruits, peanuts, tree nuts, tobacco, cotton, feed and 

3972 forage crops including grasslands, and non-crop agricultural lands. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 168 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3973 (ii) Livestock pest control. This category applies to commercial applicators who use or 

3974 supervise the use of restricted use pesticides on animals or to places on or in which animals are 

3975 confined. Certification in this category alone is not sufficient to authorize the purchase, use, or 

3976 supervision of use of products for predator control listed in paragraph (b)(10) of this section. 

3977 (2) Forest pest control. This category applies to commercial applicators who use or 

3978 supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in forests, forest nurseries and forest seed 

3979 production. 

3980 (3) Ornamental and turf pest control. This category applies to commercial applicators 

3981 who use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides to control pests in the maintenance and 

3982 production of ornamental plants and turf. 

3983 (4) Seed treatment. This category applies to commercial applicators using or supervising 

3984 the use of restricted use pesticides on seeds in seed treatment facilities. 

3985 (5) Aquatic pest control. This category applies to commercial applicators who use or 

3986 supervise the use of any restricted use pesticide purposefully applied to standing or running 

3987 water, excluding applicators engaged in public health related activities included in as specified in 

3988 paragraph (b)(8) of this section. 

3989 (6) Right-of-way pest control. This category applies to commercial applicators who use or 

3990 supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in the maintenance of roadsides, power-line, 

3991 pipeline, and railway rights-of-way, and similar areas. 

3992 (7) Industrial, institutional, and structural pest control. This category applies to 

3993 commercial applicators who use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in, on, or around 

3994 the following: Food handling establishments, packing houses, and food-processing facilities; 

3995 human dwellings; institutions, such as schools, hospitals and prisons; and industrial 

3996 establishments, including manufacturing facilities, warehouses, grain elevators, and any other 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 169 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

3997 structures and adjacent areas, public or private, for the protection of stored, processed, or 

3998 manufactured products. 

3999 (8) Public health pest control. This category applies to State, Tribal, Federal or other 

4000 governmental employees who use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in public 

4001 health programs for the management and control of pests having medical and public health 

4002 importance. This category includes contractors as well as individuals directly employed by a 

4003 State, Tribal, Federal, or other government agency for government-sponsored public health 

4004 programs. 

4005 (9) Regulatory pest control. This category applies to State, Tribal, Federal, or other 

4006 governmental employees who use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in the control 

4007 of regulated pests but does not include individuals that use or supervise the use of sodium 

4008 cyanide in mechanical ejection devices or sodium fluoroacetate in a protective collar for predator 

4009 pest control. This regulatory pest control category includes contractors and other individuals 

4010 directly employed by a State, Tribal, Federal, or other government agency for government4011 sponsored regulatory pest control programs. Certification in this category does not authorize the 

4012 purchase, use, or supervision of use of products for predator control listed in paragraph (b)(10) of 

4013 this section. 

4014 (10) Predator pest control. 

4015 (i) Sodium cyanide predator control. This pest control category applies to commercial 

4016 applicators who use or supervise the use of sodium cyanide in a mechanical ejection device to 

4017 control regulated predators. 

4018 (ii) Sodium fluoroacetate. This pest control category applies to commercial applicators 

4019 who use or supervise the use of sodium fluoroacetate in a protective collar to control regulated 

4020 predators. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 170 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4021 (11) Demonstration and research. This category applies to individuals who demonstrate 

4022 to the public the proper use and techniques of application of restricted use pesticides or supervise 

4023 such demonstration and to persons conducting field research with pesticides, and in doing so, use 

4024 or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. This includes such individuals as extension 

4025 specialists and county agents, commercial representatives demonstrating restricted use pesticide 

4026 products, individuals demonstrating application or pest control methods used in public or private 

4027 programs, and State, Federal, commercial, and other persons conducting field research on or 

4028 involving restricted use pesticides. Certification in this category requires concurrent certification 

4029 in each pest control category identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section for 

4030 which a person does demonstration or research involving the use or supervision of the use of 

4031 restricted use pesticides for the type of pest control described in those categories, and in each 

4032 application method-specific category identified in paragraph (c) of this section for which a 

4033 person does demonstration or research involving the use or supervision of the use of restricted 

4034 use pesticides using an application method described in those categories. 

4035 (b) Application method-specific certification categories.

4036 (1) Soil fumigation applications. This category applies to commercial applicators who use 

4037 or supervise the use of a restricted use pesticide to fumigate soil. Certification in this application 

4038 method-specific category requires concurrent certification in each pest control category 

4039 identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section for which a person intends to 

4040 perform soil fumigation. 

4041 (2) Non –soil fumigation applications. This category applies to commercial applicators 

4042 who use or supervise the use of a restricted use pesticide to fumigate anything other than soil. 

4043 Certification in this application method-specific category requires concurrent certification in 

4044 each pest control category identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section for 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 171 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4045 which a person intends to perform soil fumigation. 

4046 (3) Aerial applications. This category applies to commercial applicators who use or 

4047 supervise the use of restricted use pesticides applied by fixed or rotary wing aircraft. 

4048 Certification in this application method-specific category requires concurrent certification in 

4049 each pest control category identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section for 

4050 which a person intends to perform soil fumigation. 

4051 § 171.103 Standards for certification of commercial applicators. 

4052 (a) Determination of competency. To be determined competent in the use and handling of 

4053 restricted use pesticides by a State, Tribe, or Federal agency, a commercial applicator must meet 

4054 the minimum age requirement specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and receive a passing 

4055 score on a written examination that meets the standards specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

4056 section and any related performance testing that is required by the State, Tribe, or Federal 

4057 agency. Examinations and any alternate methods employed by the certifying authority to 

4058 determine applicator competency must include the core standards applicable to all categories 

4059 (paragraph (c) of this section), the standards applicable to each pest control category in which an 

4060 applicator seeks certification (paragraph (d) of this section), and the standards for each 

4061 application method-specific category in which an applicator seeks certification (paragraph (e) of 

4062 this section), as provided in this section. Certification processes must meet all of the following 

4063 criteria: 

4064 (1) Commercial applicator minimum age. A commercial applicator must be at least 18 

4065 years old. 

4066 (2) Examination standards. Examinations must conform to all of the following 

4067 standards: 

4068 (i) The examination must be presented and answered in writing. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 172 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4069 (ii) The examination must be proctored by an individual designated by the certifying 

4070 authority and who is not seeking certification at any examination session that he or she is 

4071 proctoring. The proctor must do all of the following: 

4072 (A) Verify the identity and age of persons taking the examination by checking 

4073 identification and having examinees sign an examination roster. 

4074 (B) Monitor examinees throughout the examination period. 

4075 (C) Instruct examinees in examination procedures before beginning the examination. 

4076 (D) Keep examinations secure before, during, and after the examination period. 

4077 (E) Allow only the examinees to access the examination, and allow such access only in 

4078 the presence of the proctor. 

4079 (F) Ensure that examinees have no verbal or non-verbal communication with anyone 

4080 other than the proctor during the examination period. 

4081 (G) Ensure that no portion of the examination or any associated reference materials 

4082 described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(H) of this section is copied or retained by any person other than 

4083 a person authorized by the certifying authority to copy or retain the examination. 

4084 (H) Ensure that examinees do not have access to reference materials other than those that 

4085 are approved by the certifying authority and provided and collected by the proctor. 

4086 (I) Review reference materials provided to examinees after the exam is complete to 

4087 ensure that no portion of the reference material has been removed or destroyed. 

4088 (J) Report to the certifying authority any examination administration inconsistencies or 

4089 irregularities, including but not limited to cheating, use of unauthorized materials, and attempts 

4090 to copy or retain the examination. 

4091 (K) Comply with any other requirements of the certifying authority related to 

4092 examination administration. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 173 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4093 (iii) The examination must be closed-book. No reference materials may be used during 

4094 the examination, except those that are approved by the certifying authority and provided by the 

4095 proctor. 

4096 (iv) Each person seeking certification must present at the time of examination valid, 

4097 government-issued photo identification to the certifying authority as proof of identity and age to 

4098 be eligible for certification. 

4099 (v) The certifying authority must notify each examinee of the results of his or her 

4100 examination. 

4101 (b) Additional methods of determining competency. In addition to written examination 

4102 requirements for determining competency, a certifying authority may employ additional methods 

4103 for determining applicator competency, such as performance testing. Such additional methods 

4104 must be part of the certifying authority’s Agency-approved certification plan and must comply 

4105 with the applicable standards in paragraph (a) of this section. 

4106 (c) Core standards for all categories of certified commercial applicators. Persons seeking 

4107 certification as commercial applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of the principles 

4108 and practices of pest control and proper and effective use of restricted use pesticides by passing a 

4109 written examination. Written examinations for all commercial applicators must address all of the 

4110 following areas of competency: 

4111 (1) Label and labeling comprehension. Familiarity with pesticide labels and labeling and 

4112 their functions, including all of the following: 

4113 (i) The general format and terminology of pesticide labels and labeling. 

4114 (ii) Understanding instructions, warnings, terms, symbols, and other information 

4115 commonly appearing on pesticide labels and labeling. 

4116 (iii) Understanding that it is a violation of Federal law to use any registered pesticide in a 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 174 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4117 manner inconsistent with its labeling. 

4118 (iv) Understanding when a certified applicator must be physically present at the site of 

4119 the application based on labeling requirements. 

4120 (v) Understanding labeling requirements for supervising noncertified applicators working 

4121 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4122 (vi) Understanding that applicators must comply with all use restrictions and directions 

4123 for use contained in pesticide labels and labeling, including being certified in the certification 

4124 category and application method-specific category appropriate to the type and site of the 

4125 application. 

4126 (vii) Understanding the meaning of product classification as either general or restricted 

4127 use and that a product may be unclassified. 

4128 (viii) Understanding and complying with product-specific notification requirements. 

4129 (2) Safety. Measures to avoid or minimize adverse health effects, including all of the 

4130 following: 

4131 (i) Understanding the terms “acute toxicity” and “chronic toxicity,” as well as the long4132 term effects of pesticides. 

4133 (ii) Understanding that a pesticide’s risk is a function of exposure and the pesticide’s 

4134 toxicity. 

4135 (iii) Recognition of likely ways in which dermal, inhalation and oral exposure may occur. 

4136 (iv) Common types and causes of pesticide mishaps. 

4137 (v) Precautions to prevent injury to applicators and other individuals in or near treated 

4138 areas. 

4139 (vi) Need for, and proper use of, protective clothing and personal protective equipment. 

4140 (vii) Symptoms of pesticide poisoning. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 175 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4141 (viii) First aid and other procedures to be followed in case of a pesticide mishap. 

4142 (ix) Proper identification, storage, transport, handling, mixing procedures, and disposal 

4143 methods for pesticides and used pesticide containers, including precautions to be taken to prevent 

4144 children from having access to pesticides and pesticide containers. 

4145 (3) Environment. The potential environmental consequences of the use and misuse of 

4146 pesticides, including the influence of all of the following: 

4147 (i) Weather and other indoor and outdoor climatic conditions. 

4148 (ii) Types of terrain, soil, or other substrate. 

4149 (iii) Presence of fish, wildlife, and other non-target organisms. 

4150 (iv) Presence of pollinators. 

4151 (v) Drainage patterns. 

4152 (4) Pests. The proper identification and effective control of pests, including all of the 

4153 following: 

4154 (i) Common features of pest organisms and characteristics of damage needed for pest 

4155 recognition. 

4156 (ii) Recognition of relevant pests. 

4157 (iii) Pest development, biology, and behavior as it may be relevant to problem 

4158 identification and control. 

4159 (5) Pesticides. Characteristics of pesticides, including all of the following: 

4160 (i) Types of pesticides. 

4161 (ii) Types of formulations. 

4162 (iii) Compatibility, synergism, persistence, and animal and plant toxicity of the 

4163 formulations. 

4164 (iv) Hazards and residues associated with use. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 176 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4165 (v) Factors that influence effectiveness or lead to problems such as pesticide resistance. 

4166 (vi) Dilution procedures. 

4167 (6) Equipment. Application equipment, including all of the following: 

4168 (i) Types of equipment and advantages and limitations of each type. 

4169 (ii) Use, maintenance, and calibration procedures. 

4170 (7) Application methods. Selecting appropriate application methods, including all of the 

4171 following: 

4172 (i) Methods used to apply various formulations of pesticides, solutions, and gases. 

4173 (ii) Knowledge of which application method to use in a given situation and when 

4174 certification in an application method-specific category is required in accordance with paragraph 

4175 (c) of this section. 

4176 (iii) Relationship of application and placement of pesticides to proper use, unnecessary or 

4177 ineffective use, and misuse. 

4178 (iv) Prevention of drift and pesticide loss into the environment. 

4179 (8) Laws and regulations. Knowledge of all applicable State, Tribal, and Federal laws 

4180 and regulations. 

4181 (9) Responsibilities of supervisors of noncertified applicators. Knowledge of the 

4182 responsibilities of certified applicators supervising noncertified applicators, including all of the 

4183 following: 

4184 (i) Understanding and complying with requirements in § 171.201 for certified 

4185 commercial applicators who supervise noncertified applicators using restricted use pesticides. 

4186 (ii) Requirements to keep records of pesticide safety training for noncertified applicators 

4187 using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4188 (iii) Providing use-specific instructions to noncertified applicators using restricted use 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 177 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4189 pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4190 (iv) Explaining appropriate State, Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations to noncertified 

4191 applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4192 (10) Professionalism. Understanding the importance of all of the following: 

4193 (i) Maintaining chemical security for restricted use pesticides. 

4194 (ii) How to communicate information about pesticide exposures and risks with the public 

4195 and their clientele. 

4196 (iii) Appropriate product stewardship for certified applicators. 

4197 (d) Specific standards of competency for each pest control category of commercial 

4198 applicators. Commercial applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of the principles and 

4199 practices of pest control and proper and effective use of restricted use pesticides for each pest 

4200 control category for which they intend to apply restricted use pesticides through written 

4201 examinations. The minimum competency standards for each category of pest control are listed in 

4202 paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this section. Examinations for each pest control category 

4203 certification listed in § 171.101(a) must be based on the standards of competency specified in 

4204 paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section and examples of problems and situations 

4205 appropriate to the particular category in which the applicator is seeking certification. 

4206 (1) Agricultural pest control

4207 (i) Plant. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of crops, grasslands, and 

4208 non-crop agricultural lands and the specific pests of those areas on which they may be using 

4209 restricted use pesticides. The importance of such competency is amplified by the extensive areas 

4210 involved, the quantities of pesticides needed, and the ultimate use of many commodities as food 

4211 and feed. The required knowledge includes pre-harvest intervals, restricted entry intervals, 

4212 phytotoxicity, potential for environmental contamination such as soil and water problems, non-
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 178 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4213 target injury, and other problems resulting from the use of restricted use pesticides in agricultural 

4214 areas. The required knowledge also includes the potential for phytotoxicity due to a wide variety 

4215 of plants to be protected, for drift, for persistence beyond the intended period of pest control, and 

4216 for non-target exposures. 

4217 (ii) Animal. Applicators applying pesticides directly to animals must demonstrate 

4218 practical knowledge of such animals and their associated pests. The required knowledge includes 

4219 specific pesticide toxicity and residue potential, and the hazards associated with such factors as 

4220 formulation, application techniques, age of animals, stress, and extent of treatment. 

4221 (2) Forest pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of types of 

4222 forests, forest nurseries, and seed production within the jurisdiction of the certifying authority 

4223 and the pests involved. The required knowledge includes the cyclic occurrence of certain pests 

4224 and specific population dynamics as a basis for programming pesticide applications, the relevant 

4225 organisms causing harm and their vulnerability to the pesticides to be applied, how to determine 

4226 when pesticide use is proper, selection of application method and proper use of application 

4227 equipment to minimize non-target exposures, and appropriate responses to meteorological 

4228 factors and adjacent land use. The required knowledge also includes the potential for 

4229 phytotoxicity due to a wide variety of plants to be protected, for drift, for persistence beyond the 

4230 intended period of pest control, and for non-target exposures. 

4231 (3) Ornamental and turf pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge 

4232 of pesticide problems associated with the production and maintenance of ornamental plants and 

4233 turf. The required knowledge includes the potential for phytotoxicity due to a wide variety of 

4234 plants to be protected, for drift, for persistence beyond the intended period of pest control, and 

4235 for non-target exposures. Because of the frequent proximity of human habitations to application 

4236 activities, applicators in this category must demonstrate practical knowledge of application 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 179 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4237 methods which will minimize or prevent hazards to humans, pets, and other domestic animals. 

4238 (4) Seed-treatment. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge including 

4239 recognizing types of seeds to be treated, the effects of carriers and surface active agents on 

4240 pesticide binding and germination, the hazards associated with handling, sorting and mixing, and 

4241 misuse of treated seed, the importance of proper application techniques to avoid harm to non4242 target organisms such as pollinators, and the proper disposal of unused treated seeds. 

4243 (5) Aquatic pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

4244 characteristics of various water use situations, the potential for adverse effects on non-target 

4245 plants, fish, birds, beneficial insects and other organisms in the immediate aquatic environment 

4246 and downstream, and the principles of limited area application. 

4247 (6) Right-of-way pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

4248 types of environments (terrestrial and aquatic) traversed by rights-of-way, techniques to 

4249 minimize non-target exposure runoff, drift, and excessive foliage destruction, and recognition of 

4250 target pests. The required knowledge also includes the potential for phytotoxicity due to a wide 

4251 variety of plants and pests to be controlled, for drift, for persistence beyond the intended period 

4252 of pest control, and for non-target exposures. 

4253 (7) Industrial, institutional, and structural pest control. Applicators must demonstrate a 

4254 practical knowledge of industrial, institutional and structural pests, including recognizing those 

4255 pests and signs of their presence, their habitats, their life cycles, biology, and behavior as it may 

4256 be relevant to problem identification and control. Applicators must demonstrate practical 

4257 knowledge of types of formulations appropriate for control of industrial, institutional and 

4258 structural pests, and methods of application that avoid contamination of food, minimize damage 

4259 to and contamination of areas treated, minimize acute and chronic exposure of people and pets, 

4260 and minimize environmental impacts of outdoor applications. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 180 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4261 (8) Public health pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of pests 

4262 that are important vectors of disease, including recognizing the pests and signs of their presence, 

4263 their habitats, their life cycles, biology and behavior as it may be relevant to problem 

4264 identification and control. The required knowledge also includes how to minimize damage to and 

4265 contamination of areas treated, acute and chronic exposure of people and pets, and non-target 

4266 exposures. 

4267 (9) Regulatory pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of 

4268 regulated pests, applicable laws relating to quarantine and other regulation of pests, and the 

4269 potential impact on the environment of restricted use pesticides used in suppression and 

4270 eradication programs. They must demonstrate knowledge of factors influencing introduction, 

4271 spread, and population dynamics of regulated pests. 

4272 (10) Predator pest control. Applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of 

4273 mammalian predator pests, including recognizing those pests and signs of their presence, their 

4274 habitats, their life cycles, biology, and behavior as it may be relevant to problem identification 

4275 and control. 

4276 (i) Sodium cyanide. Applicators must demonstrate comprehension of all laws and 

4277 regulations applicable to the use of mechanical ejection devices for sodium cyanide, including 

4278 the restrictions on the use of sodium cyanide products ordered by the EPA Administrator and 

4279 published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1975 (40 FR 44726, pp. 44733-44734). 

4280 Applicators must also demonstrate practical knowledge and understanding of all of the specific 

4281 use restrictions for sodium cyanide devices, including safe handling and proper placement of the 

4282 capsules and device, proper use of the antidote kit, notification to medical personnel before use 

4283 of the device, conditions of and restrictions on when and where devices can be used, 

4284 requirements to consult U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maps before use to avoid affecting 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 181 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4285 endangered species, maximum density of devices, provisions for supervising and monitoring 

4286 applicators, required information exchange in locations where more than one agency is 

4287 authorized to place devices, and specific requirements for recordkeeping, monitoring, field 

4288 posting, proper storage, and disposal of damaged or used sodium cyanide capsules. 

4289 (ii) Sodium fluoroacetate. Applicators must demonstrate comprehension of all laws and 

4290 regulations applicable to the use of sodium fluoroacetate products, including the restrictions on 

4291 the use of sodium fluoroacetate products ordered by the EPA Administrator and published in the 

4292 Federal Register of February 8, 1984 (49 FR 4830). Applicators must also demonstrate 

4293 practical knowledge and understanding of the specific use restrictions for sodium fluoroacetate in 

4294 the livestock protection collar, including where and when sodium fluoroacetate products can be 

4295 used, safe handling and placement of collars, and practical treatment of sodium fluoroacetate 

4296 poisoning in humans and domestic animals. Applicators must also demonstrate practical 

4297 knowledge and understanding of specific requirements for field posting, monitoring, 

4298 recordkeeping, proper storage of collars, disposal of punctured or leaking collars, disposal of 

4299 contaminated animal remains, vegetation, soil, and clothing, and reporting of suspected and 

4300 actual poisoning, mishap, or injury to threatened or endangered species, human, domestic 

4301 animals, or non-target wild animals. 

4302 (11) Demonstration pest control. Applicators demonstrating the safe and effective use of 

4303 restricted use pesticides to other applicators and the public must demonstrate practical 

4304 knowledge of the potential problems, pests, and population levels reasonably expected to occur 

4305 in a demonstration situation and the effects of restricted use pesticides on target and non-target 

4306 organisms. In addition, they must demonstrate competency in each pest control category 

4307 applicable to their demonstrations. 

4308 (e) Specific standards of competency for each application method-specific certification 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 182 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4309 category of commercial applicators. In order to apply a restricted use pesticide using any of the 

4310 application methods identified in this paragraph, a commercial applicator must first obtain the 

4311 appropriate application method-specific certification as provided in this paragraph. This 

4312 requirement is in addition to the requirements of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. The 

4313 competency standards for each application method-specific certification category are specified in 

4314 paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. 

4315 (1) Soil fumigation application. Commercial applicators performing soil fumigation 

4316 applications of restricted use pesticides must demonstrate practical knowledge of the pest 

4317 problems and pest control practices associated with performing soil fumigation applications, 

4318 including all the following: 

4319 (i) Label and labeling comprehension. Familiarity with the pesticide labels and labeling 

4320 for products used to perform soil fumigation, including all of the following: 

4321 (A) Labeling requirements specific to soil fumigants. 

4322 (B) Fumigant applicators, fumigant applicator tasks, and the safety information that 

4323 certified applicators must provide to noncertified applicators using fumigants under their direct 

4324 supervision. 

4325 (C) Entry-restricted periods for different tarped and untarped field application scenarios. 

4326 (D) Recordkeeping requirements. 

4327 (E) Special label provisions of fumigant products containing certain active ingredients. 

4328 (ii) Safety. Measures to minimize adverse health effects, including all of the following: 

4329 (A) Understanding how certified applicators, noncertified applicators using fumigants 

4330 under direct supervision of certified applicators, field workers, and bystanders can become 

4331 exposed to fumigants. 

4332 (B) Common problems and mistakes that can result in direct exposure to fumigants. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 183 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4333 (C) Signs and symptoms of human exposure to fumigants. 

4334 (D) Air concentrations of a fumigant require that applicators wear respirators or exit the 

4335 work area entirely. 

4336 (E) Steps to take if a fumigant applicator experiences sensory irritation. 

4337 (F) Understanding air monitoring, when it is required, and where to take samples. 

4338 (G) Buffer zones, including procedures for buffer zone monitoring. 

4339 (H) First aid measures to take in the event of exposure to a soil fumigant. 

4340 (I) Labeling requirements for transportation, storage, spill clean-up, and emergency 

4341 response for soil fumigants, including safe disposal of containers and contaminated soil, and 

4342 management of empty containers. 

4343 (iii) Soil fumigant chemical characteristics. Characteristics of soil fumigants, including 

4344 all of the following: 

4345 (A) Chemical characteristics of soil fumigants. 

4346 (B) Specific human exposure concerns for soil fumigants. 

4347 (C) How soil fumigants change from a liquid or solid to a gas. 

4348 (D) How soil fumigants disperse in the application zone. 

4349 (E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

4350 (iv) Application. Selecting appropriate application methods and timing, including all of 

4351 the following: 

4352 (A) Application methods and equipment commonly used for each soil fumigant. 

4353 (B) Water-run and non-water-run application methods. 

4354 (C) Site characteristics that can be used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

4355 (D) Understanding temperature inversions and their impact on soil fumigation 

4356 application. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 184 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4357 (E) Weather conditions that could impact timing of soil fumigation application, such as 

4358 air stability, air temperature, humidity, and wind currents, and labeling statements limiting 

4359 applications during specific weather conditions. 

4360 (F) Conducting pre-application inspection of application equipment. 

4361 (G) Understanding the purpose and methods of soil sealing, including the factors that 

4362 determine which soil sealing method to use. 

4363 (H) Understanding the use of tarps, including the range of tarps available, how to seal 

4364 tarps, and labeling requirements for tarp removal and perforation. 

4365 (I) Calculating the amount of product required for a specific treatment area. 

4366 (J) Understanding the basic techniques for calibrating soil fumigation application 

4367 equipment. 

4368 (v) Soil and pest factors. Soil and pest factors that influence fumigant activity, including 

4369 all of the following: 

4370 (A) Influence of soil factors on fumigant volatility and movement within the soil profile. 

4371 (B) Factors that influence gaseous movement through the soil profile and into the air. 

4372 (C) Soil characteristics, including how soil characteristics affect the success of a soil 

4373 fumigation application, assessing soil moisture, and correcting for soil characteristics that could 

4374 hinder a successful soil fumigation application. 

4375 (D) Identifying pests causing the damage to be treated by the soil fumigation. 

4376 (E) Understanding the relationship between pest density and application rate. 

4377 (F) The importance of proper application depth and timing. 

4378 (vi) Personal protective equipment. Understanding what personal protective equipment is 

4379 necessary and how to use it properly, including all of the following: 

4380 (A) Following labeling directions for required personal protective equipment. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 185 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4381 (B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring for, replacing, and disposing of personal 

4382 protective equipment. 

4383 (C) Understanding the types of respirators required when using specific soil fumigants 

4384 and how to use them properly, including medical evaluation, fit testing, and required replacement 

4385 of cartridges and cannisters. 

4386 (D) Labeling requirements and other laws applicable to medical evaluation for respirator 

4387 use, fit tests, training, and recordkeeping. 

4388 (vii) Fumigant management plans and post-application summaries. Information about 

4389 fumigant management plans, including all of the following: 

4390 (A) When a fumigant management plan must be in effect, how long it must be kept on 

4391 file, where it must be kept during the application, and who must have access to it. 

4392 (B) The elements of a fumigation management plan and resources available to assist the 

4393 applicator in preparing a fumigation management plan. 

4394 (C) The party responsible for verifying that a fumigant management plan is accurate. 

4395 (D) The elements, purpose and content of a post-application summary, who must prepare 

4396 it, and when it must be completed. 

4397 (viii) Buffer zones and posting requirements. Understanding buffer zones and posting 

4398 requirements, including all of the following: 

4399 (A) Buffer zones and the buffer zone period. 

4400 (B) Identifying is allowed in a buffer zone during the buffer zone period and who is 

4401 prohibited from being in a buffer zone during the buffer zone period. 

4402 (C) Using the buffer zone table from the labeling to determine the size of the buffer zone. 

4403 (D) Factors that determine the buffer zone credits for application scenarios and 

4404 calculating buffer zones using credits. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 186 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4405 (E) Distinguishing buffer zone posting and treated area posting, including the pre4406 application and post-application posting timeframes for each. 

4407 (F) Proper choice and placement of warning signs. 

4408 (2) Non-soil fumigation applications. Commercial applicators performing fumigation 

4409 applications of restricted use pesticides to sites other than soil must demonstrate practical 

4410 knowledge of the pest problems and pest control practices associated with performing fumigation 

4411 applications to sites other than soil, including all the following: 

4412 (i) Label & labeling comprehension. Familiarity with the pesticide labels and labeling for 

4413 products used to perform non-soil fumigation, including all of the following: 

4414 (A) Labeling requirements specific to non-soil fumigants. 

4415 (ii) Safety. Measures to minimize adverse health effects, including all of the following: 

4416 (A) Understanding how certified applicators, noncertified applicators using fumigants 

4417 under direct supervision of certified applicators, and bystanders can become exposed to 

4418 fumigants. 

4419 (B) Common problems and mistakes that can result in direct exposure to fumigants. 

4420 (C) Signs and symptoms of human exposure to fumigants. 

4421 (D) Air concentrations of a fumigant that require applicators to wear respirators or to exit 

4422 the work area entirely. 

4423 (E) Steps to take if a fumigant applicator experiences sensory irritation. 

4424 (F) Understanding air monitoring, when it is required, and where to take samples. 

4425 (G) First aid measures to take in the event of exposure to a fumigant. 

4426 (H) Labeling requirements for transportation, storage, spill clean-up, and emergency 

4427 response for non-soil fumigants, including safe disposal of containers and contaminated 

4428 materials, and management of empty containers. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 187 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4429 (iii) Non-soil fumigant chemical characteristics. Characteristics of non-soil fumigants, 

4430 including all of the following: 

4431 (A) Chemical characteristics of non-soil fumigants. 

4432 (B) Specific human exposure concerns for non-soil fumigants. 

4433 (C) How fumigants change from a liquid or solid to a gas. 

4434 (D) How fumigants disperse in the application zone. 

4435 (E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

4436 (iv) Application. Selecting appropriate application methods and timing, including all of 

4437 the following: 

4438 (A) Application methods and equipment commonly used for non-soil fumigation. 

4439 (B) Site characteristics that can be used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

4440 (C) Conditions that could impact timing of non-soil fumigation application, such as air 

4441 stability, air temperature, humidity, and wind currents, and labeling statements limiting 

4442 applications when specific conditions are present. 

4443 (D) Conducting pre-application inspection of application equipment and the site to be 

4444 fumigated. 

4445 (E) Understanding the purpose and methods of sealing the area to be fumigated, including 

4446 the factors that determine which sealing method to use. 

4447 (F) Calculating the amount of product required for a specific treatment area. 

4448 (G) Understanding the basic techniques for calibrating non-soil fumigation application 

4449 equipment. 

4450 (H) Understanding when and how to conduct air monitoring and when it is required. 

4451 (v) Pest factors. Pest factors that influence fumigant activity, including all of the 

4452 following: 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 188 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4453 (A) Influence of pest factors on fumigant volatility. 

4454 (B) Factors that influence gaseous movement through the area being fumigated and into 

4455 the air. 

4456 (C) Identifying pests causing the damage to be treated by the fumigation. 

4457 (D) Understanding the relationship between pest density and application rate. 

4458 (E) The importance of proper application rate and timing. 

4459 (vi) Personal protective equipment. Understanding what personal protective equipment is 

4460 necessary and how to use it properly, including all of the following: 

4461 (A) Following labeling directions for required personal protective equipment. 

4462 (B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring for, replacing, and disposing of personal 

4463 protective equipment. 

4464 (C) Understanding the types of respirators required when using specific non-soil 

4465 fumigants and how to use them properly, including medical evaluation, fit testing, and required 

4466 replacement of cartridges and cannisters. 

4467 (D) Labeling requirements and other laws applicable to medical evaluation for respirator 

4468 use, fit tests, training, and recordkeeping. 

4469 (vii) Fumigant management plans and post-application summaries. Information about 

4470 fumigant management plans and when they are required, including all of the following: 

4471 (A) When a fumigant management plan must be in effect, how long it must be kept on 

4472 file, where it must be kept during the application, and who must have access to it. 

4473 (B) The elements of a fumigation management plan and resources available to assist the 

4474 applicator in preparing a fumigation management plan. 

4475 (C) The party responsible for verifying that a fumigant management plan is accurate. 

4476 (D) The elements, purpose and content of a post-application summary, who must prepare 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 189 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4477 it, and when it must be completed. 

4478 (viii) Posting requirements. Understanding posting requirements, including all of the 

4479 following: 

4480 (A) Identifying who is allowed in an area being fumigated or after fumigation and who is 

4481 prohibited from being in such areas. 

4482 (B) Distinguishing fumigant labeling-required posting and treated area posting, including 

4483 the pre-application and post-application posting timeframes for each. 

4484 (C) Proper choice and placement of warning signs. 

4485 (3) Aerial applications. Commercial applicators performing aerial application of 

4486 restricted use pesticides must demonstrate practical knowledge of the pest problems and pest 

4487 control practices associated with performing aerial application, including all the following: 

4488 (i) Labeling. Labeling requirements and restrictions specific to aerial application of 

4489 pesticides including: 

4490 (A) Spray volumes. 

4491 (B) Buffers and no-spray zones. 

4492 (C) Weather conditions specific to wind and inversions. 

4493 (ii) Application equipment. Understand how to choose and maintain aerial application 

4494 equipment, including all of the following: 

4495 (A) The importance of inspecting application equipment to ensure it is proper operating 

4496 condition prior to beginning an application. 

4497 (B) Selecting proper nozzles to ensure appropriate pesticide dispersal and to minimize 

4498 drift. 

4499 (C) Knowledge of the components of an aerial application pesticide application system, 

4500 including pesticide hoppers, tanks, pumps, and types of nozzles. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 190 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4501 (D) Interpreting a nozzle flow rate chart. 

4502 (E) Determining the number of nozzles for intended pesticide output using nozzle flow 

4503 rate chart, aircraft speed, and swath width. 

4504 (F) How to ensure nozzles are placed to compensate for uneven dispersal due to uneven 

4505 airflow from wingtip vortices, helicopter rotor turbulence, and aircraft propeller turbulence. 

4506 (G) Where to place nozzles to produce the appropriate droplet size. 

4507 (H) How to maintain the application system in good repair, including pressure gauge 

4508 accuracy, filter cleaning according to schedule, checking nozzles for excessive wear. 

4509 (I) How to calculate required and actual flow rates. 

4510 (J) How to verify flow rate using fixed timing, open timing, known distance, or a flow 

4511 meter. 

4512 (K) When to adjust and calibrate application equipment. 

4513 (iii) Application considerations. The applicator must demonstrate knowledge of factors to 

4514 consider before and during application, including all of the following: 

4515 (A) Weather conditions that could impact application by affecting aircraft engine power, 

4516 take-off distance, and climb rate, or by promoting spray droplet evaporation. 

4517 (B) How to determine wind velocity, direction, and air density at the application site. 

4518 (C) The potential impact of thermals and temperature inversions on aerial pesticide 

4519 application. 

4520 (vi) Minimizing drift. The applicator must demonstrate knowledge of methods to 

4521 minimize off-target pesticide movement, including all of the following: 

4522 (A) How to determine drift potential of a product using a smoke generator. 

4523 (B) How to evaluate vertical and horizontal smoke plumes to assess wind direction, 

4524 speed, and concentration. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 191 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4525 (C) Selecting techniques that minimize pesticide movement out of the area to be treated. 

4526 (D) Documenting special equipment configurations or flight patterns used to reduce off4527 target pesticide drift. 

4528 (v) Performing aerial application. The applicator must demonstrate competency in 

4529 performing an aerial pesticide application, including all of the following: 

4530 (A) Selecting a flight altitude that minimizes streaking and off-target pesticide drift. 

4531 (B) Choosing a flight pattern that ensures applicator and bystander safety and proper 

4532 application. 

4533 (C) The importance of engaging and disengaging spray precisely when entering and 

4534 exiting a predetermined swath pattern. 

4535 (D) Tools available to mark swaths, such as global positioning systems and flags. 

4536 (E) Recordkeeping requirements for aerial pesticide applications including application 

4537 conditions if applicable. 

4538 (f) Exceptions. The requirements in § 171.103(a)-(f) of this chapter do not apply to the 

4539 following persons:

4540 (1) Persons conducting laboratory research involving restricted use pesticides. 

4541 (2) Doctors of Medicine and Doctors of Veterinary Medicine applying restricted use 

4542 pesticides to patients during the course of the ordinary practice of those professions. 

4543 171.105 Standards for certification of private applicators. 

4544 (a) General private applicator certification. Before using or supervising the use of a 

4545 restricted use pesticide, a private applicator must be certified by an appropriate certifying 

4546 authority as being competent to use restricted use pesticides for pest control in the production of 

4547 agricultural commodities, which includes the ability to read and understand pesticide labeling. 

4548 Certification in this general private applicator certification category alone is not sufficient to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 192 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4549 authorize the purchase, use, or supervision of use of the restricted use pesticide products for 

4550 predator pest control listed in paragraph (b) of this section, or the use or supervision of use of the 

4551 restricted use pesticides using application methods specified in paragraph (c) of this section. 

4552 Persons seeking certification as private applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

4553 principles and practices of pest control associated with the production of agricultural 

4554 commodities and effective use of restricted use pesticides, including all of the following: 

4555 (1) Label and labeling comprehension. Familiarity with pesticide labels and labeling and 

4556 their functions, including all of the following: 

4557 (i) The general format and terminology of pesticide labels and labeling. 

4558 (ii) Understanding instructions, warnings, terms, symbols, and other information 

4559 commonly appearing on pesticide labels and labeling. 

4560 (iii) Understanding that it is a violation of Federal law to use any registered pesticide in a 

4561 manner inconsistent with its labeling. 

4562 (iv) Understanding when a certified applicator must be physically present at the site of 

4563 the application based on labeling requirements. 

4564 (v) Understanding labeling requirements for supervising noncertified applicators working 

4565 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4566 (vi) Understanding that applicators must comply with all use restrictions and directions 

4567 for use contained in pesticide labels and labeling, including being certified in the application 

4568 method-specific category appropriate to the type and site of the application and in the predator 

4569 pest control category for private applicators if applicable. 

4570 (vii) Understanding the meaning of product classification as either general or restricted 

4571 use, and that a product may be unclassified. 

4572 (viii) Understanding and complying with product-specific notification requirements. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 193 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4573 (2) Safety. Measures to avoid or minimize adverse health effects, including all of the 

4574 following: 

4575 (i) Understanding the terms “acute toxicity” and “chronic toxicity,” as well as the long4576 term effects of pesticides. 

4577 (ii) Understanding that a pesticide’s risk is a function of exposure and the pesticide’s 

4578 toxicity. 

4579 (iii) Recognition of likely ways in which dermal, inhalation and oral exposure may occur. 

4580 (iv) Common types and causes of pesticide mishaps. 

4581 (v) Precautions to prevent injury to applicators and other individuals in or near treated 

4582 areas. 

4583 (vi) Need for, and proper use of, protective clothing and personal protective equipment. 

4584 (vii) Symptoms of pesticide poisoning. 

4585 (viii) First aid and other procedures to be followed in case of a pesticide mishap. 

4586 (ix) Proper identification, storage, transport, handling, mixing procedures, and disposal 

4587 methods for pesticides and used pesticide containers, including precautions to be taken to prevent 

4588 children from having access to pesticides and pesticide containers. 

4589 (3) Environment. The potential environmental consequences of the use and misuse of 

4590 pesticides, including the influence of the following: 

4591 (i) Weather and other climatic conditions. 

4592 (ii) Types of terrain, soil, or other substrate. 

4593 (iii) Presence of fish, wildlife, and other non-target organisms. 

4594 (iv) Presence of pollinators. 

4595 (v) Drainage patterns. 

4596 (4) Pests. The proper identification and effective control of pests, including all of the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 194 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4597 following: 

4598 (i) Common features of pest organisms and characteristics of damage needed for pest 

4599 recognition. 

4600 (ii) Recognition of relevant pests. 

4601 (iii) Pest development, biology, and behavior as it may be relevant to problem 

4602 identification and control. 

4603 (5) Pesticides. Characteristics of pesticides, including all of the following: 

4604 (i) Types of pesticides. 

4605 (ii) Types of formulations. 

4606 (iii) Compatibility, synergism, persistence, and animal and plant toxicity of the 

4607 formulations. 

4608 (iv) Hazards and residues associated with use. 

4609 (v) Factors that influence effectiveness or lead to problems such as pesticide resistance. 

4610 (vi) Dilution procedures. 

4611 (6) Equipment. Application equipment, including all of the following: 

4612 (i) Types of equipment and advantages and limitations of each type. 

4613 (ii) Uses, maintenance, and calibration procedures. 

4614 (7) Application methods. Selecting appropriate application methods, including all of the 

4615 following: 

4616 (i) Methods used to apply various formulations of pesticides, solutions, and gases. 

4617 (ii) Knowledge of which application method to use in a given situation and when 

4618 certification in an application method-specific category is required in accordance with paragraph 

4619 (c) of this section. 

4620 (iii) Relationship of application and placement of pesticides to proper use, unnecessary or 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 195 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4621 ineffective use, and misuse. 

4622 (iv) Prevention of drift and pesticide loss into the environment. 

4623 (8) Laws and regulations. Knowledge of all applicable State, Tribal, and Federal laws 

4624 and regulations, including understanding and complying with the Worker Protection Standard in 

4625 40 CFR part 170. 

4626 (9) Responsibilities for supervisors of noncertified applicators. Certified applicator 

4627 responsibilities related to supervision of noncertified applicators, including all of the following: 

4628 (i) Understanding and complying with requirements in § 171.201 of this chapter for 

4629 certified private applicators who supervise noncertified applicators using restricted use 

4630 pesticides. 

4631 (ii) Providing use-specific instructions to noncertified applicators using restricted use 

4632 pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4633 (iii) Explaining appropriate State, Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations to noncertified 

4634 applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

4635 (10) Stewardship. Understanding the importance of all of the following: 

4636 (i) Maintaining chemical security for restricted-use pesticides. 

4637 (ii) How to communicate information about pesticide exposures and risks with 

4638 agricultural workers and handlers and other relevant persons. 

4639 (11) Agricultural pest control. Practical knowledge of pest control applications to 

4640 agricultural commodities including all of the following: 

4641 (i) Specific pests of agricultural commodities. 

4642 (ii) How to avoid contamination of ground and surface waters. 

4643 (iii) Understanding pre-harvest and restricted-entry intervals and entry-restricted periods 

4644 and areas. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 196 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4645 (iv) Understanding specific pesticide toxicity and residue potential when pesticides are 

4646 applied to animal or animal product agricultural commodities. 

4647 (v) Relative hazards associated with using pesticides on animals or animal products based 

4648 on formulation, application technique, age of animal, stress, and extent of treatment. 

4649 (b) Predator pest control category for private applicators. This category applies to 

4650 private applicators that use or supervise the use of sodium cyanide in a mechanical ejection 

4651 device to control regulated predators and private applicators that use or supervise the use of 

4652 sodium fluoroacetate in a protective collar to control regulated predators. All private applicators 

4653 that use or supervise the use of these restricted use pesticides for predator pest control must be 

4654 specifically certified as competent by a certifying authority in accordance with the following 

4655 competency standards: 

4656 (1) Sodium cyanide. Applicators must demonstrate comprehension of all laws and 

4657 regulations applicable to the use of mechanical ejection devices for sodium cyanide, including 

4658 the restrictions on the use of sodium cyanide products ordered by the EPA Administrator and 

4659 published in the Federal Register of (40 FR 44726, pp. 44733-44734).. Applicators must also 

4660 demonstrate practical knowledge and understanding of all of the specific use restrictions for 

4661 sodium cyanide devices, including safe handling and proper placement of the capsules and 

4662 device, proper use of the antidote kit, notification to medical personnel before use of the device, 

4663 conditions of and restrictions on where devices can be used, requirements to consult FWS maps 

4664 before use to avoid affecting endangered species, maximum density of devices, provisions for 

4665 supervising and monitoring applicators, required information exchange in locations where more 

4666 than one agency is authorized to place devices, and specific requirements for recordkeeping, 

4667 monitoring, field posting, proper storage, and disposal of damaged or used sodium cyanide 

4668 capsules. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 197 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4669 (2) Sodium fluoroacetate. Applicators must demonstrate comprehension of all laws and 

4670 regulations applicable to the use of sodium fluoroacetate products, including the restrictions on 

4671 the use of sodium fluoroacetate products ordered by the EPA Administrator and published in the 

4672 Federal Register of February 8, 1984 (49 FR 4830). Applicators must also demonstrate 

4673 practical knowledge and understanding of the specific use restrictions for sodium fluoroacetate in 

4674 the livestock protection collar, including where and when sodium fluoroacetate products can be 

4675 used, safe handling and placement of collars, and practical treatment of sodium fluoroacetate 

4676 poisoning in humans and domestic animals. Applicators must also demonstrate practical 

4677 knowledge and understanding of specific requirements for field posting, monitoring, 

4678 recordkeeping, proper storage of collars, disposal of punctured or leaking collars, disposal of 

4679 contaminated animal remains, vegetation, soil, and clothing, and reporting of suspected and 

4680 actual poisoning, mishap, or injury to threatened or endangered species, human, domestic 

4681 animals, or non-target wild animals. 

4682 (c) Application method-specific certification categories for private applicators. In order 

4683 to apply or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides using an application method described in 

4684 this paragraph (c), private applicators must demonstrate practical knowledge related to the 

4685 appropriate application method as provided in this paragraph 

4686 (c). This requirement is in addition to certification in the general private applicator certification 

4687 category specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

4688 (1) Soil fumigation application. Private applicators that use or supervise the use of a 

4689 restricted use pesticide to fumigate soil must demonstrate practical knowledge of the pest 

4690 problems and pest control practices associated with performing soil fumigation applications, 

4691 including all the following: 

4692 (i) Label and labeling comprehension. Familiarity with the pesticide labels and labeling 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 198 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4693 for products used to perform soil fumigation, including all of the following: 

4694 (A) Labeling requirements specific to soil fumigants. 

4695 (B) Fumigant applicators, fumigant applicator tasks, and the safety information that 

4696 certified applicators must provide to noncertified applicators using fumigants under the direct 

4697 supervision of certified applicators. 

4698 (C) Entry-restricted period for different tarped and untarped field application scenarios. 

4699 (D) Recordkeeping requirements imposed by product labels and labeling. 

4700 (E) Special label provisions of products containing certain active ingredients. 

4701 (F) Labeling requirements for fumigant management plans, such as when a fumigant 

4702 management plan must be in effect, how long it must be kept on file, where it must be kept 

4703 during the application, and who must have access to it; the elements of a fumigation management 

4704 plan and resources available to assist the applicator in preparing a fumigation management plan; 

4705 the party responsible for verifying that a fumigant management plan is accurate; and the 

4706 elements, purpose and content of a post-application summary, who must prepare it, and when it 

4707 must be completed. 

4708 (ii) Safety. Measures to minimize adverse health effects, including all of the following: 

4709 (A) Understanding how certified applicators, noncertified applicators using fumigants 

4710 under the direct supervision of certified applicators, field workers, and bystanders can become 

4711 exposed to fumigants. 

4712 (B) Common problems and mistakes that can result in direct exposure to fumigants. 

4713 (C) Signs and symptoms of human exposure to fumigants. 

4714 (D) Air concentrations of a fumigant that require applicators to wear respirators or to exit 

4715 the work area entirely. 

4716 (E) Steps to take if a fumigant applicator experiences sensory irritation. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 199 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4717 (F) Understanding air monitoring, when it is required, and where to take samples. 

4718 (G) Buffer zones, including procedures for buffer zone monitoring. 

4719 (H) First aid measures to take in the event of exposure to a soil fumigant. 

4720 (I) Labeling requirements for transportation, storage, spill clean up, and emergency 

4721 response for soil fumigants, including safe disposal of containers and contaminated soil, and 

4722 management of empty containers. 

4723 (iii) Soil fumigant chemical characteristics. Characteristics of soil fumigants, including 

4724 all of the following: 

4725 (A) Chemical characteristics of soil fumigants. 

4726 (B) Specific human exposure concerns for soil fumigants. 

4727 (C) How soil fumigants change from a liquid or solid to a gas. 

4728 (D) How soil fumigants disperse in the application zone. 

4729 (E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

4730 (iv) Application. Selecting appropriate application methods and timing, including all of 

4731 the following: 

4732 (A) Application methods and equipment commonly used for each soil fumigant. 

4733 (B) Water-run and non-water-run application methods. 

4734 (C) Site characteristics that can be used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

4735 (D) Understanding temperature inversions and their impact on soil fumigation 

4736 application. 

4737 (E) Weather conditions that could impact timing of soil fumigation application, such as 

4738 air stability, air temperature, humidity, and wind currents, and labeling statements limiting 

4739 applications during specific weather conditions. 

4740 (F) Conducting pre-application inspection of application equipment. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 200 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4741 (G) Understanding the purpose and methods of soil sealing, including the factors that 

4742 determine which soil sealing method to use. 

4743 (H) Understanding the use of tarps, including the range of tarps available, how to seal 

4744 tarps, and labeling requirements for tarp removal and perforation. 

4745 (I) Calculating the amount of product required for a specific treatment area. 

4746 (J) Understanding the basic techniques for calibrating soil fumigation application 

4747 equipment. 

4748 (v) Soil and pest factors. Soil and pest factors that influence fumigant activity, including 

4749 all of the following: 

4750 (A) Influence of soil factors on fumigant volatility and movement within the soil profile. 

4751 (B) Factors that influence gaseous movement through the soil profile and into the air. 

4752 (C) Soil characteristics, including how soil characteristics affect the success of a soil 

4753 fumigation application, assessing soil moisture, and correcting for soil characteristics that could 

4754 hinder a successful soil fumigation application. 

4755 (D) Identifying pests causing the damage to be treated by the soil fumigation. 

4756 (E) Understanding the relationship between pest density and application rate. 

4757 (F) The importance of proper application depth and timing. 

4758 (vi) Personal protective equipment. Understanding what personal protective equipment is 

4759 necessary and how to use it properly, including all of the following: 

4760 (A) Following labeling directions for required personal protective equipment. 

4761 (B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring for, replacing, and disposing personal protective 

4762 equipment. 

4763 (C) Understanding the types of respirators required when using specific soil fumigants 

4764 and how to use them properly, including medical evaluation, fit testing, and required replacement 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 201 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4765 of cartridges and cannisters. 

4766 (D) Labeling requirements and other laws applicable to medical evaluation for respirator 

4767 use, fit tests, training, and recordkeeping. 

4768 (vii) Buffer zones and posting requirements. Understanding buffer zones and posting 

4769 requirements, including all of the following: 

4770 (A) Buffer zones and the buffer zone period. 

4771 (B) Identifying who may be in a buffer zone during the buffer zone period and who is 

4772 prohibited from being in a buffer zone during the buffer zone period. 

4773 (C) Using the buffer zone table from the labeling to determine the size of the buffer zone. 

4774 (D) Factors that determine the buffer zone credits for application scenarios and 

4775 calculating buffer zones using credits. 

4776 (E) Distinguishing buffer zone posting and treated area posting, including the pre4777 application and post-application posting timeframes for each. 

4778 (F) Proper choice and placement of warning signs. 

4779 (2) Non-soil fumigation applications. Private applicators that use or supervise the use of a 

4780 restricted use pesticide to fumigate anything other than soil must demonstrate practical 

4781 knowledge of the pest problems and pest control practices associated with performing fumigation 

4782 applications to sites other than soil, including all the following: 

4783 (i) Label and labeling comprehension. Familiarity with the pesticide labels and labeling 

4784 for products used to perform non-soil fumigation, including all of the following: 

4785 (A) Labeling requirements specific to non-soil fumigants. 

4786 (B) Labeling requirements for fumigant management plans such as when a fumigant 

4787 management plan must be in effect, how long it must be kept on file, where it must be kept 

4788 during the application, and who must have access to it; the elements of a fumigation management 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 202 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4789 plan and resources available to assist the applicator in preparing a fumigation management plan; 

4790 the party responsible for verifying that a fumigant management plan is accurate; and the 

4791 elements, purpose and content of a post-application summary, who must prepare it, and when it 

4792 must be completed. 

4793 (ii) Safety. Measures to minimize adverse health effects, including all of the following: 

4794 (A) Understanding how certified applicators, handlers, and bystanders can become 

4795 exposed to fumigants. 

4796 (B) Common problems and mistakes that can result in direct exposure to fumigants. 

4797 (C) Signs and symptoms of human exposure to fumigants. 

4798 (D) When air concentrations of a fumigant triggers handlers to wear respirators or to exit 

4799 the work area entirely. 

4800 (E) Steps to take if a person using a fumigant experiences sensory irritation. 

4801 (F) Understanding air monitoring, when it is required, and where to take samples. 

4802 (G) First aid measures to take in the event of exposure to a fumigant. 

4803 (H) Labeling requirements for transportation, storage, spill clean-up, and emergency 

4804 response for non-soil fumigants, including safe disposal of containers and contaminated 

4805 materials, and management of empty containers. 

4806 (iii) Non-soil fumigant chemical characteristics. Characteristics of non-soil fumigants, 

4807 including all of the following: 

4808 (A) Chemical characteristics of non-soil fumigants. 

4809 (B) Specific human exposure concerns for non-soil fumigants. 

4810 (C) How fumigants change from a liquid or solid to a gas. 

4811 (D) How fumigants disperse in the application zone. 

4812 (E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 203 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4813 (iv) Application. Selecting appropriate application methods and timing, including all of 

4814 the following: 

4815 (A) Application methods and equipment commonly used for non-soil fumigation. 

4816 (B) Site characteristics that can be used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

4817 (C) Conditions that could impact timing of non-soil fumigation application, such as air 

4818 stability, air temperature, humidity, and wind currents, and labeling statements limiting 

4819 applications when specific conditions are present. 

4820 (D) Conducting pre-application inspection of application equipment and the site to be 

4821 fumigated. 

4822 (E) Understanding the purpose and methods of sealing the area to be fumigated, including 

4823 the factors that determine which sealing method to use. 

4824 (F) Calculating the amount of product required for a specific treatment area. 

4825 (G) Understanding the basic techniques for calibrating non-soil fumigation application 

4826 equipment. 

4827 (H) Understanding when and how to conduct air monitoring and when it is required. 

4828 (v) Pest factors. Pest factors that influence fumigant activity, including all of the 

4829 following: 

4830 (A) Influence of pest factors on fumigant volatility. 

4831 (B) Factors that influence gaseous movement through the area being fumigated and into 

4832 the air. 

4833 (C) Identifying pests causing the damage to be treated by the fumigation. 

4834 (D) Understanding the relationship between pest density and application rate. 

4835 (E) The importance of proper application rate and timing. 

4836 (vi) Personal protective equipment. Understanding what personal protective equipment is 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 204 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4837 necessary and how to use it properly, including all of the following: 

4838 (A) Following labeling directions for required personal protective equipment. 

4839 (B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring for, replacing, and disposing of personal 

4840 protective equipment. 

4841 (C) Understanding the types of respirators required when using specific soil fumigants 

4842 and how to use them properly, including medical evaluation, fit testing, and required replacement 

4843 of cartridges and cannisters. 

4844 (D) Labeling requirements and other laws applicable to medical evaluation for respirator 

4845 use, fit tests, training, and recordkeeping. 

4846 (viii) Posting requirements. Understanding posting requirements, including all of the 

4847 following: 

4848 (A) Identifying who is allowed in an area being fumigated or after fumigation and who is 

4849 prohibited from being in such areas. 

4850 (B) Distinguishing fumigant labeling-required posting and treated area posting, including 

4851 the pre-application and post-application posting timeframes for each. 

4852 (C) Proper choice and placement of warning signs. 

4853 (3) Aerial applications. Private applicators that use or supervise the use of restricted use 

4854 pesticides applied by fixed or rotary wing aircraft must demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

4855 pest problems and pest control practices associated with performing aerial application, including 

4856 all the following: 

4857 (i) Labeling. Labeling requirements and restrictions specific to aerial application of 

4858 pesticides including: 

4859 (A) Spray volumes. 

4860 (B) Buffers and no-spray zones. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 205 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4861 (C) Weather conditions specific to wind and inversions. 

4862 (D) Labeling-mandated recordkeeping requirements for aerial pesticide applications 

4863 including application conditions if applicable. 

4864 (ii) Application equipment. Understand how to choose and maintain aerial application 

4865 equipment, including all of the following: 

4866 (A) The importance of inspecting application equipment to ensure it is proper operating 

4867 condition prior to beginning an application. 

4868 (B) Selecting proper nozzles to ensure appropriate pesticide dispersal and to minimize 

4869 drift. 

4870 (C) Knowledge of the components of an aerial application pesticide application system, 

4871 including pesticide hoppers, tanks, pumps, and types of nozzles. 

4872 (D) Interpreting a nozzle flow rate chart. 

4873 (E) Determining the number of nozzles for intended pesticide output using nozzle flow 

4874 rate chart, aircraft speed, and swath width. 

4875 (F) How to ensure nozzles are placed to compensate for uneven dispersal due to uneven 

4876 airflow from wingtip vortices, helicopter rotor turbulence, and aircraft propeller turbulence. 

4877 (G) Where to place nozzles to produce the appropriate droplet size. 

4878 (H) How to maintain the application system in good repair, including pressure gauge 

4879 accuracy, filter cleaning according to schedule, checking nozzles for excessive wear. 

4880 (I) How to calculate required and actual flow rates. 

4881 (J) How to verify flow rate using fixed timing, open timing, known distance, or a flow 

4882 meter. 

4883 (K) When to adjust and calibrate application equipment. 

4884 (iii) Application considerations. The applicator must demonstrate knowledge of factors to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 206 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4885 consider before and during application, including all of the following: 

4886 (A) Weather conditions that could impact application by affecting aircraft engine power, 

4887 take-off distance, and climb rate, or by promoting spray droplet evaporation. 

4888 (B) How to determine wind velocity, direction, and air density at the application site. 

4889 (C) The potential impact of thermals and temperature inversions on aerial pesticide 

4890 application. 

4891 (vi) Minimizing drift. The applicator must demonstrate knowledge of methods to 

4892 minimize off-target pesticide movement, including all of the following: 

4893 (A) How to determine drift potential of a product using a smoke generator. 

4894 (B) How to evaluate vertical and horizontal smoke plumes to assess wind direction, 

4895 speed, and concentration. 

4896 (C) Selecting techniques that minimize pesticide movement out of the area to be treated. 

4897 (D) Documenting special equipment configurations or flight patterns used to reduce off4898 target pesticide drift. 

4899 (v) Performing aerial application. The applicator must demonstrate competency in 

4900 performing an aerial pesticide application, including all of the following: 

4901 (A) Selecting a flight altitude that minimizes streaking and off-target pesticide drift. 

4902 (B) Choosing a flight pattern that ensures applicator and bystander safety and proper 

4903 application. 

4904 (C) The importance of engaging and disengaging spray precisely when entering and 

4905 exiting a predetermined swath pattern. 

4906 (D) Tools available to mark swaths, such as global positioning systems and flags. 

4907 (d) Private applicator minimum age. A private applicator must be at least 18 years old. 

4908 (e) Private applicator competence. The competence of each applicant for private 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 207 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4909 applicator certification must be determined by the certifying authority based upon the 

4910 certification standards set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section in order to assure that 

4911 private applicators are competent to use and supervise the use of restricted use pesticides in 

4912 accordance with applicable State, Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations. The certifying 

4913 authority must use either a written examination process as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

4914 section or a non-examination training process as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section to 

4915 assure the competence of private applicators in regard to the general certification standards 

4916 applicable to all private applicators, and, if applicable, the specific standards for the predator pest 

4917 control category and/or the standards for each application method-specific category in which an 

4918 applicator is to be certified, as provided for in this section. The certifying authority must follow 

4919 the labeling requirements for sodium fluoroacetate and sodium cyanide dispensed through an M4920 44 device to determine the competence of applicators in the predator control categories. 

4921 (1) Determination of competence by examination. If the certifying authority uses a 

4922 written examination process to determine the competence of private applicators, the examination 

4923 process must meet all of the requirements of §171.103(a)(2). 

4924 (2) Becoming competent through training without examination. Any applicant for 

4925 certification as a private applicator may become competent by completing a training program 

4926 approved by the certifying authority. A training program to establish private applicator 

4927 competence must conform to all of the following criteria: 

4928 (i) Positive photo identification. Each person seeking certification must present a valid, 

4929 government-issued photo identification to the certifying authority or designated representative as 

4930 proof of identity and age at the time of the training program to be eligible for certification. 

4931 (ii) Training programs for private applicator general certification and certification in 

4932 application method-specific categories. The training program for general private applicator 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 208 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4933 certification must cover the competency standards outlined in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

4934 training program for each application method-specific category for private applicator 

4935 certification must cover the competency standards outlined in paragraph (c) of this section and 

4936 must be in addition to the training program required for general private applicator certification. 

4937 § 171.107 Standards for recertification of certified applicators. 

4938 (a) Determination of continued competency. Each commercial and private applicator 

4939 certification shall expire 3 years after issuance, unless the applicator is recertified in accordance 

4940 with this section. A certifying authority may establish a shorter certification period. In order for a 

4941 certified applicator’s certification to continue without interruption, the certified applicator must 

4942 be recertified under this section before the expiration of his or her current certification.

4943 (b) Process for recertification. Minimum standards for recertification by written 

4944 examination, or through continuing education programs, are as follows: 

4945 (1) Written examination. A certified applicator may be found eligible for recertification 

4946 upon passing a written examination approved by the certifying authority and that is designed to 

4947 evaluate whether the certified applicator demonstrates the level of competency required by § 

4948 171.103 for commercial applicators or § 171.105 for private applicators. The examination shall 

4949 conform to the applicable standards for exams set forth in § 171.103(a)(2) of this chapter and be 

4950 designed to test the certified applicator’s knowledge of current technologies and practices. 

4951 (2) Continuing education programs. A certified applicator may be found eligible for 

4952 recertification upon successfully completing a continuing education program approved by the 

4953 certifying authority and designed to ensure the applicator continues to demonstrate the level of 

4954 competency required by § 171.103 for commercial applicators or § 171.105 for private 

4955 applicators. A recertification process that relies on a continuing education program to maintain 

4956 applicator certification must meet all of the following criteria: 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 209 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4957 (i) The continuing education program designed for applicator recertification must be 

4958 approved by the certifying authority as being capable of ensuring continued competency. 

4959 (ii) A private applicator continuing education program must require the private applicator 

4960 to complete six continuing education units specifically related to the standards of competency 

4961 outlined in § 171.105(a) before the expiration of the applicator’s certification to qualify for 

4962 recertification. To qualify for recertification for application method-specific categories, a private 

4963 applicator continuing education program must require the private applicator to complete three 

4964 continuing education units specifically related to the standards of competency outlined in § 

4965 171.105(c) for each relevant application method-specific category certification held by the 

4966 applicator before the expiration of the applicator’s certification. 

4967 (iii) A commercial applicator continuing education program must require the commercial 

4968 applicator to complete six continuing education units specifically related to the core standards of 

4969 competency for commercial applicators outlined in § 171.103(c) before the expiration of the 

4970 applicator’s certification. In addition, a commercial applicator continuing education program 

4971 must require the commercial applicator to complete six continuing education units specifically 

4972 related to the standards of competency outlined in § 171.103(d), (e), and (f) for each relevant 

4973 pest control category and application method-specific category of certification held by the 

4974 applicator before the expiration of the applicator’s certification in order to qualify for 

4975 recertification. 

4976 (iv) Any education program, including an online or other distance education program, 

4977 that grants continuing education units must have a process to verify the applicator’s successful 

4978 completion of the educational objectives of the program and positively identify the applicator 

4979 taking the continuing education units consistent with the requirements of §§ 171.103(a)(2)(iv) 

4980 and 171.105(e)(2)(i). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 210 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

4981 Subpart C - Supervision of Noncertified Applicators 

4982 § 171.201 Requirements for direct supervision of noncertified applicators by certified 

4983 applicators. 

4984 (a) Applicability. This section applies to any certified applicator who allows or relies on a 

4985 noncertified applicator to use a restricted use pesticide under the certified applicator’s direct 

4986 supervision. 

4987 (b) General requirements.

4988 (1) The certified applicator must have a practical knowledge of applicable Federal, State 

4989 and Tribal supervisory requirements, including any requirements on the product label and 

4990 labeling, regarding the use of restricted use pesticides by noncertified applicators. 

4991 (2) The certified applicator must be certified in each category as set forth in §§ 

4992 171.101(a) and (b) and 171.105(b) and (c) applicable to the supervised pesticide use. 

4993 (3) The certified applicator must ensure that any noncertified applicators working under 

4994 his or her direct supervision have met the training requirements under paragraph (c) of this 

4995 section. 

4996 (4) If the certified applicator is a commercial applicator, the certified applicator must 

4997 prepare and maintain the records required by paragraph (e) of this section. 

4998 (5) The certified applicator must ensure that all noncertified applicators working under 

4999 his or her direct supervision are at least 18 years of age. 

5000 (6) The certified applicator must ensure that a method for immediate communication 

5001 between the certified applicator and each noncertified applicator working under his or her direct 

5002 supervision is available. 

5003 (7) The certified applicator must ensure that the full labeling for the product(s) used 

5004 during a supervised use is in the possession of each noncertified applicator during the use. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 211 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5005 (8) The certified applicator must be physically present at the site of the use being 

5006 supervised when required by the product labeling. 

5007 (9) The certified applicator must provide use-specific instructions for each application to 

5008 each noncertified applicator, including labeling directions, precautions, and restrictions mandated 

5009 by the specific site; the interrelationship between the characteristics of the use site (e.g., surface 

5010 and ground water, endangered species, local population, and risks) and the conditions of 

5011 application (e.g., equipment, method of application, formulation, and risks); and how to use the 

5012 application equipment. 

5013 (10) The certified applicator must ensure that before any noncertified applicator uses any 

5014 equipment for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides, the noncertified applicator 

5015 has been instructed in the safe operation of such equipment within the last 12 months. 

5016 (11) The certified applicator must ensure that before each day of use equipment used for 

5017 mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn or 

5018 damaged parts. If worn or damaged parts or equipment are found, the certified applicator must 

5019 ensure that any damaged equipment is repaired or replaced prior to use. 

5020 (12) Where the labeling of a pesticide product requires that personal protective equipment 

5021 be worn for mixing, loading, application, or any other use activities, the certified applicator must 

5022 ensure that any noncertified applicator using restricted use pesticides under his or her direct 

5023 supervision has the label-required personal protective equipment, that the personal protective 

5024 equipment is worn and used correctly for its intended purpose, and that the personal protective 

5025 equipment is clean and in proper operating condition. 

5026 (c) Training requirement. Before any noncertified applicator uses a restricted use 

5027 pesticide under the direct supervision of the certified applicator, the supervising certified 

5028 applicator must ensure that the noncertified applicator has met at least one of the following 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 212 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5029 qualifications: 

5030 (1) The noncertified applicator has been trained in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

5031 section within the last 12 months. 

5032 (2) The noncertified applicator has met the training requirements for an agricultural 

5033 handler under § 170.201(c) within the last 12 months. 

5034 (3) The noncertified applicator has passed an examination covering the core standards of 

5035 competency for commercial applicators outlined in § 171.103(c) within the last 3 years. 

5036 (d) Noncertified applicator training programs. 

5037 (1) General noncertified applicator training must be presented to applicators either orally 

5038 from written materials or audio visually. The information must be presented in a manner that the 

5039 noncertified applicators can understand, such as through a translator. The person conducting the 

5040 training must be present during the entire training program and must respond to the noncertified 

5041 applicators’ questions. 

5042 (2) The person who conducts the training must meet at least one of the following criteria: 

5043 (i) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under this part. 

5044 (ii) Be currently designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by a 

5045 State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction. 

5046 (iii) Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program under 40 CFR part 170. 

5047 (3) The noncertified applicator training materials must include the information that 

5048 noncertified applicators need to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, 

5049 during, and after making a restricted use pesticide application. The noncertified applicator 

5050 training materials must include, at a minimum, the following: 

5051 (i) Format and meaning of information contained in pesticide labels and labeling, 

5052 including safety information, such as precautionary statements about human health hazards. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 213 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5053 (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and 

5054 chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

5055 (iii) Routes by which pesticides can enter the body. 

5056 (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

5057 (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

5058 (vi) How to obtain emergency medical care. 

5059 (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures. 

5060 (viii) Need for and proper use of personal protective equipment. 

5061 (ix) Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness associated with 

5062 the use of personal protective equipment. 

5063 (x) Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

5064 including general procedures for spill cleanup. 

5065 (xi) Environmental concerns such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

5066 (xii) Warnings against taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. 

5067 (xiii) Washing and changing work clothes before physical contact with family. 

5068 (xiv) Washing work clothes separately from the family’s clothes before wearing them 

5069 again. 

5070 (xv) Precautions required to protect children and pregnant women. 

5071 (xvi) How to report suspected pesticide illness to the appropriate State agency. 

5072 (xvii) Instructions that the certified applicator must provide use-specific instructions for 

5073 each application to the noncertified applicator(s), including labeling directions, precautions, and 

5074 restrictions mandated by the specific site; the interrelationship between the characteristics of the 

5075 use site (e.g., surface and ground water, endangered species, local population, and risks) and the 

5076 conditions of application (e.g., equipment, method of application, formulation, and risks); and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 214 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5077 how to use the application equipment. 

5078 (e) Recordkeeping. For each noncertified applicator who uses a restricted use pesticide 

5079 under a commercial applicator’s direct supervision, the commercial applicator supervising any 

5080 noncertified applicator must collect and maintain at the commercial applicator’s principal place 

5081 of business for 2 years from the date of meeting the training requirements of paragraph d of this 

5082 section, the following information: 

5083 (1) The noncertified applicator’s printed name and signature. 

5084 (2) The date the training requirement in paragraph (d) of this section was met. 

5085 (3) The name of the person who provided the training or the certifying agency, as 

5086 applicable. 

5087 (4) The supervising certified applicator’s name. 

5088 (f) Compliance date. After [date 2 years and 60 days after date of publication of the final 

5089 rule in the Federal Register], any certified applicator who supervises a noncertified applicator 

5090 using a restricted use pesticide under his or her direct supervision must comply with the 

5091 requirements of this section. 

5092 Subpart D- Certification Plans 

5093 § 171.301 General. 

5094 (a) Jurisdiction. A certification issued under a particular certifying authority’s 

5095 certification plan is only valid within the geographical area covered by the certification plan 

5096 approved by the Agency. 

5097 (b) Status of certification plans approved before effective date. A certification plan 

5098 approved by EPA before the effective date of this part remains approved until [date 4 years and 

5099 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], except as provided in 

5100 § 171.301(c)(4) and (5). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 215 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5101 (c) Compliance dates. (1) After [date 4 years and 60 days after date of publication of the final 

5102 rule in the Federal Register], a State, Tribe or Federal agency may only certify applicators of 

5103 restricted use pesticides in accordance with a certification plan that meets or exceeds all of the 

5104 applicable requirements of this part and has been approved by the Agency. 

5105 (2) A State, Tribe or Federal agency that currently has an EPA-approved plan for the 

5106 certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides and that chooses to certify applicators of 

5107 restricted use pesticides under this part must submit to EPA for review and approval a revised 

5108 certification plan that meets or exceeds all of the applicable requirements of this part no later 

5109 than [date 2 years and 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. 

5110 (3) If the Agency approves a certification plan submitted no later than [date 2 years and 

5111 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], a State, Tribe, or 

5112 Federal agency may only certify applicators of restricted use pesticides in accordance with the 

5113 approved revised plan. 

5114 (4) If after [date 2 years and 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the 

5115 Federal Register] EPA has received but not yet approved the State, Tribal, or Federal agency 

5116 certification plan revision submitted no later than [date 2 years and 60 days after date of 

5117 publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the State, Tribe, or Federal Agency may 

5118 continue to certify applicators under the certification plan approved before the rule’s effective 

5119 date until such time as EPA approves a revised certification plan that meets or exceeds all 

5120 applicable requirements of this part. 

5121 (5) States, Tribes, or Federal agencies that do not have an EPA-approved certification plan 

5122 before the effective date of this rule may submit to EPA for review and approval a certification 

5123 plan that meets or exceeds all of the applicable requirements of this part any time after the 

5124 effective date of this rule. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 216 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5125 § 171.303 Requirements for State certification plans. 

5126 (a) Conformance with Federal standards for certification of applicators of restricted use 

5127 pesticides. A State may certify applicators of restricted use pesticides only in accordance with a 

5128 State certification plan submitted to and approved by the Agency. 

5129 (1) The State certification plan must include a full description of the proposed process the 

5130 State will use to assess applicator competency to use or supervise the use of restricted use 

5131 pesticides in the State. 

5132 (2) The State plan must list and describe the categories of certification from the 

5133 certification categories listed in §§ 171.101(a) and (b) and 171.105(b) and (c), that will be 

5134 included in the plan except that: 

5135 (i) A State may omit any unneeded certification categories. 

5136 (ii) A State may designate subcategories within the categories described in §§ 171.101(a) 

5137 and (b) and 171.105(c) as it deems necessary, with the exception of the predator pest control 

5138 categories outlined in §§ 171.101(a)(10) and 171.105(b). 

5139 (iii) A State may adopt additional certification categories for specific types of pest control 

5140 or application methods not covered by the existing Federal categories described in §§ 171.101(a) 

5141 and (b) and 171.105(b) and (c). 

5142 (3) For each of the categories adopted pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 

5143 State plan must include standards for the certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides 

5144 that meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under §§ 171.101 through 

5145 171.105. 

5146 (4) The State standards for the recertification of applicators of restricted use pesticides 

5147 must meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under § 171.107. 

5148 (5) The State standards for the direct supervision of noncertified applicators by certified 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 217 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5149 private and commercial applicators of restricted use pesticides meet or exceed those standards 

5150 prescribed by the Agency under § 171.201. 

5151 (6) The State certification plan must contain provisions for issuance of appropriate 

5152 credentials or documents by the certifying authority verifying certification of applicators. The 

5153 credential or document must contain all of the following information: 

5154 (i) The full name of the certified applicator. 

5155 (ii) The certification, license, or credential number of the certified applicator. 

5156 (iii) The type of certification (private or commercial). 

5157 (iv) The category(ies), including any pest control categories, application method-specific 

5158 category(ies), and subcategory(ies) in which the applicator is certified. 

5159 (v) The expiration date of the certification(s). 

5160 (vi) If the certification is based on a certification issued by another State, Tribe or Federal 

5161 agency, a statement identifying the State, Tribe or Federal agency certification upon which this 

5162 certification is based. 

5163 (7) The State certification plan must explain whether, and if so, under what 

5164 circumstances, the State will certify applicators based in whole or in part on their holding a valid 

5165 current certification issued by another State, Tribe or Federal agency. Such certifications are 

5166 subject to all of the following conditions: 

5167 (i) A State may rely only on valid current certifications that are issued directly under an 

5168 approved State, Tribal or Federal agency certification plan and are not based on another 

5169 certifying authority’s certification. 

5170 (ii) The State certification regulations must provide that any certification that is based in 

5171 whole or in part on the applicator holding a valid current certification issued by another State, 

5172 Tribe or Federal agency terminates automatically if the certification on which it is based 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 218 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5173 terminates for any reason. 

5174 (iii) The State issuing a certification based in whole or in part on the applicator holding a 

5175 valid current certification issued by another State, Tribe or Federal agency must issue an 

5176 appropriate State credential or document to the applicator in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of 

5177 this section. 

5178 (b) Contents of a request for EPA approval of a State plan for certification of applicators 

5179 of restricted use pesticides. 

5180 (1) The application for Agency approval of a State certification plan must list and 

5181 describe the categories of certification from the certification categories. 

5182 (2) The application for Agency approval of a State certification plan must contain 

5183 satisfactory documentation that the State standards for the certification of applicators of 

5184 restricted use pesticides meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under §§ 

5185 171.101 through 171.105. Such documentation must include one of the following: 

5186 (i) A statement that the State has adopted the same standards for certification prescribed 

5187 by the Agency under §§ 171.101 through 171.105 and a citation of the specific State laws and/or 

5188 regulations demonstrating that the State has adopted such standards. 

5189 (ii) A statement that the State has adopted its own standards that meet or exceed the 

5190 standards for certification prescribed by the Agency under §§ 171.101 through 171.105. If the 

5191 State selects this option, the certification plan must include both: 

5192 (A) A list and detailed description of all the categories, application method-specific 

5193 categories, and subcategories to be used for certification of private and commercial applicators in 

5194 the State and a citation to the specific State laws and/or regulations demonstrating that the State 

5195 has adopted such categories, application method-specific categories, and subcategories. 

5196 (B) A list and detailed description of all of the standards for certification of private and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 219 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5197 commercial applicators adopted by the State and a citation to the specific State laws and/or 

5198 regulations demonstrating that the State has adopted such standards. Any additional pest control 

5199 categories, application-method specific categories, or subcategories established by a State must 

5200 be included in the application for Agency approval of a State plan and must clearly delineate the 

5201 standards the State will use to determine if the applicator is competent. 

5202 (3) The application for Agency approval of a State certification plan must contain 

5203 satisfactory documentation that the State standards for the recertification of applicators of 

5204 restricted use pesticides meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under § 

5205 171.107. Such documentation must include a statement that the State has adopted its own 

5206 standards that meet or exceed the standards for recertification prescribed by the Agency under § 

5207 171.107. The application for Agency approval of a certification plan must include a list and 

5208 detailed description of all of the State standards for recertification of private and commercial 

5209 applicators and a citation of the specific State laws and/or regulations demonstrating that the 

5210 State has adopted such standards. 

5211 (4) The application for Agency approval of a State certification plan must contain 

5212 satisfactory documentation that the State standards for the direct supervision of noncertified 

5213 applicators by certified private and commercial applicators of restricted use pesticides meet or 

5214 exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under § 171.201. Such documentation must 

5215 include one or both of the following as applicable: 

5216 (i) A statement that the State has met or exceeded the standards for direct supervision of 

5217 noncertified applicators by certified private and/or commercial applicators prescribed by the 

5218 Agency under § 171.201 and a citation of the specific State laws and/or regulations 

5219 demonstrating that the State has adopted such standards. 

5220 (ii) A statement that the State prohibits noncertified applicators from using restricted use 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 220 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5221 pesticides under the direct supervision of certified private and/or commercial applicators, and a 

5222 citation of the specific State laws and/or regulations demonstrating that the State has adopted 

5223 such a prohibition. 

5224 (5) The application for Agency approval of a State certification plan must include all of 

5225 the following: 

5226 (i) A written designation of the State agency by the Governor of that State as the lead 

5227 agency responsible for being the primary certifying authority and administering the certification 

5228 plan in the State. The lead agency will serve as the central contact point for the Agency. The 

5229 certification plan must identify the primary point of contact at the lead agency responsible for 

5230 administering the certification plan and serving as the central contact for the Agency on any 

5231 issues related to the State certification plan. In the event that more than one agency or 

5232 organization will be responsible for performing functions under the certification plan, the plan 

5233 must identify all cooperators and list the functions to be performed by each agency or 

5234 organization, including compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. The plan must 

5235 indicate how the plan will be coordinated by the lead agency to ensure consistency of the 

5236 administration of the certification plan throughout the state. 

5237 (ii) A written opinion from the State attorney general or from the legal counsel of the 

5238 State lead agency that states the lead agency and other cooperating agencies have the legal 

5239 authority necessary to carry out the plan. 

5240 (iii) A listing of the qualified personnel that the lead agency and any cooperating agencies 

5241 or organizations have to carry out the plan. The list must include the number of staff, job titles, 

5242 and job functions of such personnel of the lead agency and any cooperating units. 

5243 (iv) A commitment by the State that the lead agency and any cooperators will ensure 

5244 sufficient resources are available to carry out the applicator certification program as detailed in 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 221 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5245 the plan. 

5246 (6) The application for Agency approval of a State certification plan must include a 

5247 complete copy of all State laws and regulations relevant to the certification plan. In addition, the 

5248 plan must include citations to the specific State laws and regulations that demonstrate specific 

5249 legal authority for each of the following: 

5250 (i) Provisions for and listing of the acts which would constitute grounds for denying, 

5251 suspending and revoking certification of applicators. Such grounds must include, at a minimum, 

5252 misuse of a pesticide and falsification of any records required to be maintained by the certified 

5253 applicator. 

5254 (ii) Provisions for reviewing, and where appropriate, suspending or revoking an 

5255 applicator's certification based on the applicator’s conduct or a criminal conviction under section 

5256 14(b) of FIFRA, a final order imposing civil penalty under section 14(a) of FIFRA, or conclusion 

5257 of a State enforcement action for violations of State laws or regulations relevant to the 

5258 certification plan. 

5259 (iii) Provisions for assessing criminal and civil penalties for violations of State laws or 

5260 regulations relevant to the certification plan. 

5261 (iv) Provisions for right of entry by consent or warrant by State officials at reasonable 

5262 times for sampling, inspection, and observation purposes. 

5263 (v) Provisions making it unlawful for persons other than certified applicators or 

5264 noncertified applicators working under a certified applicator’s direct supervision to use restricted 

5265 use pesticides. 

5266 (vi) Provisions requiring certified commercial applicators to record and maintain for the 

5267 period of at least two years routine operational records containing information on types, 

5268 amounts, uses, dates, and places of application of restricted use pesticides and for ensuring that 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 222 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5269 such records will be available to appropriate State officials. Such provisions must require 

5270 commercial applicators to record and maintain, at a minimum, all of the following: 

5271 (A) The name and address of the person for whom the restricted use pesticide was 

5272 applied. 

5273 (B) The location of the restricted use pesticide application. 

5274 (C) The size of the area treated. 

5275 (D) The crop, commodity, stored product, or site to which the restricted use pesticide was 

5276 applied. 

5277 (E) The time and date of the restricted use pesticide application. 

5278 (F) The brand or product name of the restricted use pesticide applied. 

5279 (G) The EPA registration number of the restricted use pesticide applied. 

5280 (H) The total amount of the restricted use pesticide applied per location per application. 

5281 (I) The name and certification number of the certified applicator that made or supervised 

5282 the application, and, if applicable, the name of any noncertified applicator(s) that made the 

5283 application under the direct supervision of the certified applicator. 

5284 (J) Records required under § 171.201(c). 

5285 (vii) Provisions requiring persons who distribute or sell restricted use pesticides to record 

5286 and maintain at each individual dealership, for the period of at least 2 years, records of each 

5287 transaction where a restricted use pesticide is distributed or sold to any person, excluding 

5288 transactions solely between persons who are pesticide producers, registrants, wholesalers, or 

5289 retail sellers, acting only in those capacities. Records of each such transaction must include all of 

5290 the following information: 

5291 (A) Name and address of the residence or principal place of business of each certified 

5292 applicator to whom the restricted use pesticide was distributed or sold, or if applicable, the name 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 223 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5293 and address of the residence or principal place of business of each noncertified person to whom 

5294 the restricted use pesticide was distributed or sold for application by a certified applicator. 

5295 (B) The certification number on the certification document presented to the seller 

5296 evidencing the valid certification of the certified applicator authorized to purchase the restricted 

5297 use pesticide, the State, Tribe or Federal agency that issued the certification document, the 

5298 expiration date of the certified applicator's certification, and the categories in which the 

5299 applicator is certified. 

5300 (C) The product name and EPA registration number of the restricted use pesticide(s) 

5301 distributed or sold in the transaction, including any applicable emergency exemption or State 

5302 special local need registration number. 

5303 (D) The quantity of the restricted use pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the transaction. 

5304 (E) The date of the transaction. 

5305 (c) Requirement to submit reports to the Agency. The State must submit reports to the 

5306 Agency in a manner and containing the information that the Agency requires, including all of the 

5307 following: 

5308 (1) An annual report to be submitted by the State lead agency to the Agency by the date 

5309 established by the Agency that includes all of the following information: 

5310 (i) The number of new, recertified, and total applicators holding a valid general private 

5311 applicator certification at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5312 (ii) For each application method-specific category specified in § 171.105(c), the numbers 

5313 of new, recertified and total existing private applicators holding valid current certifications at the 

5314 end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5315 (iii) The numbers of new, recertified, and total commercial applicators certified in at least 

5316 one certification category at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 224 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5317 (iv) For each commercial applicator pest control certification category specified in § 

5318 171.101(a), the numbers of new, recertified and total commercial applicators holding a valid 

5319 certification in each of those categories at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5320 (v) For each application method-specific category specified in § 171.101(b), the numbers 

5321 of new, recertified and total existing commercial applicators holding valid current certifications 

5322 at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5323 (vi) If a State has established subcategories within any of the commercial categories, the 

5324 report must include the numbers of new, recertified and total commercial applicators holding 

5325 valid certifications in each of the subcategories at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5326 (vii) A description of any modifications made to the approved certification plan during 

5327 the last 12 month reporting period that have not been previously evaluated by the Agency under 

5328 § 171.309(a)(3). 

5329 (viii) A description of any proposed changes to the certification plan that the State 

5330 anticipates making during the next reporting period that may affect the certification program. 

5331 (ix) The number and description of enforcement actions taken for any violations of 

5332 Federal or State laws and regulations involving use of restricted use pesticides during the last 12-

5333 month reporting period. 

5334 (x) A narrative summary and causal analysis of any misuse incidents or enforcement 

5335 actions related to use of restricted use pesticides during the last 12 month reporting period. The 

5336 summary should include the pesticide name and registration number, use or site involved, nature 

5337 of violation, any adverse effects, most recent date of the certified applicator’s certification or 

5338 recertification and, if applicable, the date of qualification of any noncertified applicator using 

5339 restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of the certified applicator. This summary 

5340 should include a discussion of potential changes in policy or procedure to prevent future 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 225 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5341 incidents or violations. 

5342 (2) Any other reports that may be required by the Agency to meet specific needs. 

5343 § 171.305 Requirements for Federal agency certification plans. 

5344 (a) A Federal agency may certify applicators of restricted use pesticides only in 

5345 accordance with a Federal agency certification plan submitted to and approved by the Agency. 

5346 Certification must be limited to the employees of the Federal agency covered by the certification 

5347 plan and will be valid only for those uses of restricted use pesticides conducted in the 

5348 performance of the employees’ official duties. 

5349 (1) The Federal agency certification plan must include a full description of the proposed 

5350 process the Federal agency will use to assess applicator competency to use or supervise the use 

5351 of restricted use pesticides. 

5352 (2) Employees certified by the Federal agency must meet the standards for commercial 

5353 applicators. 

5354 (3) The Federal agency plan must list and describe the categories of certification from the 

5355 certification categories listed in §§ 171.101(a) and (b) that will be included in the plan except 

5356 that: 

5357 (i) A Federal agency may omit any unneeded certification categories. 

5358 (ii) A Federal agency may designate subcategories within the categories described in §§ 

5359 171.101(a) and (b) as it deems necessary, with the exception of the predator pest control 

5360 categories outlined in §§ 171.101(a)(10). 

5361 (iii) A Federal agency may adopt additional certification categories for specific types of 

5362 pest control or application methods not covered by the existing Federal categories described in 

5363 §§ 171.101(a) and (b). 

5364 (4) For each of the categories adopted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 226 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5365 Federal agency plan must include standards for the certification of applicators of restricted use 

5366 pesticides that meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under §§ 171.101 

5367 through 171.103. 

5368 (5) The Federal agency standards for the recertification of applicators of restricted use 

5369 pesticides must meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under § 171.107. 

5370 (6) The Federal agency standards for the direct supervision of noncertified applicators by 

5371 certified private and commercial applicators of restricted use pesticides meet or exceed those 

5372 standards prescribed by the Agency under § 171.201. 

5373 (7) The Federal agency certification plan must contain provisions for issuance of 

5374 appropriate credentials or documents by the certifying authority verifying certification of 

5375 applicators. The credential or document must contain all information listed in § 171.303(a)(6), 

5376 except for the requirement to list the type of certification at § 171.303(a)(6)(iii). 

5377 (8) The Federal agency certification plan must explain whether, and if so, under what 

5378 circumstances, the Federal Agency will certify applicators based in whole or in part on their 

5379 holding a valid current certification issued by another State, Tribe or Federal agency. Such 

5380 certifications are subject to all of the conditions listed at § 171.303(a)(7). 

5381 (b) Contents of a request for EPA approval of a Federal agency plan for certification of 

5382 applicators of restricted use pesticides. 

5383 (1) The application for Agency approval of a Federal agency certification plan must list 

5384 and describe the categories of certification from the certification categories. 

5385 (2) The application for Agency approval of a Federal Agency certification plan must 

5386 contain a statement that the Federal agency standards for certification of applicators of restricted 

5387 use pesticides meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the Agency under §§ 171.101 and 

5388 171.103. Such a statement must include one of the following: 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 227 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5389 (i) A statement that the Federal agency has adopted the same standards for certification 

5390 prescribed by the Agency under §§ 171.101 through 171.103 . 

5391 (ii) A statement that the Federal agency has adopted its own standards that meet or 

5392 exceed the standards for certification prescribed by the Agency under §§ 171.101 through 

5393 171.103. If the Federal agency selects this option, the certification plan must include both: 

5394 (A) A list and detailed description of all the categories, application method-specific 

5395 categories, and subcategories to be used for certification of private and commercial applicators. 

5396 (B) A list and detailed description of all of the standards for certification of commercial 

5397 applicators adopted by the Federal agency. Any additional pest control categories, application5398 method specific categories, or subcategories established by a Federal agency must be included in 

5399 the application for Agency approval of a Federal agency plan and must clearly delineate the 

5400 standards the Federal agency will use to determine if the applicator is competent. 

5401 (3) The application for Agency approval of a Federal agency plan must include a 

5402 statement that the Federal agency has adopted standards for recertification that meet or exceed 

5403 the standards for certification prescribed by the Agency under § 171.107. If the Federal agency 

5404 adopts its own standards for recertification, the application for Agency approval of a Federal 

5405 agency certification plan must include a list and detailed description of all the standards for 

5406 recertification adopted by the Federal agency. 

5407 (4) The application for Agency approval of a Federal Agency certification plan must 

5408 contain a statement that the Federal agency standards for direct supervision of noncertified 

5409 applicators by certified commercial applicators meet or exceed those standards prescribed by the 

5410 Agency under § 171.201, or a statement that the Federal agency prohibits noncertified 

5411 applicators from using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of certified 

5412 commercial applicators. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 228 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5413 (5) The application for Agency approval of a Federal agency certification plan must meet 

5414 or exceed all of the applicable requirements in § 171.303. However, in place of the legal 

5415 authorities required in § 171.303(b)(6), the Federal agency may use administrative controls 

5416 inherent in the employer-employee relationship to accomplish the objectives of § 171.303(b)(6). 

5417 The application for Agency approval of a Federal agency certification plan must include a 

5418 detailed description of how the Federal agency will exercise its administrative authority, where 

5419 appropriate to deny, suspend or revoke certificates of employees who misuse pesticides, falsify 

5420 records or violate relevant provisions of FIFRA. Similarly, the application for Agency approval 

5421 of a Federal agency certification plan must include a commitment that the Federal agency will 

5422 record and maintain for the period of at least two years routine operational records containing 

5423 information on types, amounts, uses, dates, and places of application of restricted use pesticides 

5424 and that such records will be available to State and Federal officials. Such recordkeeping 

5425 requirements must require Federal agency employees certified as commercial applicators to 

5426 record and maintain, at a minimum, all of the records specified in § 171.303(b)(6)(vi). 

5427 (c) The application for Agency approval of a Federal agency certification plan must 

5428 include a commitment by the Federal agency to submit an annual report to the Agency in a 

5429 manner that the Agency requires that includes all of the following information: 

5430 (1) The numbers of new, recertified, and total commercial applicators certified in at least 

5431 one certification category at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5432 (2) For each commercial applicator certification category specified in § 171.101(a), the 

5433 numbers of new, recertified and total commercial applicators holding a valid certification in each 

5434 of those categories at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5435 (3) For each application method-specific category specified in § 171.101(b) chapter, the 

5436 numbers of new, recertified and total existing commercial applicators holding valid current 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 229 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5437 certifications at the end of the last 12 month reporting period. 

5438 (4) If the Federal agency has established subcategories within any of the commercial 

5439 categories, the report must include the numbers of new, recertified and total commercial 

5440 applicators holding valid certifications in each of those subcategories at the end of the last 12 

5441 month reporting period. 

5442 (5) A description of any modifications made to the approved certification plan during the 

5443 last 12 month reporting period that have not been previously evaluated under § 171.309(a)(3). 

5444 (6) A description of any proposed changes to the certification plan that may affect the 

5445 certification program that the Federal agency anticipates making during the next reporting 

5446 period. 

5447 (7) The number and description of enforcement actions taken for any violations of 

5448 Federal or State laws and regulations involving use of restricted use pesticides during the last 12-

5449 month reporting period. 

5450 (8) A narrative summary of misuse incidents or enforcement activities related to use of 

5451 restricted use pesticides during the last twelve-month reporting period. This section should 

5452 include a discussion of potential changes in policy or procedure to prevent future incidents or 

5453 violations. 

5454 (d) The application for Agency approval of a Federal agency certification plan must 

5455 include a commitment by the Federal agency to submit any other reports that may be required by 

5456 the Agency to meet specific needs. 

5457 (e) If applicators certified under the Federal agency plan will make any applications of 

5458 restricted use pesticides in States or Indian country, the application for Agency approval of a 

5459 Federal agency certification plan must meet the following additional requirements: 

5460 (1) The Federal agency plan must have a provision that affirms Federal agency certified 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 230 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5461 applicators will comply with all applicable State and Tribal pesticide laws and regulations of the 

5462 jurisdiction in which the restricted pesticide is being used when using restricted use pesticides in 

5463 States or Indian country, including any substantive State or Tribal standards in regard to 

5464 qualifications for commercial applicator certification that exceed the Federal agency’s standards. 

5465 (2) The Federal agency plan must have a provision for the Federal agency to notify the 

5466 appropriate EPA regional office and State or Tribal pesticide authority in the event of misuse or 

5467 suspected misuse of a restricted use pesticide by a Federal agency employee and any pesticide 

5468 exposure incident involving human or environmental harm that may have been caused by an 

5469 application of a restricted use pesticide made by a Federal agency employee. 

5470 (3) The Federal agency plan must have a provision for the Federal agency to cooperate 

5471 with the Agency and the State or Tribal pesticide authority in any investigation or enforcement 

5472 action undertaken in connection with an application of a restricted use pesticide made by a 

5473 Federal agency employee. 

5474 § 171.307 Certification of applicators in Indian country. 

5475 All applicators of restricted use pesticides in Indian country must hold a certification valid in that 

5476 area of Indian country, or be working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator whose 

5477 certification is valid in that area of Indian country. An Indian Tribe may certify applicators of 

5478 restricted use pesticides in Indian country only pursuant to a certification plan approved by the 

5479 Agency that meets the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. The Agency may 

5480 implement a Federal certification plan, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section and § 171.311, 

5481 for an area of Indian country not covered by an approved plan. 

5482 (a) An Indian Tribe may choose to allow persons holding currently valid certifications 

5483 issued under one or more specified State, Tribal, or Federal agency certification plans to use 

5484 restricted use pesticides within the Tribe’s Indian country. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 231 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5485 (1) A certification plan under paragraph (a) must consist of a written agreement between 

5486 the Tribe and the relevant EPA Region(s) that contains the following information: 

5487 (i) A detailed map or legal description of the area(s) of Indian country covered by the 

5488 plan. 

5489 (ii) A listing of the State(s), Tribe(s) or Federal agency(ies) upon whose certifications the 

5490 Tribe will rely. 

5491 (iii) A description of any Tribal law, regulation, or code relating to application of 

5492 restricted use pesticides in the covered area of Indian country, including a citation to each 

5493 applicable Tribal law, regulation, or code. 

5494 (iv) A description of the procedures and relevant authorities for carrying out compliance 

5495 monitoring under and enforcement of the plan, including: 

5496 (A) A description of the Agency and Tribal roles and procedures for conducting 

5497 inspections. 

5498 (B) A description of the Agency and Tribal roles and procedures for handling case 

5499 development and enforcement actions and actions on certifications, including procedures for 

5500 exchange of information. 

5501 (C) A description of the Agency and Tribal roles and procedures for handling complaint 

5502 referrals. 

5503 (v) A description and copy of any separate agreements relevant to administering the 

5504 certification plan and carrying out related compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. The 

5505 description shall include a listing of all parties involved in the separate agreement and the 

5506 respective roles, responsibilities, and relevant authorities of those parties. 

5507 (2) To the extent that an Indian Tribe is precluded from asserting criminal enforcement 

5508 authority, the Federal government will exercise primary criminal enforcement authority for 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 232 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5509 certification plans under paragraph (a) of this section. The Tribe and the relevant EPA region(s) 

5510 shall develop a procedure whereby the Tribe will provide potential investigative leads to EPA 

5511 and/or other appropriate Federal agencies in an appropriate and timely manner. This procedure 

5512 shall encompass, at a minimum, all circumstances in which the Tribe is incapable of exercising 

5513 relevant criminal enforcement requirements. This procedure shall be included as part of the 

5514 agreement between the Tribe and relevant EPA Region(s) described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

5515 section. 

5516 (3) A plan for the certification of applicators under paragraph (a) of this section shall not 

5517 be effective until the agreement between the Tribe and the relevant EPA Region(s) has been 

5518 signed by the Tribe and the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator(s). 

5519 (b) An Indian Tribe may choose to develop its own certification plan for certifying 

5520 private and commercial applicators to use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. 

5521 (1) A certification plan under paragraph (b) of this section shall consist of a written plan 

5522 submitted by the Tribe to the Agency for approval that includes all of the following information: 

5523 (i) A detailed map or legal description of the area(s) of Indian country covered by the 

5524 plan. 

5525 (ii) A demonstration that the plan meets all requirements of § 171.303 applicable to State 

5526 plans, except that the Tribe’s plan will not be required to meet the requirements of § 

5527 171.303(i)(3) with respect to provisions for criminal penalties, or any other requirement for 

5528 assessing criminal penalties. 

5529 (2) To the extent that an Indian Tribe is precluded from asserting criminal enforcement 

5530 authority, the Federal government will exercise primary criminal enforcement authority for 

5531 certification plans under paragraph (b) of this section. The Tribe and the relevant EPA Region(s) 

5532 shall develop a procedure whereby the Tribe will provide potential investigative leads to EPA 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 233 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5533 and/or other appropriate Federal agencies in an appropriate and timely manner. This procedure 

5534 shall encompass, at a minimum, all circumstances in which the Tribe is incapable of exercising 

5535 relevant criminal enforcement requirements and shall be described in a memorandum of 

5536 agreement signed by the Tribe and the relevant EPA Regional Administrator(s). 

5537 (3) A plan for the certification of applicators under paragraph (b) of this section shall not 

5538 be effective until the memorandum of agreement required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section 

5539 has been signed by the Tribe and the relevant EPA Region(s) and the plan has been approved by 

5540 the Agency. 

5541 (c) In any area of Indian country not covered by an approved certification plan, the 

5542 Agency may, in consultation with the Tribe(s) affected, implement an EPA-administered 

5543 certification plan under § 171.311 for certifying private and commercial applicators to use or 

5544 supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. 

5545 (1) Prior to publishing a notice of a proposed EPA-administered certification plan for an 

5546 area of Indian country in the Federal Register for review and comment under § 171.311(d)(3), 

5547 the Agency shall notify the relevant Indian Tribe(s) of EPA’s intent to propose the plan. 

5548 (2) The Agency will not implement an EPA-administered certification plan for any area 

5549 of Indian country where, prior to the expiration of the notice and comment period provided under 

5550 § 171.311(d)(3), the chairperson or equivalent elected leader of the relevant Tribe provides the 

5551 Agency with a written statement of the Tribe’s position that the plan should not be implemented. 

5552 § 171.309 Modification and withdrawal of certification plans. 

5553 (a) Modifications to approved certification plans. A State, Tribe, or Federal agency may 

5554 make modifications to its approved certification plan, provided that all of the following 

5555 conditions are met: 

5556 (1) Determination of plan compliance. Before modifying an approved certification plan, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 234 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5557 the State, Tribe, or Federal agency must determine that the proposed modifications will not 

5558 impair the certification plan’s compliance with the requirements of this part or any other Federal 

5559 laws or regulations. 

5560 (2) Requirement for Agency notification. The State, Tribe, or Federal agency must notify 

5561 the Agency of any plan modifications within 90 days after the final State, Tribal, or Federal 

5562 agency modifications become effective or when it submits its required annual report to the 

5563 Agency, whichever occurs first. 

5564 (3) Additional requirements for substantial modifications to approved certification plans.

5565 Before making any substantial modifications to an approved certification plan, the State, Tribe or 

5566 Federal agency must consult with the Agency and obtain Agency approval of the proposed 

5567 modifications. The Agency shall make a written determination regarding the modified 

5568 certification plan’s compliance with the requirements of this part. Substantial modifications 

5569 include the following: 

5570 (i) Deletion of a mechanism for certification and/or recertification. 

5571 (ii) Establishment of a new private applicator subcategory, commercial applicator 

5572 category, or commercial applicator subcategory. 

5573 (iii) Any other changes that the Agency has notified the State, Tribal or Federal agency 

5574 that the Agency considers to be are substantial modifications. 

5575 (b) Withdrawal of approval. If at any time the Agency determines that a State, Tribal, or 

5576 Federal agency certification plan does not comply with the requirements of this part or any other 

5577 Federal laws or regulations, or that a State, Tribal, or Federal agency is not administering the 

5578 certification plan as approved under this part, or that a State is not carrying out a program 

5579 adequate to ensure compliance with FIFRA section 19(f), the Agency may withdraw approval of 

5580 the certification plan. Before withdrawing approval of a certification plan, the Agency will notify 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 235 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5581 the State, Tribal, or Federal agency and provide the opportunity for an informal hearing. If 

5582 appropriate, the Agency may allow the State, Tribe, or Federal agency a reasonable time, not to 

5583 exceed 90 days, to take corrective action. 

5584 § 171.311 EPA-administered applicator certification programs. 

5585 (a) Applicability. This section applies in any State or area of Indian country where there is 

5586 no approved State or Tribal certification plan in effect. 

5587 (b) Certification requirement. In any State or area of Indian country where EPA 

5588 administers a certification plan, any person who uses or supervises the use of any restricted use 

5589 pesticide must meet one of the following criteria: 

5590 (1) A commercial applicator must be certified in each category and subcategory, if any, 

5591 and each application method, if any, as described in the EPA-administered plan, for which the 

5592 applicator is applying or supervising the application of restricted use pesticides. 

5593 (2) A private applicator must be certified, including in each application method, if any, as 

5594 described in the EPA-administered plan, for which the applicator is applying or supervising the 

5595 application of restricted use pesticides. 

5596 (3) A noncertified applicator may only use a restricted use pesticide under the direct 

5597 supervision of an applicator certified under the EPA-administered plan, in accordance with the 

5598 requirements in § 171.201, and only for uses authorized by that certified applicator's 

5599 certification. 

5600 (c) Implementation of EPA-administered plans in States. 

5601 (1) In any State where this section is applicable, the Agency, in consultation with the 

5602 Governor, may implement an EPA-administered plan for the certification of applicators of 

5603 restricted use pesticides. 

5604 (2) Such a plan will meet the applicable requirements of § 171.303. Prior to the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 236 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5605 implementation of the plan, the Agency will publish in the Federal Register for review and 

5606 comment a summary of the proposed EPA-administered plan for the certification of applicators 

5607 and will generally make available copies of the proposed plan within the State. The summary 

5608 will include all of the following: 

5609 (i) An outline of the proposed procedures and requirements for private and commercial 

5610 applicator certification and recertification. 

5611 (ii) A description of the proposed categories and subcategories for certification. 

5612 (iii) A description of any proposed conditions for the recognition of State, Tribal, or 

5613 Federal agency certifications. 

5614 (iv) An outline of the proposed arrangements for coordination and communication 

5615 between the Agency and the State regarding applicator certifications and pesticide compliance 

5616 monitoring and enforcement. 

5617 (d) Implementation of EPA-administered plans in Indian country. 

5618 (1) In any area of Indian country where this section is applicable, and consistent with the 

5619 provisions of § 171.309(c), the Agency, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribe(s), may 

5620 implement a plan for the certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides. 

5621 (2) An EPA-administered plan may be implemented in the Indian country of an 

5622 individual Tribe or multiple Tribes located within a specified geographic area. 

5623 (3) Such a plan will meet the applicable requirements of § 171.309(c). Prior to the 

5624 implementation of the plan, the Agency will publish in the Federal Register for review and 

5625 comment a summary of the proposed EPA-administered plan for the certification of applicators 

5626 and will generally make available copies of the proposed plan within the area(s) of Indian 

5627 country to be covered by the proposed plan. The summary will include all of the following: 

5628 (i) A description of the area(s) of Indian country to be covered by the proposed plan. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 237 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5629 (ii) An outline of the proposed procedures and requirements for private and commercial 

5630 applicator certification and recertification. 

5631 (iii) A description of the proposed categories and subcategories for certification. 

5632 (iv) A description of any proposed conditions for the recognition of State, Tribal, or 

5633 Federal agency certifications. 

5634 (v) An outline of the proposed arrangements for coordination and communication 

5635 between the Agency and the relevant Tribe(s) regarding applicator certifications and pesticide 

5636 compliance monitoring and enforcement. 

5637 (e) Denial, suspension, modification, or revocation of a certification. 

5638 (1) The Agency may suspend all or part of a certified applicator’s certification issued 

5639 under an EPA-administered plan or, after opportunity for a hearing, may deny issuance of, or 

5640 revoke or modify, a certified applicator’s certification issued under an EPA-administered plan, if 

5641 the Agency finds that the certified applicator has been convicted under section 14(b) of the Act, 

5642 has been subject to a final order imposing a civil penalty under section 14(a) of the Act, or has 

5643 committed any of the following acts: 

5644 (i) Used any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. 

5645 (ii) Made available for use, or used, any registered pesticide classified for restricted use 

5646 other than in accordance with section 3(d) of the Act and any regulations promulgated 

5647 thereunder. 

5648 (iii) Refused to keep and maintain any records required pursuant to this section. 

5649 (iv) Made false or fraudulent records, invoices or reports. 

5650 (v) Failed to comply with any limitations or restrictions on a valid current certificate. 

5651 (vi) Violated any other provision of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 

5652 (vii) Allowed a noncertified applicator to use a restricted use pesticide in a manner 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 238 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5653 inconsistent with the requirements in § 171.201. 

5654 (viii) Violated any provision of a State, Tribal or Federal agency certification plan or its 

5655 associated laws or regulations. 

5656 (2) If the Agency intends to deny, revoke, or modify a certified applicator’s certification, 

5657 the Agency will: 

5658 (i) Notify the certified applicator of all of the following: 

5659 (A) The ground(s) upon which the denial, revocation, or modification is based. 

5660 (B) The time period during which the denial, revocation or modification is effective, 

5661 whether permanent or otherwise. 

5662 (C) The conditions, if any, under which the certified applicator may become certified or 

5663 recertified. 

5664 (D) Any additional conditions the Agency may impose. 

5665 (ii) Provide the certified applicator an opportunity to request an informal hearing prior to 

5666 final Agency action to deny, revoke or modify the certification. 

5667 (3) If a hearing is requested by a certified applicator pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of 

5668 this section, the Agency will do all of the following: 

5669 (i) Notify the certified applicator of the legal and factual grounds upon which the action 

5670 to deny, revoke or modify the certification is based. 

5671 (ii) Provide the certified applicator an opportunity to offer written statements of facts, 

5672 explanations, comments and arguments relevant to the proposed action. 

5673 (iii) Provide the certified applicator such other procedural opportunities as the Agency 

5674 may deem appropriate to ensure a fair and impartial hearing. 

5675 (iv) Appoint an attorney in the Agency as Presiding Officer to conduct the hearing. No 

5676 person shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior connection with the specific 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 239 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5677 case. 

5678 (4) The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section shall 

5679 do all of the following: 

5680 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly and impartial hearing, without unnecessary delay. 

5681 (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment and argument submitted to the 

5682 Agency pursuant to paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. 

5683 (iii) Promptly notify the parties of the final decision and order. Such an order is a final 

5684 Agency action subject to judicial review in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. 

5685 (5) If the Agency determines that the public health, interest or welfare warrants 

5686 immediate action to suspend the certified applicator’s certification, the Agency will do all of the 

5687 following: 

5688 (i) Notify the certified applicator of the ground(s) upon which the suspension action is 

5689 based. 

5690 (ii) Notify the certified applicator of the time period during which the suspension is 

5691 effective. 

5692 (iii) Notify the certified applicator of the Agency’s intent to revoke or modify the 

5693 certification, as appropriate, in accord with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. If such revocation or 

5694 modification notice has not previously been issued, it will be issued at the same time the 

5695 suspension notice is issued. 

5696 (iv) In cases where the act constituting grounds for suspension of a certification is neither 

5697 willful nor contrary to the public interest, health, or safety, the certified applicator may have 

5698 additional procedural rights under 5 U.S.C. 558(c). 

5699 (6) Any notice, decision or order issued by the Agency under paragraph (e) of this 

5700 section, and any documents filed by a certified applicator in a hearing under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 240 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5701 of this section, shall be available to the public except as otherwise provided by section 10 of the 

5702 Act or by part 2 of this chapter. Any such hearing at which oral testimony is presented shall be 

5703 open to the public, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public to the extent 

5704 necessary to allow presentation of information that may be entitled to confidentiality under 

5705 section 10 of the Act or under part 2 of this chapter. 

5706 (f) Restricted use pesticide dealer reporting and recordkeeping requirements, availability 

5707 of records, and failure to comply. 

5708 (1) Reporting requirements. Each restricted use pesticide retail dealer in a State or area of 

5709 Indian country where the Agency implements an EPA-administered plan must do both of the 

5710 following: 

5711 (i) Report to the Agency the business name by which the restricted use pesticide retail 

5712 dealer operates and the name and business address of each of his or her dealerships. This report 

5713 must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional office no later than sixty 60 days after the 

5714 EPA-administered plan becomes effective or 60 days after the date the person becomes a 

5715 restricted use pesticide retail dealer in an area where an EPA-administered plan is in effect, 

5716 whichever occurs later. 

5717 (ii) Submit revisions to the initial report to the appropriate EPA Regional office reflecting 

5718 any name changes, additions or deletions of dealerships. Revisions must be submitted to the 

5719 appropriate EPA Regional office within 10 days of the occurrence of such change, addition or 

5720 deletion. 

5721 (2) Recordkeeping requirement. A restricted use pesticide retail dealer is required to 

5722 created and maintain records of each sale of restricted use pesticides to any person, excluding 

5723 transactions solely between persons who are pesticide producers, registrants, wholesalers, or 

5724 retail sellers, acting only in those capacities. Each restricted use pesticide retail dealer must 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 241 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5725 maintain at each individual dealership records of each transaction where a restricted use pesticide 

5726 is distributed or sold by that dealership to any person. Records of each such transaction must be 

5727 maintained for a period of 2 years after the date of the transaction and must include all of the 

5728 following information: 

5729 (i) Name and address of the residence or principal place of business of each certified 

5730 applicator to whom the restricted use pesticide was distributed or sold, or if applicable, the name 

5731 and address of the residence or principal place of business of each noncertified person to whom 

5732 the restricted use pesticide was distributed or sold, for application by a certified applicator. 

5733 (ii) The certification number on the certification document presented to the seller 

5734 evidencing the valid certification of the certified applicator authorized to purchase the restricted 

5735 use pesticide, the State, Tribe or Federal agency that issued the certification document, the 

5736 expiration date of the certified applicator's certification, and the categories in which the certified 

5737 applicator is certified. 

5738 (iii) The product name and EPA registration number of the restricted use pesticide(s) 

5739 distributed or sold in the transaction, including any applicable emergency exemption or State 

5740 special local need registration number, if applicable. 

5741 (iv) The quantity of the restricted use pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the transaction. 

5742 (v) The date of the transaction. 

5743 (3) Availability of required records. Each restricted use pesticide retail dealer must, upon 

5744 request of any authorized officer or employee of the Agency, or other authorized agent or person 

5745 duly designated by the Agency, furnish or permit such person at all reasonable times to have 

5746 access to and copy all records required to be maintained under this section. 

5747 (4) Failure to comply. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this section 

5748 may be subject to civil or criminal sanctions, under section 14 of the Act, or 18 U.S.C. 1001. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 242 of 242 [RIN 2070-AJ20] 

5749 (g) Compliance date. The only EPA-administered certification plans that will be effective 

5750 after [date 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] are those 

5751 approved by the Administrator after [date 4 years and 60 days after date of publication of the 

5752 final rule in the Federal Register].