*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

 DRAFT 

EO12866_Rin2070-AJ20_PesticideCertApp_NPRM_EA_2015-03-31.docx 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR PART 171: 

CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS 

Prepared by 

BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION 

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

 DRAFT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1.  INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................................................1

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 PROPOSED CHANGES AND OTHER OPTIONS FOR REVISING THE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS ................................................4

2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards....................................................4

2.2.2 Establish Application Method‐Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators.................6

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

Existing Label Requirements ................................................................................................................................9

2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators.........................9

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

Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training ...........................................................................................10

2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators................................................................15

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

Commercial and Private Applicators..................................................................................................................16

2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators.................................................17

2.2.9 General Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies ...........19

CHAPTER 3.  COST ASSESSMENT, REGULATORY OPTIONS.................................................................................... 1

3.1 OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................1

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

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

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

3.3 COST ANALYSIS DATA............................................................................................................................................8

3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators...........................................................................................................8

3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial certified applicators ..16

3.3.3 Private certified applicators.................................................................................................................18

3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified applicators........................25

3.3.5 Wage Rates..........................................................................................................................................28

3.4 RESULTS OF THE COST ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................30

3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards..................................................32

3.4.2 Application Method‐Specific Categories..............................................................................................33

3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified

Applicators, Levels of Supervision, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Applicator

Training for Applicators that are not Certified...................................................................................................39

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

Certified Applicators...........................................................................................................................................44

3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators .........................................................................50

3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration...........................................................................................59
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

 DRAFT 

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

CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATORS .................................................................................................................... 1

4.1 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR REVISING INITIAL CERTIFICATION STANDARDS.................................................2

4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards....................................................2

4.1.2 Establish Application Method‐Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators.................3

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

Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training .............................................................................................6

4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators..................................................................8

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

Commercial and Private Applicators....................................................................................................................9

4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators.................................................10

4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators.......................12

4.1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies for Submission,

Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans....................................................................................13

CHAPTER 5.  COST OF PROPOSED RULE............................................................................................................... 1

5.1 OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................1

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

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

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

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

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

5.7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES ............................................................................................................30

5.7.1 Methodology........................................................................................................................................32

5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments.......................................................................................................32

5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments ...............................................................................................36

5.7.3 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 6.  BENEFITS OF PROPOSED RULE ........................................................................................................ 1

6.1. WHICH BENEFITS CAN BE QUANTIFIED ................................................................................................................1

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

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

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

6.3. WHAT ARE THE RISKS? .....................................................................................................................................5

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects..........................................................................................5

6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families......................................................6

6.4. NON‐QUANTIFIED BENEFITS OF AVOIDING RUP INCIDENTS .....................................................................................9

6.4.1. Non‐Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents..............................................................9

6.5. QUANTIFIED HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF REDUCED ACUTE ILLNESS FROM RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDES.......................19

6.5.1. Methodology and Data........................................................................................................................19

6.5.2. Underreporting of RUP Incidents.........................................................................................................20

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided..................................................................................................................24

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided...................................................................................................................27

6.6. RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH FROM CHRONIC RUP EXPOSURE...................................................................................40

6.6.1. Cancer Risks.........................................................................................................................................43

6.6.2. Non‐Cancer Health Effects...................................................................................................................45

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks .............................................................................................47

CHAPTER 7 INFORMATION REQUESTED – PAPERWORK BURDEN REQUIREMENTS............................................... 1

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

1 

1 Executive Summary 

2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 adherence to precise and often complex labeling provisions. To insure these labeling provisions 

11 are followed, EPA requires that restricted use pesticides be applied only by applicators who have 

12 demonstrated a sufficient level of competency or by individuals under their direct supervision. 

13 EPA is proposing changes to the rule that would improve the competency of certified applicators 

14 of restricted use pesticides by: establishing new standards for certification, such as minimum age 

15 and examination standards for commercial applicators and more specific requirements for 

16 establishing competency of private applicators; establishing a uniform national certification 

17 period for private and commercial applicators and minimum requirements for recertification 

18 programs; and establishing new certification categories to address specific high-risk uses and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29 stakeholders regarding rule implementation and requirements for state certification plans. 

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

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

32 41% of the total cost of proposed revisions) and $27.4 million to commercial applicators. 

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

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

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

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

37 components together, annualized over a 10-year time horizon, would cost $359,000 annually. 

38 The total annualized cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $47.2 million. Many of the 

39 firms in the affected sectors are small businesses, particularly in the agricultural sector. The 

40 average cost per private applicator, typically a farm owner or operator is estimated to be $40 per 

41 year. The estimated average cost per commercial applicator would be about $66 per year. Thus, 

42 the impact to the average small farm is anticipated to be less than one percent of annual sales 

43 while the impacts to small commercial pest control services are expected to be around 0.1 

44 percent of annual gross revenue. Therefore, EPA concludes that there would not be a significant 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

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

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

47 employment. 

48 

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

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

51 uncertainty, and therefore, the cost estimates presented in this economic analysis represent 

52 overestimates of the actual costs of the proposed rule changes. 

53 

54 Table 1 summarizes the results of the cost analysis. 

55 

56 Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Requirements for Certification of Pesticide 

57 Applicators 

 Private Applicators Commercial 

Applicators 

States and Other 

Jurisdictions 

Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63 

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

Per-Applicator Average: $40 

Range: $0 - $201 

Average: $66 

Range: $1 - $212 n/a 

Small Business 

Impacts 

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

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

although about half are unlikely to apply restricted use pesticides. 

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

entity. 

Impact on Jobs 

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

 Most private and commercial applicators are self-employed. 

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

the cost of a part-time employee. 

58 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73 result in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 

74 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

75 Certified applicators, and the noncertified applicators they supervise, would be the primary 

76 beneficiaries of the rule. Other beneficiaries would include the public, who can be exposed to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 

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

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

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

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

96 reduced chronic illness to applicators from repeated RUP exposure and benefits to the public 

97 from better protections from RUP exposure when occupying treated buildings or outdoor spaces, 

98 consuming treated food products, and when near areas where RUPs have been applied. The 

99 environment would also be better protected from misapplication, which will reduce the impact 

100 on water and non-target plants and animals. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

cost of healthcare, a healthier society and better quality of life. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR PART 171: 

CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS 

101 Chapter 1. Introduction 

102 

103 EPA is proposing modifications to 40 CFR part 171 governing the certification of applicators of 

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

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

106 workers, the general public and the environment. 

107 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120 certified applicators and noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified 

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

122 

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

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

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

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

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

128 3501-21). 

129 

130 

131 1.1 Background 

132 

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

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

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

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

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

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

139 Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands), and four 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

140 tribes in accordance with their state or tribal certification plans. Additionally, there are five 

141 federal agency certification programs for the Departments of Agriculture (with two programs), 

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

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

144 rules regarding the certification of pesticide applicators. 

145 

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

147 establishments and commercial pesticide application establishments from exposure to pesticides 

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

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

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

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

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

153 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

162 industrial settings although some are used in urban, recreational, and residential areas by 

163 certified commercial applicators. Applicator certification enables the registration of pesticides 

164 that otherwise would not meet EPA safety standards under widespread and commonly 

165 recognized practice [FIFRA 3(5)], allowing the use of RUPs for pest management in agricultural 

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

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

168 

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

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

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

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

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

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

175 noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators. 

176 

177 

178 1.2 Problem Statement 

179 

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

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

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

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

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

185 applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Certification serves to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

186 ensure competency and, therefore, to protect the applicator, persons working under the direct 

187 supervision of the applicator, the general public, and the environment through proper use of 

188 RUPs. 

189 

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

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

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

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

194 1998). The improper use of methyl parathion product by a number of applicators across several 

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

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

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

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

199 that can result from the misuse of RUPs. 

200 

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

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

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

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

205 years, many state programs have taken the lead in revising and updating standards for 

206 certification and recertification. As a result, the state requirements for certification of applicators 

207 are highly varied, and most states go beyond federal requirements for applicator certification. 

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

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

210 live, as well as problems in program consistency. 

211 

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

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

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

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

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

217 undesirable way. 

218 

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

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

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

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

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

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

225 

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

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

228 other than an applicator or decision maker is potentially affected by the use of an RUP, a classic 

229 externality can result in a divergence between the social and private costs in the use of a 

230 pesticide. An externality of this type means that applications of RUPs may pose greater risk than 

231 is socially desirable. In this case, the greater than optimal risk would not typically be faced by an 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

232 applicator deciding to apply, but could be faced by those they supervise, the general public, and 

233 the environment that can be affected by the RUP application. Although EPA addresses negative 

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

235 pesticides designated as RUPs generally pose higher risks than ordinary pesticides. The result of 

236 improper use can be more severe, as well, in terms of acute and chronic illness and damage to 

237 terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are not the target of the application. The higher risk 

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

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

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

241 

242 

243 1.3 Overview of Proposed Regulation 

244 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

256 

257 

258 1.4 Affected Entities 

259 

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

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

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

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

264 be affected. 

265 

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

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

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

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

270 pesticide applicators, who apply RUPs for hire. 

271 

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

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

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

275 to state plans. 

276 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

277 The affected entities are part of a wide range of industries. Because agriculture is a heavy user 

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

279 affected. These include oilseed, soybean and grain farming (NAICS 111100), nut, fruit and 

280 vegetable farming (NAICS 111210 and 111300) greenhouses and nurseries (NAICS 1111400), 

281 and other crops (NAICS 111900), which includes crops like cotton and tobacco. Animal 

282 production firms will also be affected, which includes cattle production (NAICS 112100), pig 

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

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

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

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

287 611300), soil preparation planting and cultivating (NAICS 115112), and support activities for 

288 animal production (NAICS 115210). 

289 

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

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

292 distribution), and 221300 (water supply, irrigation systems and sewage treatment facilities). 

293 

294 Firms in the manufacturing and service sectors will also be affected by various provisions of the 

295 proposed changes. These include firms providing pest control services, such as exterminating 

296 and pest control services (NAICS 561710), industrial, institutional, structural and health related 

297 pest control (also NAICS 561710), and landscaping services and ornamental and turf pest control 

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

299 424910, farm supplies merchant wholesalers). Among the manufacturing sectors, impacts are 

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

301 agricultural chemical manufacturing), NAICS 3339900 (seed treatment), and NAICS 321114 

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

1 

303 Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the Rules Governing 

304 Certified Pesticide Applicators 

305 

306 EPA is proposing modifications to the standards for certification of applicators of RUPs. RUPs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

314 unreasonable adverse effects. 

315 

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

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

318 applicators working under their direct supervision. This chapter also discusses alternative 

319 options considered by EPA. 

320 

321 The proposed rule changes are designed to ensure the improved competence of certified 

322 applicators through a minimum age requirement, adding categories for certification of specific 

323 high-risk application types, and imposing more rigorous recertification standards. Under the 

324 proposed rule, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified 

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

326 competence and safety and the safety of those around them. In addition, there are administrative 

327 changes proposed that are necessary to support the goals of the revised regulation, such as 

328 requirements to proctor certification exams and establish the identity of test-takers, 

329 recordkeeping, updates to state regulatory programs, and other tasks. 

330 

331 The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non-regulatory programs that have been 

332 established to improve safety in the use of RUPs. In Section 2.2, the individual line items that 

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

334 

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

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

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

338 

339 

340 2.1 Non-regulatory Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 

341 

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

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

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

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

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

2 

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

348 used safely. 

349 

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

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

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

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

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

and federal level. In 1999, CTAG issued a comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety in the 21st 355 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

365 discussed in more detail below. 

366 

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

368 applicator organizations, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

377 direct supervision of a certified applicator, could only be accomplished by changing the 

378 regulation. From these inputs, EPA prepared a report (EPA, 2014c), the National Assessment of 

379 the Pesticide Worker Safety Program, in which EPA identified activities that it could take to 

380 improve applicator competency and to better protect human health and the environment from 

381 exposure to RUPs. 

382 

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

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

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

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

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

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

389 

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

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

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

3 

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

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

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

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

397 weight of regulation. 

398 

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

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

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

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

403 EPA electronically, thereby reducing administrative burden and paperwork. 

404 

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

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

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

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

Program Dialogue Committee1 409 (PPDC) on pesticide applicator certification and training issues. 

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

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

412 

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

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

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

416 competencies a commercial applicator must possess in order to use RUPs safely and to protect 

417 himself, the public, and the environment from exposure to RUPs. In addition, EPA has 

418 collaborated with states, applicators, and industry to develop and make available national 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

427 stakeholders and industry participants. 

428 

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

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

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

resulting in effects on human health and the environment2 432 . Certain protective changes essential 

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

 

1

 The PPDC is the Office of Pesticide Programs’ Federal Advisory Committee. It provides a forum for a diverse 

group of stakeholders to provide feedback to the pesticide program on various pesticide regulatory, policy and 

program implementation issues. The PPDC meets two or three times per year. 

2

 See for example the discussion in Section II.B.3 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or the incident data in 

Chapter 6 of this document. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

434 applicators, certification in specific use categories, and establishing training requirements for 

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

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

437 

438 

439 2.2 Proposed Changes and Other Options for Revising the Certification 

440 Standards 

441 

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

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

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

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

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

447 rationale for the proposed changes. 

448 

449 

450 2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards 

451 

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

453 RUPs. 

454 Initial Certification for Private Applicators 

455 

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

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

458 changes are summarized in Table 2.2-1. 

Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Competency Standards for Initial Private Applicator 

Certification 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Private Applicators 

Initial certification 

Exam and/or 

Training options; 

varies by state 

Initial Certification 

through exam or 

training with 

approximately 12 

hours of content 

(Private Cert-02) 

Initial Certification 

through exam or 

training with 

reduced content 

(approximately 8 

hours of content) 

(Private Cert-01) 

Initial Certification 

through exam or 

training with 

additional content 

(approximately 16 

hours of content) 

(Private Cert-03) 

Non-reader 

certification 

Non-readers can 

receive product 

specific 

certification 

Eliminate non-reader 

provision 

Retain limited non-reader certification: 

valid for single product and single season 

459 

460 The current regulation contains five topics for private applicators to be covered in training: 1) 

461 recognize common pests to be controlled and damage caused by them, 2) read and understand 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

462 the label and labeling information, 3) apply pesticides in accordance with label instructions and 

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

464 to avoid contamination, and 5) recognize poisoning symptoms and procedures to follow in case 

465 of a pesticide accident. In contrast, the core standards of competency for commercial 

466 certification have nine major areas of focus with more specific sub-points listed under each. 

467 

468 Both the proposed and alternative private applicator general competency standards (Private Cert469 02, Private Cert-01 and Private Cert-03) would cover the following topics 1) label and labeling 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

481 certification in order to apply RUPs using routine application methods. 

482 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

499 could be covered more in depth. This more substantial training requirement would provide more 

500 education contact time, therefore more assurance that private applicators would be competent to 

501 use RUPs appropriately. 

502 

503 A separate proposal (Private Cert-13) would eliminate certification for private applicators who 

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

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

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

507 pesticide labeling, which non-readers would be unable to obtain from the label. Labeling 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

508 changes frequently and non-readers may not be able to understand important changes to the 

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

510 public health at risk. As an alternative (Private Cert-14), the Agency considered retaining non511 reader certification, but limiting it to a single product for a single season. Under the alternative, 

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

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

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

515 

516 

517 2.2.2 Establish Application Method-Specific Categories for Commercial and 

518 Private Applicators 

519 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

528 if the applicator does not understand and follow the labeling and apply the pesticide properly. 

529 These increased risks can be mitigated by requiring applicators to demonstrate a specific set of 

530 competencies related to the type of pesticide and application method being used. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

537 concurrent categories are shown in Table 2.2-2. 

Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Application Method-Specific Certification Categories for 

Commercial and Private Applicators 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Commercial Applicators 

Application MethodSpecific Certification 

Categories 

10 commercial 

applicator 

categories of 

certification* 

New application 

method-specific 

categories: 

 Soil fumigation 

 Non-soil 

fumigation 

(Comm Cert-04) 

 Aerial 

(Comm Cert-01) 

New application 

method-specific 

category: 

 General 

fumigation 

(Comm Cert-03) 

New application 

method-specific 

category: 

 Chemigation 

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

7 

Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Application Method-Specific Certification Categories for 

Commercial and Private Applicators 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Private Applicators 

Application MethodSpecific Certification 

Categories 

No categories of 

certification for 

private 

applicators 

 New application 

method-specific 

categories 

(certification by exam 

or 4 hours training): 

 Soil and non-soil 

fumigation 

(Private Cert-10) 

 Aerial 

(Private Cert-04) 

New application 

method-specific 

categories 

(certification by 

exam or 8 hours 

training): 

 Soil and non-soil 

fumigation 

(Private Cert-11) 

 Aerial 

(Private Cert-05) 

New application 

method-specific 

categories 

(certification by 

exam or 4 or 8 hours 

training): 

 Chemigation 

(Private Cert-06 or 

Private Cert-07) 

 General 

fumigation 

(Private Cert-08 or 

Private Cert-09) 

*(1) Agricultural pest control (plant or animal), (2) Forest pest control, (3) Ornamental & turf pest control, (4) 

Seed treatment, (5) Aquatic pest control, (6) Right-of-Way pest control, (7) Industrial, institutional, structural and 

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

research pest control 

538 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

547 by the states (Private Cert-10). 

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

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

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

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

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

553 training program developed and administered by the State (Private Cert-08). EPA considered a 

554 second alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate 

555 competency by passing a written exam or completing an 8 hour training program developed and 

556 administered by the states (Private Cert-09). This alternative, the general fumigation category, 

557 would be a more general category and might not adequately provide applicators with the specific 

558 knowledge and skills necessary to carry out fumigation in different situations. Soil and non-soil 

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

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

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

8 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

581 and potential exposure to adjacent areas and bystanders. EPA has already developed a 

582 certification manual and exam for aerial application that covers the standards being proposed. 

583 These materials are available to states. 

584 Chemigation means applying pesticides through irrigation equipment along with irrigation water. 

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

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

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

588 contamination. Chemigation can contaminate ground and drinking water supplies if there is a 

589 backflow in the system, mechanical failure allows pesticide-treated water to flow directly into a 

590 water supply, uncalibrated equipment causes over-application, or improperly maintained 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

602 pertain to chemicals that would be covered under the soil fumigation category, such as metam 

603 sodium and dichloropropene. Thus, it is unclear that the creation of an additional certification 

604 category for chemigation would provide additional benefits. 

605 

606 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

607 2.2.3 Establish Predator Control Categories for Commercial and Private 

608 Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements 

609 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

620 preamble. 

621 

622 

623 2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private 

624 Applicators 

625 

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

627 applicators must demonstrate their competence by passing a written exam. Persons seeking 

628 certification as private applicators may pass a written exam or by completing an equivalent 

629 program administered by the state. Recertification requirements may include options for exams 

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

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

632 Unit X of the preamble. 

633 

Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Administering Exams and Training 

Courses 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Commercial Applicators 

Require candidates to 

present identification 

for exams and 

training, and proctor 

exams 

Some states 

require 

identification and 

others do not. 

Depending on the 

state, exams may 

be written, 

proctored, and 

closed book 

 Identity verification required for 

exams 

 Exams would be proctored and 

“closed book” No Change 

Private Applicators 

Require candidates to 

present identification 

for exams and 

Some states 

require 

identification and 

others do not. 

 Identity verification required for 

exams 

 Exams would be proctored and 

“closed book” 

No Change 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 

Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Administering Exams and Training 

Courses 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

training, and proctor 

exams Depending on the 

state, exams may 

be written, 

proctored, and 

closed book, but 

some are not 

 

634 

635 EPA is proposing that any person seeking certification or recertification as a private or 

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

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

638 proctored, and closed book. 

639 

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

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

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

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

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

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

646 to the candidates who are qualified. 

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

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

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

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

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

652 met. 

653 

654 2.2.5 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for 

655 Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training 

656 

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

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

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

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

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

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

663 These proposals are summarized in Table 2.2-5, and discussed in more detail in Units XI and XII 

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

11 

Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensure the Competency of Noncertified 

Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Certified Applicator 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Applicator 

Competence of 

noncertified 

applicators working 

under the direct 

supervision of a 

commercial applicator 

Noncertified 

applicators must 

receive basic 

information but 

no formal 

training on safe 

pesticide use and 

protecting 

themselves and 

their families 

from pesticide 

exposure 

Competency could be demonstrated one 

of three ways: 

 complete required training (repeat 

annually), which would include: 

o Training on pesticide information, 

application techniques, and how to 

protect themselves, other people, 

and the environment before, 

during, and after making a 

pesticide application 

o Training on protecting the family 

 take Worker Protection Standard 

(WPS) training for pesticide handler 

(repeat annually) 

 pass the commercial applicator core 

exam (every three years) 

(Comm Sup-01) 

Supervising commercial applicator must 

maintain records of training for 2 years 

(Comm Sup-06) 

Competency could be 

shown only by passing 

core exam 

(Comm Sup-02) 

Supervising commercial 

applicator would maintain 

records of noncertified 

applicator training for 5 

years 

(Comm Sup-07) 

Guidance provided by 

supervising 

commercial applicator 

to noncertified 

applicator 

Supervising 

certified 

applicator must 

provide 

noncertified 

applicator 

guidance on 

correct 

application and 

how to contact 

certified 

supervisor 

In addition to the current requirements, 

the supervising certified applicator 

would: 

 Provide the pesticide labeling for each 

application 

 Provide instructions related to each 

application 

 Explain all labeling restrictions 

(Comm Sup-03) 

Communication 

between supervising 

commercial applicator 

and noncertified 

applicator 

Supervising 

certified 

applicator must 

explain how 

noncertified 

applicator can 

contact him/her 

if needed 

Supervising certified applicator would 

ensure noncertified applicator has 

equipment available for immediate 2-

way communication with supervisor 

(Comm Sup-05) 

Supervising certified 

applicator would have to 

have direct line of sight to 

noncertified applicator 

working under his or her 

direct supervision 

(Comm Sup-04) 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 

Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensure the Competency of Noncertified 

Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Certified Applicator 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators 

Competence of 

noncertified 

applicators working 

under the direct 

supervision of a 

private applicator 

Noncertified 

applicators must 

receive basic 

information but 

no formal 

training on safe 

pesticide use and 

protecting 

themselves and 

their families 

from pesticide 

exposure 

Competency could be demonstrated one 

of three ways: 

 complete required training (repeat 

annually), which would include: 

o Training on pesticide information, 

application techniques, and how to 

protect themselves, other people, 

and the environment before, 

during, and after making a 

pesticide application 

o Training on protecting the family 

 complete WPS handler training (repeat 

annually) 

 pass the commercial applicator core 

exam (every three years) 

(Private Sup-02) 

Competency could be 

demonstrated one of two 

ways: 

 complete required 

training (repeat annually), 

which will include: 

o Training on pesticide 

information, 

application techniques, 

and how to protect 

themselves, other 

people, and the 

environment before, 

during, and after 

making a pesticide 

application 

o Training on protecting 

the family 

 complete WPS handler 

training (annually) 

(Private Sup-01) 

 

Guidance provided by 

supervising private 

applicator to 

noncertified applicator 

Supervising 

certified 

applicator must 

provide 

noncertified 

applicator 

instruction on 

correct 

application and 

provisions on 

how to contact 

certified 

supervisor 

In addition to the current requirements, 

the supervising certified applicator would 

have to: 

 Provide the pesticide labeling for each 

application 

 Provide instructions related to each 

application 

 Explain all labeling restrictions 

(Private Sup-03) 

Communication 

between supervising 

private applicator and 

noncertified applicator 

Supervising 

certified 

applicator must 

explain how 

noncertified 

applicator can 

contact him/her 

Supervising certified applicator would 

have to ensure noncertified applicator has 

equipment available for immediate 2-way 

communication with supervisor 

(Private Sup-05) 

Supervising certified 

applicator would have to 

have direct line of sight to 

noncertified applicator 

working under his or her 

direct supervision 

(Private Sup-04) 

665 

666 Existing regulations require that a noncertified applicator using RUPs under the direct 

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

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

13 

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

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

671 instruction for ensuring the ongoing competency of noncertified applicators. 

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

673 Applicator 

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

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

676 absence of certification. They would be able to demonstrate competence by one of three ways 

677 (Comm Sup-01). First, they would be able to complete proposed training for noncertified 

678 applicators, which would include a range of information about the hazards of pesticides, what to 

679 do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety requirements, proper application techniques, how to 

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

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

Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam3 682 . The proposed training requirements 

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

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

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

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

687 to be kept for five years (Comm Sup-07). 

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

689 would be to limit noncertified applicators to only those who have passed the commercial 

690 applicator core exam (Comm Sup-02). This alternative would limit the flexibility of commercial 

691 applicators and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision to decide how to 

692 meet the qualifications. In addition, it may be difficult for noncertified applicators to pass a 

693 written exam, even though they may be competent, leading to fewer available qualified 

694 noncertified applicators and increasing the demand for certified applicators to conduct 

695 applications. 

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

697 Applicator 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would make them certified applicators. 706 The proposed training requirements would be repeated 

707 annually; the proposed option to pass the commercial core exam would be repeated every 3 

 

3

 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial applicator. The applicator must also pass 

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

14 

708 years. EPA cannot require private applicators to keep records due to constraints in FIFRA, so 

709 EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified 

710 applicators working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed 

711 requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

717 decide how to meet the qualifications. 

718 Guidance Given To Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of 

719 Commercial and Private Applicators 

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

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

722 noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

731 Applicator 

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

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

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

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

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

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

738 supervising commercial and private applicators and the noncertified applicators working under 

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

740 pesticide application or encounters an emergency situation. This immediate communication 

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

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

743 applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm Sup-04 and Private Sup-04). 

744 Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in hilly, forested, or obstructed 

745 view areas, it is essentially a requirement for all persons using RUPs to be certified, which limits 

746 flexibility for certified applicators and increases the number of certified applicators needed to 

747 complete certain applications. 

748 

749 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 

750 2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators 

751 

752 A summary of the age restrictions considered by EPA is shown in Table 2.2-6. These potential 

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

754 RUPS are applied by competent adults. EPA also considered other age restrictions, outlined 

755 below and discussed in more detail in Unit XIII of the preamble. 

756 

Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Age Requirements for Certified Applicators 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Commercial Applicators 

Minimum Age for 

Commercial 

Applicators 

None 

Commercial 

applicators would 

have to be at least 18 

years old 

(Comm Age-02) 

Commercial applicators would have to be 

at least 16 years old 

(Comm Age-01) 

Private Applicators 

Minimum Age for 

Private Applicators None 

Private applicators 

would have to be at 

least 18 years old 

(Private Age-02) 

Private applicators 

would have to be at 

least 16 years old 

(Private Age-01) 

Private applicators 

would have to be at 

least 18 years old, 

or at least 16 years 

old for family 

members on family 

farms 

(Private Age-03) 

757 

758 There is currently no minimum age for certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

771 not meet the minimum age would not be allowed to obtain a certification. 

772 

773 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

774 2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under the 

775 Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

776 

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Working 

Under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators 

Minimum age of 

noncertified 

applicators under the 

direct supervision of a 

commercial 

applicator 

None 

Noncertified 

applicators working 

under the direct 

supervision of 

commercial 

applicators must be 

at least 18 years old 

(Comm Age-04) 

Noncertified applicators working under the 

direct supervision of commercial 

applicators must be at least 16 years old 

(Comm Age-03) 

 

 Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators 

Minimum age of 

noncertified 

applicators under the 

direct supervision of a 

private applicator 

None 

Noncertified 

applicators working 

under the direct 

supervision of 

private applicators 

must be at least 18 

years old 

(Private Age-05) 

Noncertified 

applicators working 

under the direct 

supervision of 

private applicators 

must be at least 16 

years old 

(Private Age-04) 

Noncertified 

applicators working 

under the direct 

supervision of 

private applicators 

must be at least 18 

years old, or at least 

16 years old if under 

the direct 

supervision of an 

immediate family 

member 

 (Private Age-06) 

782 

783 The proposed minimum age for persons to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of private 

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

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

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

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

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

789 be at least 16 years old in this alternative. 

790 

791 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 

792 2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators 

793 

794 The current recertification standards only require states to have “provisions to ensure that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

802 pesticide application. The proposed recertification requirements would establish a maximum 

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

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

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

806 preamble. 

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

Regulatory 

Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Commercial Applicators 

Maximum time 

before 

recertification 

None 

Recertification 

required every 3 

years 

Requirements: 

exams for core and 

each category of 

certification OR 6 

Continuing 

Education Units 

(CEUs) for core 

recertification and 6 

CEUs for each 

category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-01) 

Recertification 

required every 5 

years 

Requirements: 

exams for core and 

each category of 

certification OR 6 

CEUs for core 

recertification and 6 

CEUs for each 

category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-04) 

Recertification required 

every 3 years 

Requirement: exams for 

core and each category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-02) 

Recertification required 

every 5 years 

Requirement: exams for 

core and each category of 

certification 

(Comm Recert-05) 

Private Applicators 

Maximum time 

before 

recertification 

None 

Recertification 

required every 3 

years 

Requirements: 

exams for general 

private applicator 

certification and 

each application 

method-specific 

category of 

certification OR 6 

CEUs for general 

private applicator 

recertification and 3 

CEUs for each 

Recertification 

required every 5 

years 

Requirements: 

exams for general 

private applicator 

certification and 

each application 

method-specific 

category of 

certification OR 6 

CEUs for general 

private applicator 

recertification and 3 

CEUs for each 

Recertification required 

every 3 years 

Requirements: exam or 8 

CEUs for private 

applicators core training 

and 4 CEUs for category 

training 

(Private Recert-02) 

Recertification required 

every 5 years 

Requirements: exam or 8 

CEUs for private 

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

18 

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

Regulatory 

Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

application methodspecific category of 

certification 

(Private Recert-01) 

application methodspecific category of 

certification 

(Private Recert-04) 

 

and 4 CEUs for category 

training 

(Private Recert-05) 

807 

808 The primary change proposed by EPA would be to establish a maximum certification period of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

819 applicators maintain knowledge of current information about pesticide application practices. 

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

821 most recent information about pesticide safety. 

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

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

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

825 program for general private applicator recertification and an additional 4 hours of training per 

826 application method-specific category, where training materials or exams would be the 

827 responsibility of the states. Under these alternatives, recertification would take place every three 

828 years (Private Recert-02) or every five years (Private Recert-05). Although extended training 

829 programs would be a larger time commitment for applicators, states and other certifying bodies 

830 could substitute an exam for the training requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

836 Recert-05) 

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

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

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

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

19 

841 

842 2.2.9 General Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and 

843 Federal Agencies 

844 

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

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

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

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

849 

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

Regulatory Element 

Current 

Regulatory 

Status 

Proposed Option Alternative Options 

Dealer recordkeeping 

of RUP sales Not required 

Dealers would be 

required to keep 

records of RUP sales, 

including: 

 product purchased 

 who purchased 

 date of purchase 

 applicator’s 

certification 

information 

(Admin-01) 

None considered 

850 

851 Under the proposal (Admin-01), all dealers of RUPS to both private and commercial applicators 

852 would be required by the states to keep records of RUP sales, including information on what 

853 RUP was purchased, the date of purchase, the identity of the purchaser, as well as information 

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

855 

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

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

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

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

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

861 a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-02). They would also include the process of updating 

862 their required certification plans that must be revised and submitted to the EPA (Admin-03) as a 

863 consequence of the rule changes. The Federal agencies and EPA would need to revise their 

864 plans and programs as a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-04). EPA would also need to 

865 review and approve all of the revised certification plans that would be submitted to the Agency 

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

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

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

869 

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

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

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

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

20 

874 states, tribes, and federal agencies. Information on these proposed requirements can also be 

875 found in the preamble to the proposed rule (Units XX, XVI, and XVII, respectively). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

876 Chapter 3. Cost Assessment, Regulatory Options 

877 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of changes to Certification of Pesticide 

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

879 potential certification and training requirement considered by EPA and compare it to the cost of 

880 the current requirements. The difference between the two sets of costs is the incremental cost 

881 attributable to the individual requirement. 

882 3.1 Overview 

883 Individual requirements and the proposed suite of requirements could impose costs on certified 

884 applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators, 

885 pesticide dealers, and pesticide manufacturers. States would also be impacted by individual 

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

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

888 certification and training requirements of the rule. 

889 The requirements EPA evaluated would require employers of certified applicators and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

896 expenditures on travel and materials. 

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

898 jurisdiction-level data are presented. Section 3.4 presents the results of cost analysis. The 

899 section is further divided into subsections, in which costs of different groups of proposed and 

900 alternative requirements are assessed: 3.4.1 private applicator general competency requirements; 

901 3.4.2 addition of application method-specific categories for commercial and private applicators; 

902 3.4.3 exam or training requirements; 3.4.4 standard for the supervision of noncertified 

903 applicators; 3.4.5 minimum age requirements for certified applicators and noncertified 

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

905 for certified applicators; and 3.4.7 general administration requirements. 

906 3.2 Methodology 

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

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

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

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

911 Ideally, the cost analysis would be conducted with the unit of analysis, or actor, being the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

912 establishments (farm, pest control firm, etc.) that either employ or are owned by the applicators 

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

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

915 cost assessment, we use applicators as the unit of analysis. Note that this unit of analysis is not 

916 equivalent to who bears the burden of the cost. In particular, a certified applicator may be an 

917 employer, an employee, or self-employed. 

918 3.2.1 General Methodology 

919 EPA’s approach consists of six steps. The first two steps calculate the baseline cost by 

920 jurisdiction and the associated cost per actor or ‘unit cost’ of each potential requirement. These 

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

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

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

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

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

926 requirement and the frequency at which it occurs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

933 determine the annualized value. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

943 time frame over which an agricultural establishment might financially amortize such 

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

945 seven percent (see Appendix B) to represent the private discount rate as suggested by the Office 

946 of Management and Budget (OMB, 2003). 

947 The rest of this section presents the methodology in greater detail, including an example of the 

948 methodology applied to a potential requirement that would require certified commercial 

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

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

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

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

3 

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

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

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

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

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

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

a,௜,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓa ∙ ܪ௥,௜,a,௝

஻

௧

∙ Prob௧ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝

959 

where costr,i,a

B 960 t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r, in jurisdiction i, for an 

actor, a, in time t; Hr,i,a,jB 961 t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

971 requirements is calculated as: 

a,௥ݐݏ݋ܿ

௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓa ∙ ܪ௥,a,௝

௉

௧

∙ Prob௧ሺ݆ሻ

௝

972 

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

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

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

restrict HBr, j|i,a ≤ HP 976 r ,j|a, that is, jurisdictions are not anticipated to relax standards if the proposed 

977 federal requirement is less stringent. 

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

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

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

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

982 applicators) in the jurisdiction and sum across all types of affected actors: 

983 

௜,௥ܥܴ

஻

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,௜,a

஻

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

984 

௜,௥ܥܴ

௉

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋௥,a

௉

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

985 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

where RCr,iX 986 denotes the cost of potential requirement r to jurisdiction i of potential regulations 

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

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

value (PV) for both RCB and RCP 989 . Generally, per-actor costs are constant, but implementation of 

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

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

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

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

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௜,௥ܥܴ ෍൯ൌ௑

௑

௧

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

994 

995 where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. We use a time 

996 horizon of ten years, but this is not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, 

997 especially baseline costs, will occur annually. Given constant annual costs, the PV of 

998 jurisdiction costs for the baseline simplifies to 

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

஻൯ ൌ ܴܥ௥,௜஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

999 

1000 and, assuming a two-year implementation period, the PV of jurisdiction costs for the potential 

1001 requirements can be calculated as 

1002 

௜,௥ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௉൯ ൌ ܴܥ௥,௜஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1൅ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଶ

௧ୀଵ

௜,௥ܥܴ ൅

௉

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1൅ߩሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ

1003 

1004 We estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement to each jurisdiction by subtracting 

1005 the PV of the jurisdiction baseline cost from the PV of the jurisdiction cost of the potential 

1006 requirement: 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ௥,௜൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜஻ 1007 ൯

1008 where PV(RICr,i) is the present value of the stream of incremental cost of the potential 

1009 requirement over the regional baseline in jurisdiction i. 

1010 Step 5. Calculate National Costs of the Potential Requirement, Jurisdiction Baseline, and 

1011 Incremental Costs. We sum incremental costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance 

costs for each potential requirement (NCPr), the jurisdiction baseline requirements (NCB 1012 r), and 

1013 the national incremental cost (NICr) where 

௥ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௑൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ௥,௜௑൯

௜

1014 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

1015 and 

ܸܲሺܰܥܫ௥ሻ ൌ 	ܸܲ൫ܰܥ௥

௉൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܰܥ௥஻ 1016 ൯ 1017 

1018 Step 6. Annualize the NPV for RCB, RCP and RIC. The final step is to annualize the NPV for 

1019 the jurisdiction baseline, proposed and incremental costs over 10 years at the appropriate 

1020 discount rate. This annualized cost is the estimated per year cost of the requirement. 

ܥܫܣ ௥ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ௥ሻ ൈ ߩ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻଵ଴

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻଵ଴ െ 1 1021 

1022 3.2.2 Example Methodology 

1023 In the following example we apply the general 6-step methodology to the potential requirement 

1024 of initial certification for a commercial applicator (Comm Cert-01) which would require certified 

1025 commercial applicators who intend to apply RUPs aerially to be certified in a commercial aerial 

1026 certification category. In this example we are evaluating the costs imposed on commercial 

1027 applicators, but there are also costs to jurisdictions of developing and administering aerial 

1028 applicator exams. The costs to jurisdictions are calculated using the same method. 

1029 Step 1. Calculate the Baseline Unit Costs (Per-Actor Costs). 

Based on data from the Certification Plan and Reporting Database4 1030 (CPARD), 18 states (listed in 

1031 Table 3.2-2), Puerto Rico, and Other currently do not require an aerial category certification 

1032 (CPARD, 2014). Existing and first-time aerial commercial applicators in these jurisdictions 

1033 would bear the full impact of the potential requirement (Comm Cert-01). The other 32 states 

1034 have an aerial category requiring an exam and are in full compliance with the potential 

1035 requirement. Thus, these 32 states are taken out of the cost analysis. Table 3.2-1 presents the 

1036 unit costs, that is, per-actor costs for the baseline and potential requirement (Comm Cert-01). 

1037 Step 2. Calculate the Per-Actor Unit Costs of Potential Requirement. 

1038 The actors are the existing and first-time commercial certified applicators who intend to apply 

1039 RUPs aerially. Under the new requirement, existing aerial applicators would be required to take 

1040 an aerial category exam that requires a total of 6 hours (the preparation time and exam taking 

1041 time), while first-time aerial applicators would take an aerial category exam that requires a total 

1042 of 8 hours (the preparation time and exam taking time). These commercial applicators must also 

1043 be certified in relevant current certification categories to qualify for the aerial category. The 

1044 wage rate for existing and first-time aerial applicators is $21.49 per hour. To calculate the unit 

1045 cost for existing and first-time aerial applicators, we multiply the wage rate times the number of 

1046 hours required of them to complete the certification exam. The unit cost for existing aerial 

1047 applicators is $129 and $172 for first-time aerial applicators. 

 

4

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

establish and update their certification plans as well as report certifications issued each year. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

1048 Table 3.2-1: Unit Cost for Certification of First-Time Aerial Commercial Applicators 

Activity Wage Rate Time Frequency Cost 

Existing Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) 

Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 6 hours 1 $129 

First-Time Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) 

Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 8 hours 1 $172 

1049 Source: Based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational 

1050 Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

1051 Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a). 

1052 Step 3. Calculate the Jurisdiction-level Costs of the Potential Requirement and Baseline. 

1053 Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 present regional costs in year three for the regional baseline and cost of 

1054 the potential requirement, respectively. Regional costs are calculated as unit costs for existing 

1055 and first-time applicators multiplied by the number of actors and summed across regions (see 

1056 Appendix A). 

1057 Table 3.2-2: Jurisdiction-Level Baseline Costs in Year 1 

Jurisdiction 

Existing Aerial Commercial 

Applicators 

First-time Aerial 

Commercial Applicators 

Jurisdictionlevel Cost of 

Baseline 

(RCBr,i) 

$1,000 

Unit Cost 

of 

Baseline 

(UCB

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,a) 

Unit Cost 

of 

Baseline 

(UCB

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,a) 

Alabama $0.00 20 $0.00 2 $0.00 

Arizona $0.00 71 $0.00 8 $0.00 

Arkansas $0.00 264 $0.00 32 $0.00 

Colorado $0.00 199 $0.00 24 $0.00 

Delaware $0.00 41 $0.00 5 $0.00 

Idaho $0.00 216 $0.00 26 $0.00 

Kansas $0.00 337 $0.00 40 $0.00 

Missouri $0.00 237 $0.00 28 $0.00 

Nevada $0.00 80 $0.00 10 $0.00 

New Mexico $0.00 6 $0.00 1 $0.00 

North Carolina $0.00 170 $0.00 20 $0.00 

Oklahoma $0.00 408 $0.00 49 $0.00 

Oregon $0.00 210 $0.00 25 $0.00 

Rhode Island $0.00 15 $0.00 2 $0.00 

South Dakota $0.00 389 $0.00 47 $0.00 

Tennessee $0.00 86 $0.00 10 $0.00 

Washington State $0.00 459 $0.00 55 $0.00 

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

7 

Puerto Rico $0.00 46 $0.00 6 $0.00 

Other $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 

1058 Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. Wage rate calculations 

1059 based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

1060 Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. 

1061 Department of Labor 2013a). 

1062 Table 3.2-3: Jurisdiction-Level Costs of Proposed Regulation Comm Cert-01 in Year 1 

Region 

Existing Aerial Commercial 

Applicators 

First-time Aerial Commercial 

Applicators Jurisdiction-level 

Cost of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(RCPr,i) 

$1,000 

Unit Cost of 

Proposal 

(UCP

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,a) 

Unit Cost of 

Proposal 

(UCP

r,i,a) 

Number of 

Actors in Each 

Jurisdiction 

(Ni,a) 

Alabama $129 20 $172 2 2,992 

Arizona $129 71 $172 8 10,589 

Arkansas $129 264 $172 32 39,552 

Colorado $129 199 $172 24 29,736 

Delaware $129 41 $172 5 6,136 

Idaho $129 216 $172 26 32,313 

Kansas $129 337 $172 40 50,429 

Missouri $129 237 $172 28 35,447 

Nevada $129 80 $172 10 11,931 

New Mexico $129 6 $172 1 891 

North Carolina $129 170 $172 20 25,361 

Oklahoma $129 408 $172 49 61,018 

Oregon $129 210 $172 25 31,381 

Rhode Island $129 15 $172 2 2,203 

South Dakota $129 389 $172 47 58,155 

Tennessee $129 86 $172 10 12,865 

Washington State $129 459 $172 55 68,705 

West Virginia $129 31 $172 4 4,654 

Puerto Rico $129 46 $172 6 6,907 

Other $129 0 $172 0 0 

1063 Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 

1064 Wage rate calculations based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific 

1065 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

1066 Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a).

1067 Steps 4 and 5. Calculate the Jurisdiction-level Incremental Costs and the Present Value. 

1068 Baseline unit costs are assumed to continue unchanged through the ten year time horizon. The 

1069 number of applicators is also anticipated to remain constant over the time horizon. Under the 

1070 potential regulation, baseline unit costs would be incurred for the first two years of the horizon at 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

1071 which point applicators would face the costs of the potential requirement. Given those 

1072 conditions, we calculate the present value of the cost streams, shown in Table 3.2-4. We then 

1073 subtract the jurisdiction-level cost of the baseline from the jurisdiction-level cost of the potential 

1074 regulatory requirement in year three to get the jurisdiction-level incremental costs (Table 3.2-4). 

1075 Step 6. Annualize the National Costs of the Potential Requirement, National Baseline, and 

1076 National Incremental Costs. 

1077 Finally, we sum costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance cost for the potential 

1078 regulatory requirement, the national baseline cost, and the national proposal cost. These 

1079 national-level costs are presented in Table 3.2-4. The costs are presented as present value over a 

1080 ten year time period with costs starting in year three given a 3% discount rate. 

1081 Table 3.2-4: Annualized Present Value of National-Level Costs of Commercial Aerial 

Applicator Certification (Comm Cert-01)1 1082 

Region 

National-level Cost 

of Baseline PV(NCB) 

National-level Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement PV(NCP) 

Naional-level Incremental 

Cost 

PV(NIC) 

($1,000)$1,000$1,000

U.S. (present value) 0 861 861 

U.S. (annualized value) 0 98 98 

1 1083 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1084 3.3 Cost Analysis Data

1085 In this section, we present the major data elements required for the analysis. Data elements 

1086 include the number of certified applicators by jurisdiction and age cohort, the number of 

1087 applicators who would be likely to obtain certification in the proposed new federal categories, 

1088 the number of a noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified 

1089 applicator by jurisdiction and age, and wage rates for the various actors. 

1090 

1091 3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators 

1092 

1093 States and other certifying jurisdictions (e.g., Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, other 

1094 territories and several tribes) report the number of certifications issued and maintained to the 

1095 Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). EPA used data reported from 2008 to 

1096 2013 to determine the number of certified applicators that would be affected by changes to the 

1097 certification programs (CPARD, 2014). 

1098 

1099 Table 3.3-1 presents the number of commercial applicators used in the analysis, including first1100 time applicators (those obtaining an initial certification), existing applicators (those who would 

1101 recertify), and the average number of certifications held by existing applicators. Commercial 

1102 applicators must be certified in a core set of requirements and obtain at least one category, based 

1103 on area of specialization, such as agriculture, forestry, and turf. Over time, many commercial 

1104 applicators become certified in multiple categories. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the average 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

1105 number of category certifications ranges from nearly one in Tennessee to a high of 3.6 

1106 certifications per applicator in Wyoming. Any changes in recertification requirements will affect 

1107 all the category certifications an applicator holds. EPA uses a simple average over the 2008 to 

1108 2013 period to estimate the number of commercial applicators impacted by the rule. 

1109 

1110 With the limited series of data available, trends are difficult to determine. We regressed the 

1111 logarithm of the number of commercial applicators in the U.S. against a time trend. For first1112 time applicators, the coefficient on time implied a two percent annual rate of growth, but the 

1113 estimate was not statistically significant. For existing applicators, the coefficient on time was 

1114 also around a two percent annual growth rate and the estimate was statistically significant. We 

1115 decided to use the simple average for both groups, implying no growth, due to the limited 

1116 number of observations and some problems with the data. Several states did not begin reporting 

1117 to CPARD until 2010 and others initially reported only certifications issued, not the number of 

1118 applicators. 

1119 

1120 Table 3.3-1: Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction 

Jurisdiction 

First-Time 

Applicators 

Existing 

Applicators 

Average 

Categories/Applicator 

Alabama 330 3,772 1.1 

Alaska 105 560 1.4 

Arizona 865 6,240 2.3 

Arkansas 439 3,893 1.4 

California 3,689 32,546 1.5 

Colorado 691 3,209 2.7 

Connecticut 124 2,686 1.5 

Delaware 154 1,812 1.6 

Florida 1,702 15,303 2.6 

Georgia 1,478 9,700 1.3 

Hawaii 116 1,151 1.3 

Idaho 423 3,578 3.0 

Illinois 3,277 12,053 1.5 

Indiana 1,180 8,945 1.5 

Iowa 1,497 11,904 2.3 

Kansas 875 5,148 1.7 

Kentucky 2,907 10,022 1.4 

Louisiana 591 3,907 1.7 

Maine 176 1,437 2.2 

Maryland 472 4,084 1.4 

Massachusetts 201 1,986 1.5 

Michigan 2,013 12,803 2.3 

Minnesota 1,850 8,375 1.4 

Mississippi 304 2,742 1.3 

Missouri 834 6,814 1.6 

Montana 278 2,133 1.3 

Nebraska 1,102 8,609 1.4 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 

Nevada 300 1,390 2.2 

New Hampshire 313 949 1.9 

New Jersey 585 8,452 1.6 

New Mexico 654 1,723 2.3 

New York 1,252 17,653 1.5 

North Carolina 1,361 17,012 1.5 

North Dakota 428 4,889 1.7 

Ohio 1,403 11,565 2.3 

Oklahoma 1,538 9,002 2.8 

Oregon 477 4,396 2.2 

Pennsylvania 2,277 13,850 1.8 

Rhode Island 53 606 1.9 

South Carolina 753 5,009 1.6 

South Dakota 814 4,943 1.7 

Tennessee 1,328 13,051 1.0 

Texas 1,716 17,478 2.0 

Utah 929 3,389 2.1 

Vermont 146 848 1.7 

Virginia 1,159 6,325 2.0 

Washington 1,370 14,343 2.5 

West Virginia 240 1,747 1.5 

Wisconsin 1,623 11,287 1.2 

Wyoming 339 1,572 3.6 

Puerto Rico 330 5,559 1.5 

Other Jurisdictions 243 2,134 1.0 

U.S. 49,300 364,579 1.8 

1121 Source: Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 

1122 Data on the age distribution of certified applicators is not available. Because it is important to 

1123 know the number of certified applicators that may be subject to an age restriction, EPA estimates 

1124 the number of commercial applicators. Due to restrictions on adolescents regarding driving, and 

1125 the availability to work due to education requirements, as well as general liability concerns, it is 

1126 unlikely that there are commercial applicators under the age of 16. For those that are 16-17 years 

1127 old, EPA assumes that 0.2 percent of new commercial applicators are 16 years old and 0.3 

1128 percent are 17 years old. This assumption follows the analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the 

1129 Worker Protection Standard (EPA, 2014a). Data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey 

1130 (DoL, 2005) indicated that just over two percent of on-farm pesticide handlers were under 18 

1131 years of age. EPA assumed that commercial pesticide handling establishments would be less 

1132 likely to employ adolescents in such a capacity and estimated that about one percent of 

1133 commercial handlers would be under 18. Here, we assume it is even less likely that commercial 

1134 establishments would hire adolescents to apply RUPs. Further, 33 states prohibit certification for 

1135 those under 18. The estimated number of commercial certified adolescents in shown in Table 

1136 3.3-2. EPA assumes that 90 percent of certified 16 year olds return to work as 17 year olds. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 

1137 Table 3.3-2. Estimated Number of Commercial Applicators under 18 Years of Age. 

Jurisdiction 

16 Year Old 

First-Time 

Applicators 

17 Year Old 

First-Time 

Applicators 

17 Year Old 

Existing 

Applicators 

Alabama 0.7 0.6 1.0 

Alaska 0 0 0 

Arizona 0 0 0 

Arkansas 0 0 0 

California 7.4 6.7 11.1 

Colorado 1.4 1.3 2.1 

Connecticut 0 0 0 

Delaware 0 0 0 

Florida 0 0 0 

Georgia 0 0 0 

Hawaii 0 0 0 

Idaho 0 0 0 

Illinois 6.6 5.9 9.8 

Indiana 2.4 2.2 3.5 

Iowa 0 0 0 

Kansas 0 0 0 

Kentucky 5.8 5.2 8.7 

Louisiana 0 0 0 

Maine 0 0 0 

Maryland 0 0 0 

Massachusetts 0 0 0 

Michigan 0 0 0 

Minnesota 3.7 3.3 5.6 

Mississippi 0 0 0 

Missouri 0 0 0 

Montana 0 0 0 

Nebraska 2.2 2.0 3.3 

Nevada 0.6 0.5 0.9 

New Hampshire 0 0 0 

New Jersey 0 0 0 

New Mexico 1.3 1.2 2.0 

New York 0 0 0 

North Carolina 0 0 0 

North Dakota 0 0 0 

Ohio 2.8 2.5 4.2 

Oklahoma 3.1 2.8 4.6 

Oregon 0 0 0 

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 

Rhode Island 0.1 0.1 0.2 

South Carolina 0 0 0 

South Dakota 1.6 1.4 2.4 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 

Tennessee 0 0 0 

Texas 3.4 3.1 5.1 

Utah 1.9 1.7 2.8 

Vermont 0 0 0 

Virginia 0 0 0 

Washington 0 0 0 

West Virginia 0 0 0 

Wisconsin 3.2 2.9 4.9 

Wyoming 0 0 0 

Puerto Rico 0.7 0.6 1.0 

Other Jurisdictions 0.5 0.5 0.7 

U.S. 49 45 74 

1138 Source: EPA estimation. Zeros indicate states that have imposed a minimum age requirement. 

1139 EPA also estimates the number of commercial applicators that will obtain and retain certification 

1140 in potential new, application-specific categories. Table 3.3-3 presents the expected number of 

1141 applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Many states already have developed an 

1142 aerial category and seven states have a chemigation category. For those states, EPA uses the 

1143 average number of applicators, as reported to CPARD between 2008 and 2013. 

1144 In order to estimate the number of existing aerial applicators in states without an aerial category, 

1145 we regressed the number of aerial applicators in states for which we had data against the number 

1146 of certifications issued in agricultural plant protection, forestry, and turf categories, the number 

1147 of acres of agricultural crops treated by air, and several dummy variable for different parts of the 

1148 country. Data on acres treated by air comes from an annual market survey (proprietary) of 

1149 pesticide use. Observations were for each state and year. The estimated coefficients were used 

1150 to predict the number of existing applicators in the rest of the states. For the states with an aerial 

1151 category, first time aerial applicators averaged 12 percent of existing applicators and that average 

1152 value was used to predict the number of first time aerial applicators in the other states. 

1153 Similarly, we estimated the number of commercial applicators who would obtain certification in 

1154 chemigation based on a regression of observed certifications against the number of agricultural 

1155 plant protection certifications, crop acres treated by commercial applicators with chemicals often 

1156 applied via chemigation, and dummy variables to account for different agricultural practices, 

1157 notably intensive production where chemigation might be through drip irrigation and more 

1158 extensive systems of flood or sprinkler systems. Given that only seven states have a chemigation 

1159 category, the results are not robust, but for lack of better information were used to predict 

1160 commercial chemigation certifications that might be obtained. On average, the observed number 

1161 of new chemigation certifications was about seven percent of existing certifications and that 

1162 value was used to predict the number of first-time certifications in other states. 

1163 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

1164 Table 3.3-3. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation 

1165 Categories. 

Jurisdiction

First-Time 

Applicators,

Aerial

Existing 

Applicators,

Aerial

First-Time 

Applicators,

Chemigation

Existing 

Applicators,

Chemigation

Alabama 2 2 20 2 21

Alaska 2 1 5 0 0

Arizona 1 2 8 71 1 9

Arkansas 1 2 32 264 1 17

California 2 54 448 4 57

Colorado 1 2 24 199 1 15

Connecticut 2 0 2 0 0

Delaware 1 2 5 41 2 22

Florida 2 38 318 2 30

Georgia 2 34 285 2 31

Hawaii 1 8 0 6

Idaho 1 2 26 216 2 29

Illinois 2 33 271 0 6

Indiana 2 32 267 0 6

Iowa 2 90 749 1 19

Kansas 1 2 40 337 1 8

Kentucky 2 8 71 1 10

Louisiana 2 46 381 1 12

Maine 3 27 0 0

Maryland 2 6 46 1 20

Massachusetts 2 2 16 1 8

Michigan 2 10 80 1 9

Minnesota 2 46 383 0 4

Mississippi 2 29 238 1 18

Missouri 1 2 28 237 1 7

Montana 2 2 13 1 10

Nebraska 2 63 525 0 6

Nevada 1 10 80 1 8

New Hampshire 1 2 2 15 0 0

New Jersey 2 10 81 2 22

New Mexico 1 2 1 6 1 12

New York 2 6 50 1 12

North Carolina 1 2 20 170 2 33

North Dakota 2 43 357 1 15

Ohio 2 11 92 1 17

Oklahoma 1 2 49 408 2 31

Oregon 1 2 25 210 2 24

Pennsylvania 2 8 71 1 10

Rhode Island 1 2 2 15 0 0

South Carolina 2 10 85 2 22
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 

South Dakota 1 2 47 389 1 13

Tennessee 1 2 10 86 2 24

Texas 64 533 2 28

Utah 2 6 48 1 12

Vermont 2 1 8 0 0

Virginia 10 84 3 37

Washington 1 2 55 459 5 71

West Virginia 1 2 4 31 1 9

Wisconsin 8 68 0 4

Wyoming 5 43 2 30

Puerto Rico 1 2 6 46 0 5

Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0

U.S. 1,074 8,950 57 817

1166 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 

1 1167 No commercial aerial category; estimated number of applicators. 

2 1168 No commercial chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

1169 Table 3.3-4 presents the expected number of commercial applicators who have or would obtain 

1170 certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Seventeen states have a soil fumigation category 

1171 from which we can extrapolate to other states. As with aerial application and chemigation, we 

1172 estimate a regression model where the number of applicators with a soil fumigation certification 

1173 is hypothesized to be a function of the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection, 

1174 forestry, and turf, as well as the crop acres treated commercial with fumigants. Data on crop 

1175 treatments come from a proprietary market survey conducted annually. Initial certifications in 

1176 soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications. 

1177 Most states have a category for non-soil fumigation; some even have separate categories for 

1178 fumigation of structures and fumigation of commodities. The regression model for non-soil 

1179 fumigation included the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection and in the 

1180 industrial, institutional, and structural category. The latter is quite broad and we included a 

1181 dummy variable for states issuing more than 3,000 certifications in that category as many states 

1182 subdivide it into more specialized areas. We also included a variable for acres of grain 

1183 harvested, as an indicator of commodity fumigation, but the estimated coefficient was not 

1184 significant. Initial certifications in non-soil fumigation average eight percent of the existing 

1185 certifications. 

1186 Table 3.3-4. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil 

1187 Fumigation Categories. 

Jurisdiction

First-Time 

Applicators,

Soil 

Fumigation

Existing 

Applicators,

Soil Fumigation

First-Time 

Applicators,

Non-Soil 

Fumigation

Existing 

Applicators,

Non-Soil 

Fumigation

Alabama 1 2 18 4 50

Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0

Arizona 1 4 38 18 221

Arkansas 4 40 11 138
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 

California 2 47 431 300 3,751

Colorado 1 0 0 9 107

Connecticut 0 2 1 19

Delaware 9 80 7 86

Florida 12 112 516 6,452

Georgia 1 10 90 23 285

Hawaii 1 5 50 19 233

Idaho 2 24 223 15 181

Illinois 1 10 18 224

Indiana 1 8 74 30 374

Iowa 1 53 478 48 602

Kansas 1 2 7 60 52 648

Kentucky 1 3 24 45 563

Louisiana 1 2 3 25 14 169

Maine 1 0 0 7 87

Maryland 1 0 0 111 1,387

Massachusetts 1 0 0 3 38

Michigan 1 2 16 148 25 307

Minnesota 2 20 26 328

Mississippi 1 1 14 5 63

Missouri 1 7 59 34 430

Montana 1 2 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 1 8 37 463

Nevada 1 0 0 3 42

New Hampshire 1 0 0 1 8

New Jersey 1 2 17 10 126

New Mexico 1 1 11 5 63

New York 78 709 14 178

North Carolina 4 40 14 171

North Dakota 1 6 41 510

Ohio 6 54 27 331

Oklahoma 1 12 112 60 756

Oregon 22 198 14 181

Pennsylvania 2 17 40 495

Rhode Island 1 0 0 1 10

South Carolina 1 2 16 15 185

South Dakota 1 5 17 219

Tennessee 1 2 1 5 24 298

Texas 1 19 175 84 1,045

Utah 1 0 0 9 111

Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0

Virginia 8 73 15 184

Washington 69 624 12 150

West Virginia 1 0 0 3 39

Wisconsin 8 70 15 194
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

Wyoming 1 3 29 3 43

Puerto Rico 1 2 1 12 0 5

Other 

Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0

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

1188 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation.

1 1189 No commercial soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

2 1190 No commercial non-soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

1191 EPA considered a general fumigation category that would cover both soil and non-soil 

1192 fumigation. No state currently has such a category on which to base estimates of the number of 

1193 applicators implicated. Considering how different the methods and purposes of soil and non-soil 

1194 fumigation are, EPA assumes that there would be no overlap in the number of applicators 

1195 seeking certifications between the categories. Thus, the expected number of applicators that 

1196 would seek a certification in a general fumigation category is simply the sum of the number of 

1197 applicators in the soil and non-soil categories. 

1198 3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 

1199 certified applicators 

1200 Data on the number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

1201 certified applicators (UTS applicators) are not available. However, based on the state 

1202 regulations, it appears that four states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) do 

1203 not allow noncertified applicators to apply RUPs. The number of UTS applicators in those states 

1204 is set to zero. Data are available, by state, on employment in occupations related to pest control 

1205 (BLS, 2014b). EPA took the total number of people employed as pest control workers in the 

1206 Agricultural Support Sector, the Structures and Buildings and Turf Sector, the Construction 

1207 Sector, and in Federal, State, and Local Governments, averaged over 2012 and 2013, and 

1208 subtracted the number of certified applicators in the state to estimate the number of UTS 

1209 applicators. This approach sometimes resulted in negative numbers. For example, in the case of 

1210 Kentucky, BLS reports an average of 8,720 people employed in non-agricultural pest control. 

1211 However, Kentucky reports an average of 13,973 certified commercial applicators over the same 

1212 period. As an alternative, EPA calculated the number of UTS applicators assuming three UTS 

1213 applicators for every existing commercial applicator. In the case of Kentucky, the six-year 

1214 average number of certified commercial applicators is 10,022, resulting in an estimate of 30,066 

1215 UTS applicators. As a refinement, we made a calculation where different categories of 

1216 applicators would have different numbers of UTS applicators. For example, there may be three 

1217 UTS applicators for every applicator in the turf category (e.g., a golf course or landscaping 

1218 enterprise) but public health applicators would not have UTS applicators. This approach resulted 

1219 in an estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators in Kentucky. If the estimated number of UTS 

1220 applicators in a state using the BLS data was less than half that calculated from the simple three 

1221 UTS applicator per certified applicator, which occurred in 29 states, we used the lower of the two 

1222 numbers calculated by assumption. For Kentucky, we used the estimate of 27,907 UTS 

1223 applicators. In 15 of the 29 states for which the BLS data appeared to undercount the number of 

1224 UTS applicators, we used the simple assumption of three UTS applicators for each certified 

1225 commercial applicator. Estimated numbers of noncertified applicators are presented in Table 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 

1226 3.3-5. The total number of noncertified applicators in the U.S. is estimated at nearly 950,000 

1227 people. 

1228 The number of noncertified adolescents applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

1229 applicator is also of interest, given that EPA is proposing a minimum age. According to the 

1230 Current Population Survey (BLS, 2014a), in 2013, about 77,000 people were employed in pest 

1231 control occupations within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance, of 

1232 which 1,000 were aged 16 to 19, or 1.3 percent of the workforce. This category is representative 

1233 of the turf and ornamental and the industrial, institutional, and structural category which houses 

1234 the majority of certified applicators. We therefore apply this percentage across all states to 

1235 estimate the number of noncertified 16 and 17 year olds applying RUPs under the direct 

1236 supervision of a commercial applicator. Since the BLS data includes 18 and 19 year olds, we are 

1237 likely overestimating the number of adolescents applying RUPs. Several states have set a 

1238 minimum age of 18 for applying RUPs, as shown by the estimated zero adolescents in the state. 

1239 Table 3.3-5: Estimated Number of Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under Direct 

1240 Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction 

Jurisdiction 

Noncertified Applicators 

UTS of Commercial 

Applicator

16 – 17 Year Old 

Noncertified Applicators

Alabama 9,035 117

Alaska 1,265 16

Arizona 13,384 174

Arkansas 7,121 93

California 73,702 958

Colorado 14,367 187

Connecticut 10,096 131

Delaware 5,437 71

Florida 65,193 848

Georgia 17,289 225

Hawaii 3,710 48

Idaho 10,735 140

Illinois 18,259 237

Indiana 26,531 345

Iowa 0 0

Kansas 15,443 201

Kentucky 27,907 363

Louisiana 8,861 115

Maine 2,828 37

Maryland 16,465 0

Massachusetts 18,817 0

Michigan 38,410 499

Minnesota 0 0

Mississippi 5,710 74

Missouri 19,996 260
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 

Montana 3,663 48

Nebraska 23,028 299

Nevada 7,617 99

New Hampshire 0 0

New Jersey 18,904 0

New Mexico 2,762 36

New York 52,958 688

North Carolina 51,036 663

North Dakota 13,381 174

Ohio 34,695 451

Oklahoma 27,005 351

Oregon 13,188 171

Pennsylvania 41,549 540

Rhode Island 3,035 39

South Carolina 8,723 113

South Dakota 0 0

Tennessee 23,325 303

Texas 55,148 717

Utah 10,167 132

Vermont 2,543 0

Virginia 21,550 0

Washington 43,030 559

West Virginia 4,451 0

Wisconsin 30,041 391

Wyoming 4,715 61

Puerto Rico 16,678 217

Other Jurisdictions 3,531 46

U.S. 947,275 11,237

1241 Source: EPA estimation based on BLS (2014a and 2014b).

1242 3.3.3 Private certified applicators 

1243 The number of private certified applicators is also reported to CPARD by the states. The total 

1244 number of private certified applicators in the U.S. from 2008 to 2013 was regressed against a 

1245 time variable. The estimated coefficient on time for the number of initial certifications was 

1246 negative, while that for existing applicators was positive, but neither was statistically significant. 

1247 Given the limited time series and conflicting results, EPA estimates the number of private 

1248 applicators affected by changes to the Certification regulations as the simple average over the 

1249 2008 to 2013 period, i.e., no trend over time for either first-time or existing private applicators. 

1250 Table 3.3-6 presents the numbers for certified private applicators in each jurisdiction. 

1251 Table 3.3-6: Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction 

Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators Existing Applicators 

Alabama 561 5,402 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 

Alaska 9 80 

Arizona 84 389 

Arkansas 1,485 19,512 

California 1,622 16,979 

Colorado 393 5,656 

Connecticut 21 543 

Delaware 70 676 

Florida 340 3,704 

Georgia 1,669 18,010 

Hawaii 31 413 

Idaho 139 3,474 

Illinois 1,074 16,223 

Indiana 796 12,208 

Iowa 873 22,104 

Kansas 1,107 13,833 

Kentucky 2,572 10,733 

Louisiana 374 7,241 

Maine 76 1,099 

Maryland 108 3,212 

Massachusetts 84 1,045 

Michigan 497 7,165 

Minnesota 669 16,690 

Mississippi 1,344 9,597 

Missouri 1,628 19,499 

Montana 258 6,033 

Nebraska 767 21,052 

Nevada 48 248 

New Hampshire 33 469 

New Jersey 200 1,569 

New Mexico 225 2,478 

New York 246 6,805 

North Carolina 470 15,781 

North Dakota 923 10,757 

Ohio 279 14,524 

Oklahoma 1,563 12,295 

Oregon 185 4,093 

Pennsylvania 665 17,441 

Rhode Island 6 180 

South Carolina 732 5,745 

South Dakota 2,151 14,543 

Tennessee 404 10,522 

Texas 3,031 40,170 

Utah 279 1,384 

Vermont 42 520 

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

20 

Washington 669 13,148 

West Virginia 79 1,198 

Wisconsin 1,071 12,816 

Wyoming 388 4,267 

Puerto Rico 746 15,982 

Other 96 238 

U.S. 34,039 455,278 

1252 Source: Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 

1253 As with commercial applicators, CPARD does not provide information on the age of private 

1254 applicators. Since private applicators are often the owner or operator of a farm, EPA bases its 

1255 estimates of adolescent applicators on the number of principal operators under the age of 25, as 

1256 reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We assume a nearly normal 

1257 distribution, where 0.5 percent of principal operators under the age of 25 are 14 and obtain initial 

1258 certification as a private applicator, 0.75 percent are 15 and 16 and will be certified, and one 

1259 percent are 17 years old with certification. This would be an overestimate of principal operators, 

1260 as the distribution is probably heavily skewed toward operators in their early 20s rather than 

1261 mid- to late-teens. Further, not all principal operators will be certified applicators since not all 

1262 farms use pesticides, much less RUPs. However, there are other situations where an adolescent 

1263 may be a certified operator. Many states have age restrictions, however, typically either 16 or 18 

1264 years of age and we adjust our estimates accordingly. Where the minimum age is 16, we assume 

1265 that all adolescents who would otherwise have obtained certification by that age will do so. 

1266 Table 3.3-7 presents the estimated adolescent private applicators. Included is an estimate of 

1267 adolescents hired as a private applicator. The above approach applies to family members only. 

1268 Hired adolescents on farms is likely very rare. According to the National Agricultural Worker 

1269 Survey (DoL, 2005), only about 2.3 percent of those handling any kind of pesticide were under 

1270 18 and fewer would handle RUPs. We assume that hired 17 year-olds may obtain certification, 

1271 at a rate of 25 percent of the number of family members obtaining certification at that age. 

1272 Table 3.3-7. Estimated Number of Private Applicators under 18 Years of Age. 

Jurisdiction

First-Time Applicators, 

Family

Existing Applicators, 

Family

First-Time 

Applicators, 

Hired

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

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 

Arizona 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.1 

Arkansas 1.5 0.7 0.7 2.6 0.2 

California 1.9 1.1 1.1 3.3 0.2 

Colorado 1.2 0.6 0.6 2.0 0.1 

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 

Delaware 0 0.1 0 0 0 

Florida 0 0 0 0 0 

Georgia 0 1.6 0 1.0 0.1 

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

21 

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 

Illinois 0 5.6 0 3.5 0.4 

Indiana 2.4 1.3 1.3 4.3 0.3 

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 

Kansas 2.8 1.5 1.5 4.6 0.3 

Kentucky 0 4.4 0 2.7 0.4 

Louisiana 0 1.6 0 1.0 0.1 

Maine 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 

Maryland 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1 

Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 

Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 

Minnesota 3.3 1.7 1.7 5.6 0.4 

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 

Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 

Montana 0 1.3 0 0.8 0.1 

Nebraska 0 4.9 0 3.1 0.4 

Nevada 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 

New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 

New Mexico 1.7 1.0 1.0 2.8 0.2 

New York 0 1.9 0 0 0.2 

North Carolina 0 2.4 0 1.5 0.2 

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 

Ohio 3.6 1.8 1.8 6.2 0.4 

Oklahoma 3.4 1.8 1.8 5.9 0.4 

Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 

Pennsylvania 0 4.6 0 2.9 0.4 

Rhode Island 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 

South Dakota 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2 

Tennessee 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2 

Texas 6.3 3.2 3.2 10.6 0.7 

Utah 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1 

Vermont 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 

Virginia 0 2.0 0 1.2 0.2 

Washington 0 1.9 0 1.3 0.1 

West Virginia 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 

Wisconsin 0 3.8 0 2.3 0.3 

Wyoming 0 0.6 0 0.4 0.1 

Puerto Rico 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 

Other 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.2 0.2 

U.S. 34.6 58.4 18.8 83.0 7.1 

1273 Source: EPA estimation.
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 

1274 EPA also estimates the number of private applicators that will obtain and retain certification in 

1275 potential new, application-specific categories. Table 3.3-8 presents the expected number of 

1276 applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Wisconsin is the only state that has 

1277 established a private aerial category and they have not reported any certifications. Hawaii, 

1278 Idaho, Nevada, and Wisconsin require certification in chemigation for private applicators and 

1279 Wyoming has recently imposed a similar requirement. 

1280 Private aerial application is likely very rare. EPA simply assumes that there will be one private 

1281 aerial applicator in a state for every 100 commercial applicators. As with commercial 

1282 applicators, we assume that new certifications will be 12 percent of existing certifications based 

1283 on the observed ratio between new and existing certifications nationally. 

1284 We also estimated the number of private applicators who would obtain certification in 

1285 chemigation in relationship to the number of commercial applicators certified in chemigation. 

1286 We constructed a state-specific ratio by comparing crop acres treated with chemicals used in 

1287 chemigation by commercial applicators to that treated by the farmer. This ratio ranged from a 

1288 low of 1.5 (50 percent more acres treated by farmers than by commercial applicators) in Illinois 

1289 to a high of 47.6 in Georgia. Data on acres treated are from an annual proprietary market survey 

1290 of pesticide users. Where data from the survey were missing (Alaska, Hawaii, and the New 

1291 England states), we used the estimated coefficient on agricultural plant certifications from the 

1292 commercial applicator equation to calculate chemigation certification as a proportion of all 

1293 private certifications (0.9 percent). As with commercial chemigation certifications, new 

1294 certifications are calculated as seven percent of existing certifications. 

1295 Table 3.3-8. Expected Number of Private Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation 

1296 Categories. 

Jurisdiction 

First-Time 

Applicators, 

Aerial 

Existing 

Applicators, 

Aerial 

First-Time 

Applicators, 

Chemigation 

Existing 

Applicators, 

Chemigation 

Alabama 1 2 0 0 42 605 

Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Arizona 1 2 0 0 9 135 

Arkansas 1 2 0 2 6 80 

California 1 2 0 4 8 115 

Colorado 1 2 0 1 5 68 

Connecticut 1 2 0 0 1 13 

Delaware 1 2 0 0 5 69 

Florida 1 2 0 3 12 173 

Georgia 1 2 0 2 103 1,478 

Hawaii 1 0 0 1 14 

Idaho 1 0 2 74 1,053 

Illinois 1 2 0 2 1 9 

Indiana 1 2 0 2 1 15 

Iowa 1 2 1 7 2 31 

Kansas 1 2 0 3 2 24 

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

23 

Louisiana 1 2 0 3 6 80 

Maine 1 2 0 0 1 15

Maryland 1 2 0 0 3 40 

Massachusetts 1 2 0 0 1 17 

Michigan 1 2 0 0 2 31 

Minnesota 1 2 0 3 1 11 

Mississippi 1 2 0 2 10 136 

Missouri 1 2 0 2 1 16 

Montana 1 2 0 0 13 179 

Nebraska 1 2 1 5 1 11 

Nevada 1 0 0 5 66 

New Hampshire 1 2 0 0 1 12 

New Jersey 1 2 0 0 3 44 

New Mexico 1 2 0 0 3 45 

New York 1 2 0 0 3 41 

North Carolina 1 2 0 1 34 485 

North Dakota 1 2 0 3 9 128 

Ohio 1 2 0 0 2 31 

Oklahoma 1 2 0 4 7 96 

Oregon 1 2 0 2 12 177 

Pennsylvania 1 2 0 0 4 51 

Rhode Island 1 2 0 0 1 10 

South Carolina 1 2 0 0 37 528 

South Dakota 1 2 0 3 2 32 

Tennessee 1 2 0 0 23 323 

Texas 1 2 1 5 12 174

Utah 1 2 0 0 2 25 

Vermont 1 2 0 0 1 13 

Virginia 1 2 0 0 11 155

Washington 1 2 0 4 24 340 

West Virginia 1 2 0 0 2 23 

Wisconsin 0 0 6 79 

Wyoming 1 2 0 0 4 57

Puerto Rico 1 2 0 0 2 34 

Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 

U.S. 8 65 519 7,415 

1297 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 

1 1298 No private aerial category; estimated number of applicators. 

2 1299 No private chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

1300 Table 3.3-9 presents the expected number of private applicators who have or would obtain 

1301 certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Five states (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, 

1302 Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have a private soil fumigation category. For the remaining states, 

1303 we estimate existing applicators using the estimated coefficients from the regression model for 

1304 commercial applicators, where the number of applicators with a soil fumigation certification is a 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 

1305 function of the number of private applicators in the state and the crop acres treated with 

1306 fumigants by the farmer. Data on crop treatments come from a proprietary market survey 

1307 conducted annually. Initial certifications in soil fumigation are 11 percent of the existing 

1308 certifications, as with commercial soil fumigation. 

1309 Seven states (Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Utah) have a 

1310 category for non-soil fumigation. As these states also have a commercial non-soil fumigation 

1311 category, EPA calculated the ratio of private to commercial certifications. The ratio varies from 

1312 about 0.1 to almost 2.0, with an average of 0.6. The number of private certifications in states 

1313 without the category was estimated as the number of commercial certification multiplied by the 

1314 average ratio or the ratio of a state with similar agronomic characteristics, following the Farm 

1315 Resource Regions defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS, 2000). Initial 

1316 certifications in soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications, as with 

1317 commercial certifications in this category. 

1318 Table 3.3-9. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil 

1319 Fumigation Categories. 

Jurisdiction

First-Time 

Applicators,

Soil Fumigation

Existing 

Applicators,

Soil 

Fumigation

First-Time 

Applicators,

Non-Soil 

Fumigation

Existing 

Applicators,

Non-Soil 

Fumigation

Alabama 1 2 18 163 2 31

Alaska 1 2 0 0 n/a n/a

Arizona 1 5 47 2 29

Arkansas 1 2 76 686 7 85

California 1 2 102 923 27 332

Colorado 1 2 20 178 5 66

Connecticut 1 2 0 0 0 2

Delaware 1 2 0 1 1 10

Florida 1 2 35 315 46 571

Georgia 1 2 85 774 3 34

Hawaii 2 3 27 2 21

Idaho 1 2 23 205 2 22

Illinois 1 2 59 533 2 20

Indiana 1 2 44 396 3 33

Iowa 1 81 734 4 53

Kansas 1 2 50 457 5 57

Kentucky 1 2 38 346 4 50

Louisiana 1 2 25 226 4 56

Maine 1 2 2 16 1 8

Maryland 1 2 10 92 10 123

Massachusetts 1 2 2 14 0 3

Michigan 1 2 27 246 3 37

Minnesota 1 8 3 39

Mississippi 1 2 34 307 3 39
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 

Missouri 1 2 73 666 3 38

Montana 1 2 20 186 n/a n/a

Nebraska 1 2 77 704 3 41

Nevada 2 21 5 60

New Hampshire 1 2 0 0 0 1

New Jersey 1 2 4 33 3 42

New Mexico 1 2 7 65 7 90

New York 1 2 23 212 5 60

North Carolina 1 2 81 733 8 105

North Dakota 1 38 347 80 1,005

Ohio 1 2 52 475 2 29

Oklahoma 1 2 45 405 5 67

Oregon 1 2 18 160 5 60

Pennsylvania 9 79 13 165

Rhode Island 1 2 0 0 0 1

South Carolina 1 2 23 212 9 114

South Dakota 1 2 52 475 2 26

Tennessee 1 2 37 340 2 26

Texas 1 2 149 1,355 7 93

Utah 1 4 32 5 60

Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0

Virginia 1 2 19 175 9 113

Washington 1 2 70 636 7 92

West Virginia 1 2 2 19 2 24

Wisconsin 2 5 42 2 23

Wyoming 1 2 14 125 0 5

Puerto Rico 1 2 58 524 0 0

Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0

U.S. 1,619 14,716 325 4,061

1320 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 

1 1321 No private soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

2 1322 No private non-soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 

1323 3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified 

1324 applicators 

1325 The number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs on farms is likely to be a function of farm 

1326 size, where farm size is measured by value of sales. Most smaller farms would not need more 

1327 than one applicator, in general, and even larger farms would probably not have a large enough 

1328 demand for RUPs that they would need to rely on a certified applicator. We assume that one of 

1329 every two private applicators on a farm with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year will 

1330 have an applicator under his or her supervision to apply RUPs, while private applicators on farms 

1331 with more than $1 million per year in sales will, on average, have one noncertified applicator 

1332 under his or her supervision. We obtain the number of farms, by sales, in each state from the 

1333 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). From a special tabulation of data from the 2007 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 

1334 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008), we have a national estimate of the proportion of farms in 

1335 each sales class that utilize pesticides. Using this national figure, we estimate the number of 

1336 farms in each state that use pesticides. For example, nearly 80 percent of farms with sales 

1337 between $100,000 and $1 million per year used pesticides in 2007. We therefore estimate that 

1338 nearly 80 percent of farms in that sales class in every state used pesticides in 2012. In the case of 

1339 Alabama, this means that we estimate that, out of 3,445 farms with sales between $100,000 and 

1340 $1 million, 2,753 will use pesticides. Following this procedure with other size classes of farms 

1341 gives us an estimated 16,630 farms using pesticides. Those in the $100,000 and $1 million sales 

1342 class account for 16.6 percent of those farms and, we estimate, 16.6 percent of certified 

1343 applicators. By our previous assumption of half those applicators have someone under their 

1344 supervision, 8.3 percent of Alabama private applicators will have someone under their 

1345 supervision. Another 7.0 percent of Alabama private applicators are estimated to be on farms 

1346 with more than $1 million in sales and will have someone applying RUPs under their 

1347 supervision. Therefore, we estimate that the number of noncertified applicators in Alabama is 

1348 15.3 percent of the 5,402 certified private applicators, or 827 noncertified applicators. Table 3.3-

1349 10 presents estimates for all the states and jurisdictions. 

1350 Finally, we estimate the number of noncertified adolescents that may apply RUPs under the 

1351 direct supervision of a private applicator. 

1352 To estimate the number of noncertified adolescent family members who might apply RUPs 

1353 under the direct supervision of a certified private applicators, we follow a procedure similar to 

1354 that of estimating adolescent certified private applicators. In this case, we base the estimates on 

1355 the number of second and third farm operators under the age of 25, as reported in the 2012 

1356 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We again assume a nearly normal distribution, where 0.5 

1357 percent of second and third operators under the age of 25 are 14, 0.75 percent are 15 and 16, and 

1358 one percent are 17 years old. 

1359 To estimate the number of noncertified non-family adolescents applying RUPs under the direct 

1360 supervision of a certified private applicators, we rely on data from the National Agricultural 

1361 Worker Survey (DoL, 2005). According to the survey, 0.4 percent of pesticide handlers were 

1362 under 16 and 1.9 percent 16 and 17 year old. We multiply these percentages by the total number 

1363 of applicators UTS in each state to obtain the estimates shown in Table 3.3-10. 

1364 Finally, some states have age restrictions precluding adolescents from applying RUPs. This is 

1365 shown in Table 3.3-10 where there are zero adolescent noncertified applicators. The exception is 

1366 Alaska, which does not have a restriction but where our procedure above resulted in an estimated 

1367 zero applicators younger than 16 years of age. 

1368 Table 3.3-10: Estimated Number of Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under Direct 

1369 Supervision of Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction 

Jurisdiction 

Noncertified 

Applicators UTS 

of Private 

Applicator 

Noncertified Applicators, 

Family 

Noncertified Applicators, 

Hired 

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

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

27 

Alaska 10 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 

Arizona 44 7.2 10.2 0.2 0.8 

Arkansas 4,512 11.2 15.8 18.0 85.7 

California 4,790 12.8 18.2 19.2 91.0 

Colorado 1,029 7.3 10.3 4.1 19.6 

Connecticut 56 0 0 0 0 

Delaware 279 0 0 0 0 

Florida 526 10.0 14.1 2.1 10.0 

Georgia 4,040 8.2 11.6 16.2 76.8 

Hawaii 35 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.7 

Idaho 801 6.3 8.9 3.2 15.2 

Illinois 5,007 11.6 16.3 20.0 95.1 

Indiana 3,105 16.6 23.3 12.4 59.0 

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 

Kansas 3,367 10.3 14.5 13.5 64.0 

Kentucky 1,083 17.1 24.0 4.3 20.6 

Louisiana 1,226 5.0 7.0 4.9 23.3 

Maine 128 1.6 2.4 0.5 2.4 

Maryland 750 3.8 5.4 3.0 14.3 

Massachusetts 124 2.3 3.4 0.5 2.4 

Michigan 1,446 12.7 18.0 5.8 27.5 

Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 

Mississippi 1,729 6.5 9.3 6.9 32.9 

Missouri 2,680 22.0 30.9 10.7 50.9 

Montana 1,484 4.7 6.7 5.9 28.2 

Nebraska 7,685 0 12.6 0 146.0 

Nevada 56 1.0 1.4 0.2 1.1 

New Hampshire 36 1.5 2.3 0.1 0.7 

New Jersey 238 0 0 0 0 

New Mexico 253 5.5 7.8 1.0 4.8 

New York 1,389 11.1 15.6 5.6 26.4 

North Carolina 3,685 9.8 13.8 14.7 70.0 

North Dakota 4,043 5.1 7.3 16.2 76.8 

Ohio 3,028 23.7 33.3 12.1 57.5 

Oklahoma 1,437 17.5 24.7 5.7 27.3 

Oregon 669 8.0 11.4 2.7 12.7 

Pennsylvania 3,451 24.0 33.8 13.8 65.6 

Rhode Island 17 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 

South Carolina 783 5.0 7.0 3.1 14.9 

South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 

Tennessee 865 15.3 21.7 3.5 16.4 

Texas 3,846 42.0 58.9 15.4 73.1 

Utah 178 4.8 6.8 0.7 3.4 

Vermont 89 0 2.3 0 1.7 

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

28 

Washington 2,733 7.1 10.1 10.9 51.9 

West Virginia 69 5.0 7.1 0.3 1.3 

Wisconsin 3,045 18.8 26.6 12.2 57.9 

Wyoming 964 2.0 3.0 3.9 18.3 

Puerto Rico 3,324 1.0 1.4 13.3 63.2 

Other 

Jurisdictions 49 6.0 8.6 0.2 0.9 

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

1370 Source: EPA estimation.

1371 3.3.5 Wage Rates 

1372 Wage rates are used to estimate unit costs for the baseline and potential requirements. The 

1373 Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data series for 

1374 national industry-specific occupational employment and wage estimates are used to determine 

1375 hourly wage rates of affected actors. Wages vary by jurisdiction, but EPA used the national 

1376 average wage rates. This would result in the over (under)-estimation of impacts for the low 

1377 (high) wage jurisdictions. However, the differences in wages across jurisdictions should largely 

1378 cancel out at the national level. Costs of obtaining data for all categories of wages by 

1379 jurisdiction and incorporating them into the impact analysis would have been extremely high. 

1380 Finally, it would not have been consistent with how the paperwork burden is calculated for the 

1381 ICRs, which is done at a national level. 

1382 Wage rates of commercial applicators 

1383 For commercial applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unloaded mean wage rate ($14.82) for 

1384 Pesticide Handlers & Applicators (Standard Occupational Code 37-3012) from the U.S. 

1385 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2013a). Commercial applicators are paid 

1386 benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the 

1387 unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. We assume that commercial 

1388 applicators aged 16 or 17 years are paid the loaded wage rate that is 75% of the loaded wage rate 

1389 for commercial applicators 18 years and over. That is, the loaded wage rate for commercial 

1390 applicators aged 16 or 17 is $16.12. 

1391 Wage rates of private applicators 

1392 The unloaded hourly wage rate for private applicators is from the BLS employment category 11-

1393 9013 (Farmers and Ranchers), which has a wage rate of $35.83. Private applicators are paid 

1394 benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the 

1395 unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $51.96. 

1396 In addition to the age groups used for commercial applicators, we include a third age group of 

1397 private applicators — those who are under the age of 16. We assume that all operators are over 

1398 the age of 18, while hired applicators can be in any of the three age groups. We also assume that 

1399 underage private applicators under 16 years old are paid a wage that is 50% of the operator wage 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 

1400 rate, and that private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid a wage 60% of the operator 

1401 wage rate. Thus, private applicators under 16 years old are paid the loaded wage rate of $25.98 

1402 and private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid the loaded wage rate of $31.18. 

1403 Wage rates of noncertified commercial applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision 

1404 of certified applicators 

1405 The loaded wage rate for all noncertified commercial applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

1406 supervision of certified applicators is based on the national mean unloaded hourly wage rate of 

1407 $12.65 for the employment category 37-3011 (Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers), as 

1408 reported in the OES data series for May 2013. Commercial noncertified applicators are paid 

1409 benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the 

1410 unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $18.34. We assume that there are no 

1411 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators 

1412 under age 16. Noncertified commercial applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision 

1413 of certified applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are assumed to earn 75% of the adult wage rate or 

1414 $13.76. 

1415 Wage rates of noncertified private applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of 

1416 certified applicators 

1417 For noncertified private applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified 

1418 applicators, we have identified the same three age groups as those for private applicators. For 

1419 noncertified private applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unloaded mean wage rate ($14.82) 

1420 for Pesticide Handlers & Applicators (Standard Occupational Code 37-3012) from the U.S. 

1421 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2014d), to which is added 45% in 

1422 benefits to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. EPA assumes that wage rates for private 

1423 applicators under age 16 and 16-17 years-old are, respectively, 50% and 60% of the average 

1424 wage rate for a noncertified private applicator applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

1425 certified applicator. Assuming that private applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of 

1426 the total remuneration, we calculate average loaded wage rate for noncertified private applicators 

1427 under age 16 to be $10.75 and for those aged 16 or 17 to be $12.89. 

1428 The loaded average overall wage rates for each age group and labor category appear in Table 

1429 3.3-11. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 

1430 Table 3.3-11: Applicator Loaded Average Hourly Wage Rates, by Age Group 

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

Commercial applicators 

Certified 

No commercial applicators in 

this age group 

$16.12 $21.49 

Noncertified applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision $13.76 $18.34 

Private applicators 

Certified $25.98 $31.18 $51.96 

Noncertified applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision $10.75 $12.89 $21.49 

1431 Source: Based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational 

1432 Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

1433 Employment Statistics (BLS 2014d). 

1434 Wage rates for state costs 

1435 Wage rates for state implementation costs are organized into three groups: Senior Technical, 

1436 Junior Technical, and Clerical. Unloaded wage rates for these three groups are obtained from 

1437 BLS (BLS, 2014c) for 11-0000, Management Occupations; 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social 

1438 Science Occupations; and 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations, 

1439 respectively. We then load the unloaded wage rates with benefit rate of 45% to obtain loaded 

1440 wages. Table 3.3-12 presents the wage rates for each group of state costs. 

1441 Table 3.3-12: Wage Rates for State Costs 

Senior Technical Junior Technical Clerical 

Unloaded Wage Rate ($/hr) 39.78 27.20 18.76 

Benefits Factor 1.45 1.45 1.45 

Loaded Wage Rates ($/hr) 57.69 39.44 27.21 

1442 Source: Unloaded wage rates and benefits factors are obtained from BLS Employer Costs for Employee 

1443 Compensation - May 2013 (BLS, 2014c)). 

1444 

1445 3.4 Results of the Cost Analysis

1446 This section provides EPA’s cost estimate for each potential requirement that was considered for 

1447 inclusion in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 171. The estimated cost of each potential 

1448 requirement is provided at the national level. The annualized costs of Step 6 (see the 6-step 

1449 methodology above) are presented in this section. Additional details on the calculation method, 

1450 data, and cost results are provided in Appendix A. 

1451 In the information given below, and in Appendix A, EPA gives cost estimates by affected group. 

1452 These groups include pesticide applicators who are certified and private, commercial, and state 

1453 employees who do not have certification. These applicators are either employed by, or the 

1454 owners of farms, commercial pest control firms, railroads, state governments, and a plethora of 

1455 other private, commercial, and public entities that apply restricted use pesticides. Pesticide 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 

1456 dealers and registrants are also impacted by the potential requirements. State governments are 

1457 required by many of the potential requirements to implement the changes by changing state 

1458 regulations and state plans and to carry out many of the activities under the potential 

1459 requirements including training, administering exams, and development of training and 

1460 examination materials. 

1461 A summary, including cost, of each potential requirement is given by category below. We 

1462 provide a brief summary of the cost of each potential requirement in tabular form by affected 

1463 entity. The data presented in these tables are the present value of the cost over the ten-year time 

horizon and provide national level costs considering the jurisdiction baselines (NCB 1464 ) and national 

level costs for the potential requirements (NCP 1465 ). This is followed by the national level 

1466 incremental costs (NIC) from the national level cost for the potential requirement to the current 

1467 national level cost of the jurisdiction baseline. Tables are followed by a brief description of the 

1468 costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given 

1469 when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 

1470 Industry and state cost are presented together for each potential requirement. Cost results follow 

1471 a similar grouping as they do in the preamble of the rule. The sections are enhancement of 

1472 private applicator competency standards and addition of private applicator categories, additional 

1473 concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators, predator control category for 

1474 commercial and private applicator certification, examination and alternate certification method 

1475 security standards for commercial and private applicators, standards for supervision of 

1476 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, 

1477 levels of supervision, and provisions for commercial applicator recordkeeping of applicator 

1478 training for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified 

1479 applicators, age requirements for certified applicators and noncertified applicators applying 

1480 RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, standards for recertification of 

1481 certified applicators, requirements for submission, approval and maintenance of state 

1482 certification plans, and federal agency certification plans; tribal certification plans; and EPA1483 administered federal certification plans. 

1484 Affected entities will have two years to become compliant with the potential regulatory 

1485 requirements. As a result, most costs for the current and potential regulatory requirements start 

1486 in Year 3 of the analysis. Costs incurred before Year 3 include state costs to rewrite regulations 

1487 and develop training programs and examination materials. 

1488 Some potential regulatory requirements provide options for compliance to the implementing 

1489 jurisdiction. For instance, a potential requirement may call for first-time private applicators to 

1490 pass a written exam or complete a 12-hour training course for initial certification. To estimate 

1491 the unit cost of the potential regulatory requirement, we calculate the cost for an actor to comply 

1492 with the more expensive option (e.g., a 12-hour training course is more costly than a written 

1493 exam). However, EPA assumes that some regions will choose the less expensive option under 

1494 the potential regulatory requirement. For example, we assume that regions currently offering an 

1495 exam for initial certification of private applicators will continue to offer an exam. Hence, we 

1496 calculate these regions’ unit costs of the regional baseline in the context of their compliance with 

1497 the less expensive option. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 

1498 3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards 

1499 The potential requirements in this category would enhance private applicator core competency 

1500 standards and certification requirements to more clearly reflect the knowledge and skills needed 

1501 by private applicators to apply restricted use pesticides safely and effectively. However, EPA 

1502 believes the current requirements for commercial applicator general competency are adequate 

1503 and thus they are not revised. 

1504 Table 3.4-1 below presents national-level Baseline, Total, and Incremental industry costs for 

1505 each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the 

1506 potential requirements. 

1507 Table 3.4-1: Annualized Costs of Enhancing Private Applicator General Competency 

Standards1 1508 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost 

of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(NCP) ($000) 

National Cost of 

Baseline (NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Certification of Private Applicators 

Exam or 8-hour 

training for private 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert01) 19,051 17,072 1,979 

State costs: develop exam or 

training (Private Cert-01) 3 0 3 

State costs: administer exam 

or training (Private Cert-01) 75 40 35 

Exam or 12-hour 

training for private 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert02) 20,752 17,072 3,681 

State costs: develop exam or 

training (Private Cert-02) 4 0 4 

State costs: administer exam 

or training (Private Cert-02) 101 40 61 

Exam or 16-hour 

training for private 

certification 

Industry costs 

(Private Cert-03) 26,038 17,072 8,966 

State costs: develop exam or 

training (Private Cert-03) 20 0 20 

State costs: administer exam 

or training (Private Cert-03) 127 40 86 

1509 1. Costs are presented in terms of present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

1510 Certification of Private Applicators (Private Cert-01, -02, and -03) 

1511 

1512 The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 

1513 seeking initial certification as private applicators. 

1514 The EPA’s proposal, Private Cert-02, would require a written exam or completion of a 12 hour 

1515 training course. Industry incremental costs are $3.7 million for the 12 hour training. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 

1516 The potential requirement Private Cert-01 would require a written exam or completion of an 8 

1517 hour training course for initial private certification. The national incremental cost for the 

1518 industry is $2.0 million annually. 

1519 The potential requirement Private Cert-03 would require a written exam or completion of a 16 

1520 hour training course, with industry incremental costs of $9.0 million. 

1521 These are high cost requirements, but many states have similar requirements and are in 

1522 compliance as high baseline costs indicate. 

1523 For the EPA’s proposal (Private Cert-02), state costs are $4 thousand for developing the exam or 

1524 the trainings and $61 thousand to administer the exam or 12-hour training. For Private Cert-01, 

1525 state costs are $3 thousand for developing the exam or the trainings and $35 thousand to 

1526 administer the exam or 8-hour training. For Private Cert-03, state costs are $20 thousand for 

1527 developing the exam or the trainings and $86 thousand to administer the exam or 16-hour 

1528 training. States can choose between requiring certification training for the specified time period 

1529 or a written certification exam for each of the potential requirements. 

 

1530 3.4.2 Application Method-Specific Categories

1531 3.4.2.1 Establish Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial 

1532 Applicators 

1533 The potential requirements would establish additional, concurrent certification categories for 

1534 commercial applicators using restricted use pesticides in fumigation (including soil and non-soil 

1535 fumigation), chemigation, aerial application, and demonstration and research such as university 

1536 projects. Potential requirements address the elevated risks associated with certain application 

1537 methods and promote consistency in protections across jurisdictions. 

1538 The potential requirements propose the following commercial certification categories: aerial, 

1539 chemigation, fumigation, and predator control. Table 3.4-3 presents the number of commercial 

1540 applicators in each of these groups within the proposed certification categories at the national 

1541 level. See Chapter 3.3.1, Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 for state-level estimates. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 

1542 Table 3.4-3: Commercial Applicator Numbers by Potential Category 

Region 

First-time 

Certifications 

Existing 

Certifications 

Total 

Certifications 

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the 

Proposed Aerial Category 1,074 8,950 10,023 

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the 

Proposed Chemigation Category 57 817 875 

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the 

Proposed General Fumigation Category 2,263 26,718 28,981 

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the 

Proposed Non-Soil Fumigation Category 1,803 26,718 28,521 

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the 

Proposed Soil Fumigation Category 459 22,543 23,002 

1543 Source: CPARD 2014 and EPA estimations. 

1544 The establishment of additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators 

1545 would impose costs on individuals or employers of individuals who apply restricted use 

1546 pesticides using methods included in the new concurrent certification categories. Jurisdictions 

1547 administering certification programs are also affected by these potential requirements. The cost 

1548 of establishing additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators would be 

1549 significant for both applicators and jurisdictions. 

1550 Table 3.4-4 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each 

1551 potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 

1552 requirements. 

1553 Table 3.4-4: Annualized Costs for Establishing Additional Concurrent Certification 

Categories for Commercial Applicators1 1554 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Add commercial 

aerial category 

Industry costs 

(Comm Cert-01) 215 117 98 

State costs: 

administer exam 

(Comm Cert-01) 

1 0.5 0.5 

State costs: develop 

exam 

(Comm Cert-01) 

9 0 9 

Add commercial 

chemigation category

Industry costs 

(Comm Cert-02) 18 1 16 

State costs: 

administer exam 

(Comm Cert-02) 

0.10 0.01 0.09 

State costs: develop 

exam 

(Comm Cert-02) 

43 0 43 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 

Add commercial 

general fumigation 

category

Industry costs 

(Comm Cert-03) 659 0 659 

State costs: 

administer exam 

(Comm Cert-03) 

3.6 0.1 3.5 

State costs: develop 

exam 

(Comm Cert-03) 

53 0 53 

Add commercial nonsoil fumigation 

categories 

Industry costs 

(Comm Cert-04) 368 236 131 

State costs: 

administer exam 

(Comm Cert-04) 

1.7 0.6 1.1 

State costs: develop 

exam 

(Comm Cert-04) 

7 0 7 

1 1555 Costs are presented in terms of present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1556 Establishing Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators 

1557 (Comm Cert-01, -02, -03, and -04) 

1558 Potential requirements would require that commercial applicators who intend to apply aerially, 

1559 by chemigation, or through fumigation must be certified in a specific commercial category by 

1560 passing a written exam. Potential requirements would also include commercial soil and non-soil 

1561 fumigation categories. 

1562 Commercial applicators who want to certify in the aerial category would also need to be certified 

1563 in either agricultural plant pest control; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; 

1564 aquatic pest control; right-of-way pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health 

1565 related pest control; or public health pest control. Under this potential requirement, existing 

1566 aerial applicators would be required to take a 30-minute aerial category exam, while first-time 

1567 aerial applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. 

1568 The Annual National Incremental Costs (ANIC) for commercial applicators obtaining aerial 

1569 certification are estimated to be $97 thousand (Comm Cert-01), while state costs to develop the 

1570 exams are estimated at $8 thousand (Table 3.4-4). 

1571 Commercial applicators who want to certify in the chemigation category would also have to be 

1572 certified in either agricultural plant pest control; or ornamental and turf pest control categories to 

1573 qualify for the chemigation category. Under the potential requirement, existing chemigation 

1574 applicators would be required to take a 30-minute chemigation category exam. First-time 

1575 chemigation applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category 

1576 exams. The ANIC for commercial applicators obtaining chemigation certification are estimated 

1577 to be $16 thousand (Comm Cert-02), while state costs to develop the exams are estimated at $43 

1578 thousand. 

1579 Commercial applicators in the fumigation category would also have to be certified in either 

1580 agricultural plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; industrial, institutional, 

1581 structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and research 

1582 pest control categories. Under this potential requirement, existing fumigation applicators would 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 

1583 be required to take a 30-minute fumigation category exam while first-time fumigation applicators 

1584 would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. Commercial 

1585 applicators in the soil fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural 

1586 plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and 

1587 research pest control categories to qualify. However, as the soil fumigators must comply with 

1588 the label requirements now and under the potential requirement, the incremental cost for this 

1589 potential requirement is zero, and not listed in the table. Commercial applicators in the non-soil 

1590 fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; 

1591 industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or 

1592 demonstration and research pest control to qualify. Under the potential regulatory requirements, 

1593 affected actors would obtain certification in soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or general 

1594 fumigation. 

1595 

1596 Commercial applicator incremental costs of obtaining non-soil fumigation certifications (Comm 

1597 Cert-04) are estimated to be $131 thousand for commercial applicators employed by industry. 

1598 State incremental costs to develop non-soil fumigation certification exams are estimated at $7 

1599 thousand. 

1600 

1601 Finally, commercial applicator incremental costs of obtaining general fumigation certifications 

1602 (Comm Cert-03) are estimated to be $659 thousand, which is the largest of all new certification 

1603 categories. This is because all jurisdictions, except three states, do not currently have the 

1604 category, and thus would be fully impacted by the proposal if it becomes regulation. 

1605 In addition to the costs described above, these potential requirements would also entail relatively 

1606 small state costs of administering certification exams (Table 3.4-4). 

 

1607 3.4.2.2 New Certification Categories for Private Applicator 

1608 To address the elevated risks associated with certain application methods and to promote 

1609 consistency in protections across states, the potential requirements would establish certification 

1610 categories for private applicators using restricted use pesticides by aerial application, 

1611 chemigation, or fumigation (including soil and non-soil fumigation). Potential requirements 

1612 would no longer allow for the certification of applicators who are non-readers. 

1613 For the newly proposed certification categories (aerial, chemigation, soil, non-soil, and general 

1614 fumigation), EPA developed estimates of the number of applicators by new category as 

1615 presented in Table 3.4-5 below. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 

1616 Table 3.4-5: Private Applicator Numbers by Potential Category 

Region 

First-time 

Certifications 

Existing 

Certifications 

Total 

Certifications 

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed 

Aerial Category 8 65 73 

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed 

Chemigation Category 519 7,415 7,934 

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed 

General Fumigation Category 1,923 18,591 20,721 

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed 

Non-Soil Fumigation Category 325 4,061 4,386 

Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed 

Soil Fumigation Category 1,619 14,716 16,335 

1617 Source: CPARD 2014 and EPA estimations.

1618 

1619 

1620 Table 3.4-6 below presents national-level annualized costs of potential requirements, baselines, 

1621 and incremental costs for the affected parties. The table is followed by a brief description of the 

1622 costs of the potential requirements. 

Table 3.4-6: Annualized Costs of New Certification Categories for Private Applicators1 1623 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost 

of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(NCP) ($000) 

National Cost of 

Baseline (NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Add private aerial 

category and require 

exam or 4-hour 

training for 

certification 

Industry costs 

(Private Cert-04) 2 0 2

State costs: administer exam 

(Private Cert-04) 0.01 0 0.01 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-04) 24 0 24 

Add private aerial 

category and require 

exam or 8-hour 

training for 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert05) 5 0 5 

State costs: administer exam 

(Private Cert-05) 0.01 0 0.01 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-05) 24 0 24 

Add private 

chemigation 

category and require 

exam or 4-hour 

training for 

certification 

Industry costs 

(PRIVAT CERT-06) 191 18 172 

State costs: administer exam 

(Private Cert-06) 0.84 0.05 0.79 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-06) 50 0 50 

Add private 

chemigation 

category and require 

exam or 8-hour 

training for 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert07) 377 18 359 

State costs: administer 

training (Private Cert-07) 0.84 0.05 0.79 

State costs: develop exam 

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

38 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost 

of Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

(NCP) ($000) 

National Cost of 

Baseline (NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Add private general 

fumigation category 

and require exam or 

4-hour training for 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert08) 621 0 621 

State costs: administer 

training (Private Cert-08) 3 0 3 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-08) 53 0 53 

Add private general 

fumigation category 

and require 8-hour 

training for 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert09) 1,242 0 1,242 

State costs: administer 

training (Private Cert-09) 3 0 3 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-09) 53 0 53 

Add private nonsoil fumigation 

categories and 

require exam or 4-

hour training for 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert10) 102 24 78

State costs: administer exam 

(Private Cert-10) 0.44 0.09 0.36 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-10) 44 0 44 

Add private nonsoil fumigation 

categories and 

require exam or 8-

hour training for 

certification 

Industry costs (Private Cert11) 198 24 174 

State costs: administer exam 

(Private Cert-11) 0.44 0.09 0.36 

State costs: develop exam 

(Private Cert-11) 44 0 44 

1 1624 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1625 Category Certification of Private Applicators (Private Cert-04 to -11) 

1626 Potential requirements would require that private applicators who intend to apply aerially, by 

1627 chemigation, or through fumigation would be certified in a specific private category by passing a 

1628 written exam or completing a training course. Potential requirements also include private soil 

1629 and non-soil fumigation categories. Training requirements of 4 and 8 hours would be included 

1630 for each category. Of the category certifications, the incremental costs associated with the 

1631 general fumigation category certification would be the highest (between $621 thousand and $1.2 

1632 million for 4 and 8 hours of training, respectively) as a result of the large number of applicators 

1633 who would pursue certification. The aerial category is relatively low cost as a result of the small 

1634 number of aerial applicators who would pursue certification. (See Table 3.4-6) States would be 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 

1635 able to choose between training for the specified time period or a written exam for each of the 

1636 potential requirements. 

1637 3.4.3 Examination and Alternate Certification Method Security Standards for Commercial 

1638 and Private Applicators 

1639 Examination and alternate certification method security standards for commercial and private 

1640 applicators aim to improve the quality and administration of pesticide applicator certification. 

1641 The potential requirements would add requirements for those seeking certification or 

1642 recertification to present identification at the time of the session and for examination sessions to 

1643 be proctored. Identification checks would take a few seconds of applicators’ and proctor’s time 

1644 and is considered as a part of the proctoring cost because the proctor would check applicators’ 

1645 identification (e.g., driver’s license) as they enter the exam or training room. 

1646 Administration requirements would primarily impose costs on individuals or employers of 

1647 individuals seeking to become certified or recertified private or commercial pesticide applicators, 

1648 as well as states administering certification programs. Administration requirements would have 

1649 a minimal industry impact on a per applicator basis but, nonetheless, individuals and employers 

1650 affected by these requirements would pay an opportunity cost for their time or their workers’ 

1651 time while fulfilling the requirements. 

1652 Costs of these potential requirements are presented together with the costs of the potential 

1653 requirements that entail them. For example, in Table 3.4-6 above, jurisdictions’ costs of 

1654 proctoring application method-specific category exams for private applicator certification are 

1655 presented together with the industry costs. 

1656 3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 

1657 Supervision of Certified Applicators, Levels of Supervision, and Provisions for 

1658 Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Applicator Training for Applicators that 

1659 are not Certified 

1660 Noncertified applicators using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified 

1661 applicator currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. They also have a 

1662 high potential for exposure and may pose a risk to public health and the environment, if 

1663 pesticides are misapplied. EPA evaluated several potential requirements that would change the 

1664 training of the noncertified applicator that applies RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

1665 certified applicator, clarify who can provide training to noncertified applicators that apply RUPs 

1666 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and clarify what it means to be under the 

1667 direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

1668 The potential requirements would impact certified applicators employing noncertified applicators 

1669 that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, pesticide registrants, and 

1670 states that implement the requirements and employ noncertified applicators that apply RUPs 

1671 under the direct supervision of certified applicators. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

40 

1672 Table 3.4-7 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each 

1673 potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 

1674 requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation 

1675 of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. Costs of the potential 

1676 requirements are significant, led by requirements related to direct line of sight and core 

1677 competency training requirements. 

1678 3.4.4.1 Commercial Applicators 

1679 Table 3.4-7: Costs of Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 

Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision1 1680 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Competency Qualifications for Noncertified Commercial Applicators 

Commercial applicators would keep 

records of noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision for two years 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-06) 

568 244 324 

Commercial applicators would keep 

records of noncertified applicators 

applying RUPs under the direct 

supervision for five years 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-07) 

835 244 591 

Noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision 

would have to pass core exam 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-02) 

68,920 37,109 31,811 

State costs: 

proctor core 

exam (Comm 

Sup-02) 

241 112 129 

Noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision 

would have to complete training, be 

handlers under the Worker Protection 

Standard, or pass core exam 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-01) 

23,207 16,629 6,578 

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Commercial Applicators 

Clarify guidance provided to 

noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-03) 

This proposal involves EPA codifying the current practices 

by jurisdictions which are in compliance with the proposal, 

and thus the incremental cost is zero. 

Communication between Supervisor and Noncertified Commercial Applicator 

Noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision 

would have to be within direct line of 

sight of supervisor 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-04) 

32,292,715 17,400,777 14,891,938 

Noncertified applicators applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision 

would have to have method of 

immediate communication with 

supervisor 

Industry 

costs (Comm 

Sup-05) 

Little or no incremental cost as most certified and 

noncertified applicators own and communicate via cell 

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

41 

1 1681 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1682 Competency Qualifications for Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified 

1683 Commercial Applicators (Comm Sup-01, -02, -04, -06, and -07) 

1684 There are four potential requirements EPA evaluated to ensure the competency qualifications for 

1685 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified commercial 

1686 applicators. 

1687 The EPA’s proposal, Comm Sup-06, would require commercial applicators to keep records of 

1688 the competency qualifications of the people working under their direct supervision and to keep 

1689 the records for two years. The incremental cost of the requirements is estimated to be $324 

1690 thousand. 

1691 The potential requirement Comm Sup-07 would require commercial applicators to keep records 

1692 of the competency qualifications of the people working under their direct supervision and to keep 

1693 the records for five years. The incremental cost of the requirements is estimated to be $591 

1694 thousand. 

1695 The EPA’s proposal (Comm Sup-01) related to competency qualifications for noncertified 

1696 applicators who apply RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators would 

1697 require the individuals working under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator to 

1698 establish competency by completing training as proposed in the rule, having a current 

1699 designation as a handler under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), or by passing the core 

1700 exam. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators would choose to comply with the proposal by 

1701 obtaining WPS handler training, which would be provided by the potential employer (a 

1702 commercial or private applicator). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal at $6.6 million. 

1703 The potential requirement Comm Sup-02 would require that individuals working under the direct 

1704 supervision of a certified commercial applicator establish competency by passing the core exam. 

1705 EPA estimates the cost of this provision to be $31.8 million. The high cost of this potential 

1706 requirement is due to a large number of noncertified applicators that would have to pass the 

1707 commercial core exam. 

1708 Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of 

1709 Certified Applicators (Comm Sup-03) 

1710 The potential requirement would clarify the content of the guidance provided by commercial 

1711 applicators to the noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their direct supervision 

1712 regarding the pesticide application they are conducting. This would be, however, a no cost 

1713 requirement as all certified applicators are already in compliance. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

42 

1714 Communication between Certified Commercial Applicator and Applicator Applying RUPs under 

1715 their Supervision (Comm Sup-04 and -05) 

1716 There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified and 

1717 noncertified applicators. 

1718 The EPA proposal, Comm Sup-05, would require commercial applicators and individuals 

1719 working under their direct supervision to have a method for immediate communication during 

1720 use of an RUP by a noncertified applicator under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

1721 Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that in all jurisdictions most 

1722 supervisors and noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their supervision own and 

1723 communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the potential requirement to 

1724 industry would be negligible or zero. 

1725 The potential requirement Comm Sup-04 would require certified commercial applicators and 

1726 individuals working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. 

1727 EPA estimates industry costs of this potential requirement at $15 billion. Under this potential 

1728 requirement, EPA assumed commercial applicators would generally prefer to replace 

1729 noncertified applicators in their employment with certified applicators to comply with the 

1730 potential requirement, and the wage difference between certified and noncertified applicators 

1731 would represent the cost of this potential requirement. EPA assumed that the industry would 

1732 replace one-third of noncertified applicators in their employment with certified applicators under 

1733 this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly, due to the large number of full 

1734 time noncertified applicators that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as only three 

1735 states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement. 

1736 3.4.4.2 Private Applicators 

 

1737 Table 3.4-8: Costs of Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 

Supervision of Certified Private Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision1 1738 

Potential Regulation 

Type of 

Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional 

Baseline (NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Competency Qualifications for Noncertified Private Applicators 

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision would have 

to complete training or be handlers under 

the Worker Protection Standard 

Industry 

costs 

(Private 

Sup-01) 

1,867 1,228 639 

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision would have 

to complete training, be handlers under 

the Worker Protection Standard, or pass 

core exam 

Industry 

costs 

(Private 

Sup -02) 

1,867 1,228 639 

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Private Applicators 

Clarify guidance provided to 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

Industry 

costs 

This proposal involves EPA codifying the current 

practices by jurisdictions which are in compliance with 

the proposal, and thus the incremental cost is zero. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

43 

Potential Regulation 

Type of 

Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional 

Baseline (NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

under the direct supervision of certified 

private applicators. 

(Private 

Sup -03) 

Communication between Supervisor and Noncertified Private Applicator 

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision would have 

to be within direct line of sight of 

supervisor 

Industry 

costs 

(Private 

Sup -04) 

188,147 108,229 79,918 

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision would have 

to have method of immediate 

communication with supervisors 

Industry 

costs 

(Private 

Sup -05) 

Little or no incremental cost as most certified and 

noncertified applicators own and communicate via cell 

phone. 

1 1739 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1740 Competency Qualifications for Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified 

1741 Private Applicator (Private Sup-01and -02) 

1742 There are two potential competency qualification requirements for noncertified applicators 

1743 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicator. 

1744 The EPA’s proposal, Private Sup-02, would require the individuals working under the direct 

1745 supervision of a private applicator to establish competency by completing training specified in 

1746 the rule, having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection Standard, or by 

1747 passing the core exam. EPA estimates that this requirement would cost $639 thousand. 

1748 The potential requirement Private Sup-01 would require the individuals working under the direct 

1749 supervision of a certified private applicator to establish competency by completing training 

1750 specified in the rule or by having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection 

1751 Standard. A cost estimate equal to the EPA proposal (Private Sup-02) would result from this 

1752 potential requirement because EPA assumed that under the both potential requirements, 

1753 noncertified applicators would choose to comply by taking whichever training was less costly, 

1754 which in most cases would be to take the Worker Protection Standard handler training, and EPA 

1755 estimated that cost. 

1756 Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a 

1757 Certified Applicator (Private Sup-03) 

1758 The potential requirement clarifies the content of the guidance provided by certified applicators 

1759 to the noncertified applicators without certification under their direct supervision regarding the 

1760 pesticide application they are conducting. This is, however, a no cost requirement as all certified 

1761 applicators are already in compliance as applicators are already doing this. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 

1762 Communication between Supervisor and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a 

1763 Private Applicator (Private Sup-04 and -05) 

1764 There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified applicators 

1765 and those working under their direct supervision. 

1766 The EPA proposal Private Sup-05 would require certified applicators and individuals working 

1767 under their direct supervision to have a method for immediate communication during use of an 

1768 RUP by the applicators. Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that 

1769 in all jurisdictions most supervisors and noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their 

1770 supervision own and communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the proposal 

1771 to industry would be negligible or zero. 

1772 The potential requirement Private Sup-04 would require certified applicators and individuals 

1773 working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. EPA 

1774 estimates the incremental cost of this potential requirement at $80 million. Under this potential 

1775 requirement, EPA assumed private applicators would generally prefer to replace noncertified 

1776 applicators in their employment with certified applicators to comply with the potential 

1777 requirement, and the wage difference between certified and noncertified applicators would 

1778 represent the cost of this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly, due to the 

1779 large number of noncertified applicators that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as 

1780 only three states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement. 

1781 3.4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Applicators and Applicators Applying RUPs 

1782 under the Supervision of Certified Applicators 

1783 Minimum age requirements for certified applicators aim to improve the safety of application of 

1784 restricted use pesticides. There are currently no federal age requirements for certified applicators. 

1785 This economic analysis evaluates two EPA proposals and two alternatives for commercial and 

1786 private applicators: The EPA proposals would require commercial and private applicators to be 

1787 18 years old and the alternatives would require commercial and private applicators to be 16 years 

1788 old. EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require private applicators to be 18 

1789 years old, but would allow for private applicators 16 years and older to work on a farm owned by 

1790 an immediate family member. 

1791 The potential age requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

1792 supervision of a certified applicator are the same as those for certified applicators, a minimum 

1793 age of 16 or 18 for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

1794 certified applicator, and for the same reasons. EPA also considered a potential requirement that 

1795 would require a minimum age of 18 years for noncertified applicators that apply RUPs under the 

1796 direct supervision of a certified applicator, but would allow for noncertified applicators 16 years 

1797 and older to work on a farm owned by an immediate family member. 

1798 The cost of the potential requirements may be significant and would be borne primarily by 

1799 employers, who will have to pay higher wages to older employees and in some cases switch to 

1800 employing a commercial applicator instead of a private applicator to apply RUPs. It should be 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

45 

1801 noted that under EPA’s proposal currently certified applicators who are younger than 18 would 

1802 be able to maintain their certification, but adolescents would not be allowed to obtain a 

1803 certification unless they are of age. To the extent that adolescents would be prevented from 

1804 obtaining a certification, they may be paid for lower wage jobs, rather than applying RUPs. 

1805 These costs would be hidden, because they are borne by adolescents who would have become 

1806 certified, rather than those who are already certified. The potential requirements would not allow 

1807 for current noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified 

1808 applicators under the age of 18 to continue to apply RUPs. 

1809 Table 3.4-9 below presents national-level baseline, total and incremental industry costs for each 

1810 potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 

1811 requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation 

1812 of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 

1813 3.4.5.1 Commercial Applicators 

Table 3.4-9: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Certified Commercial Applicators1 1814 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of Potential 

Regulatory Requirement 

(NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Commercial Applicators 

Minimum age 

requirement of 16 

Industry costs 

(Comm Age-01) 1,178 1,178 0 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18 

Industry costs 

(Comm Age-02) 1,472 1,178 294 

1 1815 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1816 Minimum Age for Commercial Applicators (Comm Age-01and -02) 

1817 There are two potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for commercial 

1818 applicators: all commercial applicators would either have to be at least 16 years old or 18 years 

1819 old. 

1820 The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-02) would require all commercial applicators to be at least 18 

1821 years old. EPA assumes that there are no commercial applicators that are less than 16 years of 

1822 age and that existing applicators under 18 years of age would be “grandfathered in” and would 

1823 not be affected by this requirement. Based on these assumptions, those affected by the minimum 

1824 age requirement of 18 would be potential first time commercial applicators aged 16 or 17 years 

1825 who would no longer be eligible to become certified. As a result, under the proposal, these 

1826 underage applicators would be replaced with commercial applicators aged 18 years or older. 

1827 EPA estimates that the loaded average wage rate for commercial applicators aged 18 and older is 

1828 $21.49 while the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators aged 16 and 17 is $16.12. EPA 

1829 further assumes that the average commercial applicator under the age of 18 years old works 16 

1830 weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per year. This is based on the fact that the 

1831 typical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 17 year old 

1832 commercial applicators apply pesticides for the entire 640 hours and that they apply RUPs 70% 

1833 (448 hours per year) of the time that they are applying pesticides (EPA. 2014d). EPA believes 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

46 

1834 that the assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of the proposal. 

1835 Based on the difference in employment costs of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under 

1836 the direct supervision of certified applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, 

1837 EPA estimates industry costs of the proposal to be $294 thousand. 

1838 EPA assumes that there are no commercial applicators under the age of 16 years, so the potential 

1839 requirement (Comm Age-01) that imposes a minimum age requirement of 16 for commercial 

1840 applicators would be a no cost requirement. 

1841 3.4.5.2 Private Applicators 

Table 3.4-10: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Certified Private Applicators1 1842 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of Potential 

Regulatory Requirement 

(NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Private Applicators 

Minimum age 

requirement of 16 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-01) 416 355 61 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-02) 529 355 174 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18; 16 

for family members 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-03) 423 355 68 

1 1843 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1844 Minimum Age for Private Applicators (Private Age-01, -02, and -03) 

1845 There are three potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for private 

1846 applicators: all private applicators would have to be at least 16 years old (Private Age-01), all 

1847 private applicators would have to be at least 18 years old (Private Age-02), or all private 

1848 applicators would have to be at least 18 years old except persons working solely on a farm 

1849 owned by a family member may be 16 or 17 years old (Private Age-03). EPA assumes that all 

1850 private applicators under 18 are summer employees working 16 weeks per year at 40 hours per 

1851 week for a total of 640 hours. EPA also assumes that private applicators make 20 applications 

1852 per year at 4 hours per application (a total of 80 hours) and that 70%, or 56 hours, are spent 

1853 making applications of RUPs (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). 

1854 The EPA’s proposal, Private Age-02, related to private applicator minimum age requirement 

1855 would require that all private applicators to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private 

1856 applicators can currently be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under age 18 

1857 would be grandfathered in and may continue to work as certified applicators. Hence, under the 

1858 potential regulatory requirement, first-time private applicators aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 years would 

1859 be replaced with private applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average wage rate for 

1860 private applicators over the age of 18 years is $51.96 per hour while the loaded average wage 

1861 rate for private applicators under the age of 18 years is $25.98 to $31.18. Based on the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

47 

1862 difference in employment costs of private applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and 

1863 older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $174 thousand. 

1864 The potential requirement Private Age-01 related to private applicator age requirement would 

1865 require that all private applicators be at least 16 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators 

1866 can be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under the age of 16 years would be 

1867 “grandfathered in” and allowed to continue to work as private applicators. EPA further assumes 

1868 that 16- and 17-year old private applicators would not available to replace the first-time 14- and 

1869 15-year old private applicators. Hence, under the potential regulatory requirement, first-time 

1870 private applicators aged 14 or 15 years would be replaced with hired private applicators aged 18 

1871 years or older. The loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators over the age of 

1872 18 years is $51.96, while the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators under 

1873 18 years is $25.98 for 14 and 15 year olds and $31.18 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the 

1874 difference in employment costs of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 and 

1875 older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $61 thousand. 

1876 The potential requirement Private Age-03 related to private applicator age requirement would 

1877 require private applicators who are family members to be at least 16 years old and those who are 

1878 not family members to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as 

1879 young as 14 years old, and that existing private applicators under the age of 18 years would be 

1880 grandfathered in and may continue to work as private applicators. Under the potential regulatory 

1881 requirement, all first-time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years and first-time private 

1882 applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are not family members would be replaced with private 

1883 applicators aged 18 years or older. First-time private applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are 

1884 family members would continue to apply restricted-use pesticides. The loaded average wage rate 

1885 for private applicators over the age of 18 is $51.96 per hour, the rate for those who are 16 or 17 

1886 years old is $31.18 per hour, and the rate for those who are 14 and 15 is $25.98 per hour. Based 

1887 on the difference in employment costs of private applicators younger than 16, 16 and 17 years 

1888 old, and 18, and applicators older than 18 years old, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential 

1889 requirement would be $68 thousand. 

1890 3.4.5.3 Under The Supervision Applicators 

1891 a. Commercial under The Supervision Applicators 

1892 Table 3.4-11: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying 

RUPs under the Supervision of Commercial Applicators1 1893 

Potential 

Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Noncertified Applicators 

Minimum age 

requirement of 16 

Industry costs 

(Comm Age-03) 0 0 0 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18 

Industry costs 

(Comm Age-04) 62,249 49,461 12,789 

1 1894 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

48 

1895 Minimum Age of Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators 

1896 (Comm Age-03 and -04) 

1897 There are two potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for 

1898 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators: 

1899 all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial 

1900 applicators must be at least 16 years old (Comm Age-03), and all noncertified applicators 

1901 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 18 years 

1902 old (Comm Age-04). 

1903 The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-04) would require all noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

1904 under the direct supervision of commercial applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under the 

1905 potential requirement, all noncertified applicators (first-time and existing), who are under the 

1906 direct supervision of a commercial applicator and are under the age of 18 years would be 

1907 replaced by first-time noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a commercial 

1908 applicator aged 18 years or older. EPA further assumes that the average noncertified applicators 

1909 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators under the age of 18 years 

1910 old works 16 weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per year. This is based on the 

1911 fact that the typical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 

1912 17 year old noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial 

1913 applicators apply pesticides for the entire 640 hours and, that they apply RUPs 50% (320 hours 

1914 per year) of the time that they are applying pesticides (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). The loaded 

1915 average wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

1916 commercial applicators over the age of 18 years is $18.34 per hour and $13.76 per hour for 

1917 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators 

1918 under the age of 18. Based on the difference in employment costs of noncertified applicators 

1919 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators younger than 18 and those 

1920 who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $12.8 

1921 million. This is a large cost, due to several factors; a sizeable difference between adolescent and 

1922 adult noncertified wages, a considerable number of applicators involved, and a substantial 

1923 number of hours worked by adolescent noncertified applicators. EPA believes, however, that the 

1924 assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of the proposal. 

1925 EPA assumes that there are no noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

1926 supervision of commercial applicators under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement 

1927 (Comm Age-03) that would impose a minimum age requirement of 16 for noncertified 

1928 applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators would be a no 

1929 cost requirement. 

1930 b. Private Noncertified Applicators under The Direct Supervision of Certified Applicators 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

49 

1931 Table 3.4-12: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying 

RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applicators1 1932 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental Cost 

(NIC) 

($000) 

Noncertified Applicators 

Minimum age 

requirement of 16 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-04) 2,023 1,940 83 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-05) 3,052 1,940 1,112 

Minimum age 

requirement of 18; 16 

for family members 

Industry costs 

(Private Age-06) 2,575 1,940 634 

1 1933 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

1934 Minimum Age of Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under the Direct Supervision of 

1935 Certified Applicators (Private Age-04, -05, and -06) 

1936 There are three potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for 

1937 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators. 

1938 The EPA’s proposal (Private Age-05) related to applicator age requirements would require all 

1939 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be 

1940 at least 18 years old. Under this potential requirement, all noncertified applicators applying 

1941 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 18 (both first-time and 

1942 existing) are replaced by noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 

1943 private applicators aged 18 years or older. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators applying 

1944 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under age apply RUPs for 56 hours per 

1945 year (EPA, 2014a). The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertified applicators applying 

1946 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while 

1947 the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the 

1948 direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and 

1949 $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the difference in employment costs of private 

1950 applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the 

1951 potential requirement would be $1.1 million. 

1952 The potential requirement Private Age-04 would require all noncertified applicators applying 

1953 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be at least 16 years old. Under this 

1954 potential requirement, EPA assumes that all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the 

1955 direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 16 (both first-time and existing) would 

1956 be replaced by noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private 

1957 applicators aged 16 years or older. Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

1958 supervision of private applicators under age 16 years are assumed to apply pesticides for 80 

1959 hours per year (20 applications per year, 4 hours each on average), 70% of which is estimated to 

1960 be spent applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). 

1961 The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 

1962 supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

50 

1963 hourly wage rate for hired noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision 

1964 of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 

1965 year olds. Based on the difference in employment costs of noncertified applicators applying 

1966 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 

1967 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $83 thousand. 

1968 The potential requirement Private Age-06 would require all noncertified applicators applying 

1969 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators who are family members to be at least 

1970 16 years old and those who are not family members to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes 

1971 that noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators 

1972 under age 18 apply pesticides for 80 hours per year, 70% of which is estimated to be spent 

1973 applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). Under this 

1974 potential requirement, all 14 and 15 year-old family member noncertified applicators applying 

1975 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators would be replaced by hired noncertified 

1976 applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators aged 18 years or 

1977 older. In addition, 16 or 17 year-old family member noncertified applicators that apply on 

1978 family farms would not be affected by Private Age-06; only the hired 16 or 17-year old 

1979 noncertified applicators would be impacted by this alternative. EPA assumes that the latter 

1980 would be replaced by noncertified applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average hourly 

1981 wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private 

1982 applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average hourly wage rate for 

1983 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 

1984 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the 

1985 difference in employment costs of private applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and 

1986 older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $634 thousand. 

1987 3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators 

1988 Standards for recertification of private and commercial applicators assure that certified 

1989 applicators maintain core competencies and keep pace with the changing technology of pesticide 

1990 application. They also ensure that the general public, the environment and applicators are 

1991 protected from misapplication and misuse. Potential requirements include maximum time 

1992 requirements for recertification in the basic (core) and category certifications. Recertification 

1993 requirements include trainings, exams or a combination of both and are to be determined by the 

1994 states. 

1995 The potential requirements primarily impact individuals who are certified applicators and their 

1996 employers. EPA considers state costs of administering recertification programs to be small as 

1997 many applicators recertify via continuing education trainings, which already have been 

1998 developed by states. Applicators obtain state-required continuing education units (CEUs) by 

1999 completing training, and states currently verify that applicators get required number of CEUs. 

2000 Recertification costs for commercial and private applicators will be presented in two parts: one; 

2001 costs of potential requirements for recertification of general competency and two: costs of 

2002 potential requirements for recertification of new category certifications. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

51 

2003 3.4.6.1 Commercial Applicators 

2004 a. Core Competency Recertification 

2005 Table 3.4-13 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental costs for each 

2006 potential requirement for recertification of core competency of commercial applicators. The 

2007 table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description 

2008 of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful 

2009 for the reader to understand the cost results. 

2010 Table 3.4-13: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial Certified 

Applicators – Core Competency1 2011 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Commercial Applicators 

Exam or six-hour training for 

commercial core competency 

and category recertification 

(every three years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Recert-01) 57,948 51,447 6,500 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Recert01) 

319 280 39 

Exam for commercial core 

competency and category 

recertification (every three 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Recert-02) 57,948 51,447 6,500 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Recert02) 

319 280 39 

Exam or six-hour training for 

commercial core competency 

and category recertification 

(every five years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Recert-04) 53,110 51,447 1,663 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Recert04) 

292 280 11 

Exam for commercial core 

competency and category 

recertification (every five 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Recert-05) 53,110 51,447 1,663 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Recert05) 

292 280 11 

1 2012 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

52 

2013 Commercial Applicators – Core Competency Recertification (Comm Recert-01, -02, -04, and 05) 

2014 The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 

2015 seeking recertification as commercial applicators. 

2016 The EPA’s proposal, Comm Recert-01, would require recertification every 3 years by 

2017 completing 6 hours of training for core competency and 6 hours of training per category, or by 

2018 passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its incremental cost is estimated at 

2019 $6.5 million, which is much higher than the alternatives Comm Recert-04 and -05, because 

2020 recertification is on a faster cycle (every 3 years). 

2021 The potential requirement Comm Recert-02 would require recertification every 3 years by 

2022 passing a written certification exam for core and all applicable categories. Its incremental cost is 

2023 estimated at $6.5 million. 

2024 The potential requirement Comm Recert-04 would require recertification every 5 years by 

2025 completing 6 hours of training for core competency and 6 hours of training per category, or by 

2026 passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its incremental cost is estimated at 

2027 $1.7 million. 

2028 The potential requirement Comm Recert-05 would require recertification every 5 years by 

2029 passing a written certification exam for core and all applicable categories. Its incremental cost is 

2030 estimated at $1.7 million. 

2031 The potential requirements Comm Recert-04 and -05 would cost the same because the only 

2032 difference between them is that the latter does not have a training option and all have to take an 

2033 exam, but EPA assumed that the exam would take applicators six hours on average (5 hours to 

2034 prepare and 1 hour for exam taking time). Therefore, it would take the same number of hours of 

2035 applicators’ time whether recertification is completed by training or exam, thus the same 

2036 incremental costs. Although costs of these two potential requirements are high the baseline costs 

2037 are also high – both due to a large number of applicators recertifying – resulting in relatively 

2038 small incremental costs of $773 thousand. The same logic applies to the pair Comm Recert-01 

2039 and -02. 

2040 b. New Categories Recertification 

2041 Table 3.4-14 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for 

2042 each potential requirement for recertification of commercial applicators in the proposed 

2043 application method-specific categories. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs 

2044 of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when 

2045 the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 

2046 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

53 

2047 Table 3.4-14: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial 

Applicators – New Categories1 2048 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Commercial Applicators 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial aerial 

category recertification 

(every three years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-01) 512 362 151 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-01) 

2.39 1.55 0.84 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial aerial 

category recertification 

(every five years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-01) 450 362 89 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-01) 

2.06 1.55 0.51 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial 

chemigation category 

recertification (every three 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-02) 28 6 21 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-02) 

0.185 0.032 0.154 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial 

chemigation category 

recertification (every five 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-02) 19 6 13 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-02) 

0.124 0.032 0.092 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial general 

fumigation category 

recertification (every three 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-03) 1,325 1,054 271 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-03) 

5.9 0.0 5.9 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial general 

fumigation category 

recertification (every five 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-03) 1,167 1,054 113 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-03) 

3.63.5 0.10.0 3.43.5 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial non-soil 

fumigation category 

recertification (every three 

years) 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-04) 1,325 1,054 271 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-04) 

5.9 0 5.9 

Exam or six-hour training 

for commercial non-soil 

Industry costs (Comm 

Cert-04) 1,167 1,054 113 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

54 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

fumigation category 

recertification (every five 

years) 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Comm Cert-04) 

3.5 0 3.5 

1 2049 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

2050 Commercial Applicators – New Categories Recertification (Comm Cert-01 and -04) 

2051 The potential requirements include different training and examination options for commercial 

2052 applicators seeking recertification in application method-specific categories. For each of 

2053 application method-specific categories (aerial, chemigation, general fumigation, and non-soil 

2054 fumigation), there are two options: the first option would require recertification every 3 years by 

2055 completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam; and the second option would 

2056 require recertification every 5 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written 

2057 exam. The recertification costs for different categories for commercial applicator are estimated 

2058 to range from $13 to $151 thousand. 

2059 3.4.6.2 Private Applicators 

2060 a. General Competency Recertification 

2061 Table 3.4-15 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for 

2062 each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed by a brief description of 

2063 the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also 

2064 given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost 

2065 results. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

55 

2066 Table 3.4-15: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – 

General Competency1 2067 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Private Applicators 

Exam or 6-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-01) 50,020 36,394 13,627 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-01) 

516 509 7 

Exam or 8-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-02) 58,786 36,394 22,392 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-02) 

516 509 7 

Exam or 6-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs: 

(Private Recert-04) 39,943 36,394 3,549 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-04) 

512 509 4 

Exam or 8-hour training for 

private general competency 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-05) 43,789 36,394 7,395 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam 

(Private Recert-05) 

512 509 4 

2068 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

2069 Private Applicators – General Competency Recertification (Private Recert-01, -02, -04, and -

2070 05) 

2071 The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 

2072 seeking recertification as private applicators. 

2073 The EPA’s proposal, Private Recert-01, would require recertification of general competency 

2074 every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential 

2075 requirement Private Recert-02 would require recertification of general competency every 3 years 

2076 by completing 8 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential requirement 

2077 Private Recert-04 would require recertification of general competency every 5 years by 

2078 completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam, and the potential requirement 

2079 Private Recert-05 would require recertification of general competency every 5 years by 

2080 completing 8 hours of training or by passing a written exam. Private applicator costs of the 

2081 potential requirements would range from $3.5 to $22.4 million. Potential requirements for 

2082 general competency recertification of private applicators are generally costly due to substantial 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

56 

2083 per-applicator costs (6 – 8 hours per applicator) and a large number of applicators that need to 

2084 recertify. 

2085 b. Application Method-Specific Categories Recertification 

2086 Table 3.4-16 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for 

2087 each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed by a brief description of 

2088 the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also 

2089 given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost 

2090 results. 

2091 Table 3.4-16: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – 

Application Method-Specific Categories1 2092 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

Private Applicators 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for aerial category 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-01) 2.6 0.0 2.6 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert01) 

0.015 0 0.015 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for aerial category 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs: (Private 

Recert-02) 3.2 0.0 3.2 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert02) 

0.015 0 0.015 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for aerial category 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-04) 1.5 0.0 1.5 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert04) 

0.009 0 0.009 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for aerial category 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-05) 1.9 0.0 1.9 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert05) 

0.009 0 0.009 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for chemigation category 

Industry costs: (Private 

Recert-01) 270 13 257 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

57 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

recertification every three 

years 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert01) 

1.7 0.3 1.3 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for chemigation category 

recertification every three 

years 

Industry costs: (Private 

Recert-02) 353 13 340 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert02) 

1.7 0.3 1.3 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for chemigation category 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-04) 166 13 153 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert04) 

1.2 0.3 0.8 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for chemigation category 

recertification every five 

years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-05) 215 13 202 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert05) 

1.2 0.3 0.8 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for non-soil fumigation 

category recertification 

every three years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-01) 761 143 619 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert01) 

4.2 0 4.2 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for non-soil fumigation 

category recertification 

every three years 

Industry costs: (Private 

Recert-02) 951 143 808 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert02) 

4.2 0 4.2 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for non-soil fumigation 

category recertification 

every five years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-04) 509 143 367 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert04) 

2.5 0 2.5 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for non-soil fumigation 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-05) 613 143 470 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

58 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential 

Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost 

of Regional 

Baseline 

(NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 

category recertification 

every five years 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert05) 

2.5 0 2.5 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for general fumigation 

category recertification 

every three years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-01) 761 143 619 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert01) 

4.2 0 4.2 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for general fumigation 

category recertification 

every three years 

Industry costs: (Private 

Recert-02) 951 143 808 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert02) 

4.2 0 4.2 

Exam or 3-hour training 

for general fumigation 

category recertification 

every five years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-04) 509 143 367 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert04) 

2.5 0 2.5 

Exam or 4-hour training 

for general fumigation 

category recertification 

every five years 

Industry costs (Private 

Recert-05) 613 143 470 

State costs: administer 

recertification exam or 

verify recertification 

training (Private Recert05) 

2.5 0 2.5 

2093 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

2094 Private Applicators – Application Method-Specific Categories Recertification (Private Recert 

2095 01, 02, 04, & 05) 

2096 The potential requirements include different training and examination options for private 

2097 applicators seeking recertification in application method-specific categories. 

2098 For aerial and non-soil categories, Private Recert-01 and -02 would require recertification every 

2099 3 years, with Private Recert-01 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Private Recert-02 requiring 

2100 exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and-05 would require recertification every 5 years, 

2101 with Private Recert-04 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Private Recert-05 requiring exam 

2102 or 4-hour training. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

59 

2103 For chemigation and general fumigation categories, Private Recert-02 would require 

2104 recertification every 3 years by exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and-05 would require 

2105 recertification every 5 years, with Private Recert-04 requiring exam or 3-hour training and 

2106 Private Recert-05 requiring exam or 4-hour training. 

2107 Private applicator costs of the potential requirements would range from $1.5 thousand (aerial 

2108 category) to $808 thousand (general fumigation category). Most private applicators are not 

2109 expected to have aerial certification whereas many private applicators are estimated to certify 

2110 and recertify in general fumigation category, which explains the wide range of recertification 

2111 costs. 

2112 3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration 

2113 There are several proposed new requirements that are administrative in nature, which would 

2114 include recordkeeping requirements for industry, and requirements for state and federal 

2115 governments to implement the changes in the rule. 

2116 3.4.7.1 Dealer Recordkeeping 

2117 The Agency is proposing new recordkeeping requirements for dealers of restricted use 

2118 pesticides. Under the proposal, dealers selling RUPs to both private and commercial applicators 

2119 would be required to keep records of RUP sales, including information on what RUP was 

2120 purchased and the date, the identity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the 

2121 applicator is certified. 

2122 3.4.7.2 Jurisdiction Administration 

2123 The costs of the potential requirements in this category are state costs, and capture the cost of 

2124 changing jurisdiction requirements to reflect the rulemaking. 

2125 3.4.7.3 Federal Administration 

2126 This category includes the potential requirements for EPA for reviewing the plans or programs of 

2127 jurisdictions and federal agencies, and for revising EPA-administered tribal plans. 

2128 Table 3.4-17 below presents national-level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for 

2129 each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the 

2130 potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the 

2131 presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 

2132 Table 3.4-17: Costs to Revise Requirements for Dealer Recordkeeping and the Submission, 

Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans1 2133 

Potential Regulation Type of Cost 

National Cost of 

Potential Regulatory 

Requirement (NCP) 

($000) 

National Cost of 

Regional 

Baseline (NCB) 

($000) 

National 

Incremental 

Cost (NIC) 

($000) 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

60 

Dealers maintain 

records of restricted use 

pesticide sales 

Industry costs 

(Admin-01) 749 749 0 

Revise state regulations 

State costs: 

implementation 

(Admin-02) 

119 0 119 

Submit state plans and 

report certified 

applicator data 

State costs: 

implementation 

(Admin-03) 

4 0 4 

EPA review of 

jurisdiction and federal 

agency plans & 

programs 

EPA costs: 

implementation 

(Admin-04) 

41 0 41 

Revise EPAadministered tribal plans 

EPA costs: 

implementation 

(Admin-06) 

4 0 4 

1 2134 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 

2135 Dealers Maintain Records of Restricted Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01) 

2136 The EPA proposal Admin-01 would require pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, 

2137 including the pesticide(s) purchased, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the 

2138 sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a 

2139 zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisdictions are already doing these activities. 

2140 Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03) 

2141 The EPA proposal Admin-02 would require all jurisdictions to rewrite their laws and regulations, 

2142 and to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. EPA 

2143 assumes that all jurisdictions would need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total 

2144 cost of $119 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations. Since the potential regulatory 

2145 requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, regulations, and plans, EPA 

2146 assumes that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each of the two years. 

2147 Another EPA proposal, Admin-03, would require jurisdictions to submit the revised plans to 

2148 EPA. EPA estimates a total incremental cost at $4 thousand. 

2149 Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06) 

2150 There are two EPA proposals being considered that relate to federal certification and tribal 

2151 certification plans. The first potential requirement would be to update tribal certification plans 

2152 (Admin-06). A total incremental cost is estimated at $4 thousand. One other potential 

2153 requirement would be to codify existing policy requiring federal agencies to conform to the same 

2154 standards as jurisdictions for implementing certification programs (Admin-04). EPA estimates a 

2155 total incremental cost at $41 thousand.
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

2156 Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Options for 

2157 Amending the Rules Governing Certified Pesticide Applicators 

2158 EPA is proposing revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule that would balance 

2159 improvements in the protections to certified pesticide applicators, the environment, and the 

2160 public against the additional costs to applicators and employers of applicators. Out of the 

2161 potential requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 

2162 summarizes the requirements the Agency is proposing.

2163 Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements. 

Identifier Brief Description 

Private Cert-02 Initial Certification of Private Applicators 

Private Cert-13 Eliminate Non-reader Certification 

Comm Cert-01; 

Private Cert-04 

New Aerial Category 

(Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) 

Comm Cert-04; 

Private Cert-10 

New Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation 

(Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) 

Comm Cert-05; 

Private Cert-12 

New Predator Control Category for Commercial and Private Certified 

Applicators 

Comm Cert-06; 

Comm Recert-03; 

Private Cert-15; 

Private Recert-03 

New Security Standards for Examinations or Training 

Comm Sup-01 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under 

the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator 

Comm Sup-06 Retain Records of Competency Standards for Noncertified Applicators 

Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators 

Private Sup-02 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under 

the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 

Comm Sup-03; 

Private Sup-03 

Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators Working under the 

Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

Comm Sup-05; 

Private Sup-05 

Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private 

Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator 

Comm Age-02; 

Private Age-02 Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators 

Comm Age-04; 

Private Age-05 

Minimum Age of 18 for Noncertified Applicators under the Direct 

Supervision of a Certified Applicator 

Comm Recert-01 

Commercial Applicator Recertification: Exam (Core and Appropriate 

Categories) or 6 CEUs for Core + 6 CEUs per Category Certification; 

Three Year Recertification Interval 

Private Recert-01 Private Applicator Recertification: Exam or 6 CEUs + 3 CEUs per 

Category Certification; Three Year Recertification Interval 

Admin-01 Dealer Recordkeeping of RUP sales 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

Identifier Brief Description 

Admin-02 and 

Admin-03 Requirements to Update State Plans 

Admin-04 and 

Admin-05 

Review of Federal Agency Plans and Programs, Certification Program 

in Indian Country, and EPA Administered Plans 

Admin-06 Revise EPA-Administered Plans 

2164 This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the 

2165 proposed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule, and describes the reasons 

2166 why EPA is proposing specific options. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of 

2167 different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or 

2168 more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the cost of each requirement, which is 

2169 predominantly the opportunity cost of time. The emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on 

2170 efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of (1) providing improved protections to certified and 

2171 noncertified applicators, the environment, and the public from use of RUPs and (2) minimizing 

2172 the costs to agriculture, other pest control industries, states, and small businesses. Some of the 

2173 proposed changes are not discussed here for two reasons. First, not all changes were subject to a 

2174 rigorous cost/benefit analysis, e.g., administrative requirements for states to rewrite their 

2175 guidance to come into compliance with the new regulations. Second, some proposals merely 

2176 codify current practice or existing policy. 

2177 In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, EPA considered the full 

2178 range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory 

2179 development process (e.g., professional pesticide applicator organizations, CTAG, state 

2180 regulators, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing commodity 

2181 producers). Only the information relevant to the costs and benefits of specific proposals is 

2182 discussed in this chapter. This includes factors such as equity considerations (e.g., potential 

2183 distribution of costs) and the feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory 

2184 experiences. A discussion of all information provided through the regulatory process is 

2185 discussed in the NPRM for this proposed rule. 

2186 4.1 Proposed and Alternative Options for Revising Initial Certification 

2187 Standards 

2188 4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards 

2189 The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule currently requires applicants seeking certification 

2190 as private applicators to demonstrate competency to use or supervise the use of RUPs either by 

2191 completing an approved training program or through an alternate mechanism, for example, by 

2192 passing an exam. States may require private applicators to demonstrate competency by taking an 

2193 exam or through another state-identified and EPA-approved mechanism, e.g., a training course. 

2194 Private Cert-02: Exam or 12-hour Training for Initial Certification of Private Applicators 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

2195 The proposed and alternative private applicator competency standards (Private Cert-02, Private 

2196 Cert-01 and Private Cert-03) would cover 11 essential topics, including additional information 

2197 about equipment, responsibilities for supervising noncertified applicators, and laws and 

2198 regulations. The proposal and the alternatives differ in the specific minimum requirements for 

2199 the content of and mechanisms to ensure private applicator competency. For the purpose of 

2200 estimating the cost of each alternative, we differentiate between the proposals by the expected 

2201 amount of time that certified applicators would need to prepare for an exam or spend in training, 

2202 although the proposal does not require a specific minimum number of hours for private 

2203 applicator certification through training programs. The proposed option (Private Cert-02) has 

2204 minimum standards that we estimate will require about 12 hours of preparation or training of a 

2205 private applicator based on EPA’s experience with training programs in territories where EPA 

2206 administers the applicator certification program. EPA also considered a less stringent proposal. 

2207 The less stringent standards means that important topics would not be explored as fully, although 

2208 the time required would be less (about 8 hours). EPA also considered a more stringent proposal 

2209 that would cover the necessary topics in more detail (about 16 hours). Because most of the cost 

2210 of these proposals is a result of the time of the prospective certified applicators, the most 

2211 stringent proposal (Private Cert-03) would be the most expensive (about $9.0 million per year 

2212 above current costs), and the least stringent (Private Cert-01) is the least expensive (about $2.0 

2213 million per year). The cost of the proposed option is between the two, at about $3.7 million per 

2214 year. EPA chose to propose the option it did because the proposal balances the burden to the 

2215 private applicator candidates with the need to ensure that private applicators have sufficient 

2216 information, knowledge, and skills necessary in order to apply RUPs effectively and without 

2217 unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed level of required detail better outlines the 

2218 knowledge and skills EPA expects private applicators to have in order to apply RUPs effectively 

2219 and without unreasonable adverse effects. 

2220 4.1.2 Establish Application Method-Specific Categories for Commercial and 

2221 Private Applicators 

2222 EPA is proposing three new federal categories for commercial applicator certification: aerial 

2223 application, soil fumigation, and non-soil fumigation. Pesticide application and agricultural 

2224 practices are increasingly specialized. Improper use of application equipment may lead to 

2225 increased risks to the health of the applicator, workers, the environment, and the public. 

2226 Additionally, certain categories of pesticides (e.g., fumigants) and application methods (aerial 

2227 application) pose an inherently higher risk of acute injury or death if the applicator does not 

2228 understand and follow the label. These increased risks can be reduced by requiring applicators to 

2229 demonstrate a specific set of competencies related to the application method being used. 

2230 EPA is proposing to create similar categories for private applicators. Private applicators 

2231 performing soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or aerial applicator would require category 

2232 certification as well. Initial certification would require that private applicators pass an exam or 

2233 complete training (about 4 hours). An option for each category would be for a more rigorous 

2234 exam or completion of a more detailed training (about 8 hours). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

2235 States may also bear costs associated with the development of new exams or training material 

2236 and with the cost of administering new certification categories. 

2237 Comm Cert-01: New Aerial Category 

2238 EPA is proposing to create an application method-specific category for aerial application (Comm 

2239 Cert-01). Applying pesticides with a plane or helicopter poses a unique set of risks and 

2240 challenges to the applicator, bystanders, and the environment. There is heightened potential for 

2241 spray drift and elevated potential for off-target applications and thus an increased need for 

2242 specialized application equipment to be calibrated accurately; these risks are specific to aerial 

2243 application. The annualized national incremental cost of adding this category is about $258,000 

2244 per year, including $98,000 annually for initial certification and $151,000 annually for 

2245 recertification. This cost includes the time for applicators to prepare for an exam or attend a 

2246 training program and for states to develop materials for the new category training (estimated at 

2247 $9,000). EPA concluded that this additional cost, which amounts to about $29 per year per 

2248 certified aerial applicator, was justified to ensure that applicators applying pesticides by aircraft 

2249 are able to apply products safely and in a manner to manage drift and potential exposure to 

2250 adjacent areas and bystanders. 

2251 Private Cert-04: New Aerial Application Category, Exam or Four-Hour Training 

2252 The proposal for a new private category certification in aerial application that would require an 

2253 exam or training (four hours) (Private Cert-04) is expected to cost about $26,000 annually. 

2254 There are expected to be only around 70 private aerial applicators, resulting in an annual per2255 applicator cost of $371. The alternative, an exam or training (eight hours) (Private Cert-05), is 

2256 expected to cost $29,000 annually. EPA chose the proposed option because of the importance of 

2257 ensuring that aerial applicators have the knowledge and skills necessary to apply RUPs by 

2258 aircraft without causing unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed option is slightly less 

2259 expensive, and it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without 

2260 becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary information. 

2261 Comm Cert-04: New Commercial Applicator Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil 

2262 fumigation 

2263 Because of the specialized nature of fumigation applications, EPA decided that additional 

2264 competence was necessary for applicators who use fumigants. EPA considered an alternative 

2265 that creates only one application method-specific category for general fumigation, which would 

2266 cover both soil and non-soil pest control (Comm Cert-03), but decided to propose two new 

2267 application method-specific categories; one for soil fumigation and one for non-soil fumigation 

2268 (Comm Cert-04). EPA chose the proposed option because the two types of fumigant application 

2269 differ significantly – by equipment, application site, bystander exposure, risks presented, and 

2270 other specifics, including the chemicals used. In addition, many fumigators specialize in either 

2271 soil or non-soil fumigation. Treating these two categories as separate allows more detailed 

2272 information about each topic in a given amount of time. In addition, the incremental costs are 

2273 lower for the two categories than for a combined category. The national incremental costs for 

2274 the two categories is about $415,000 annually (including $138,000 annually for initial 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

2275 certification, which includes the cost of the state developing examination materials, and 

2276 $277,000 annually for recertification. The cost of the joint category is about $992,000 annually, 

2277 of which about $716,000 is for the initial certification and $277,000 is for recertification. 

2278 The cost is lower for two categories, because pesticide label requirements on soil fumigants 

2279 currently require training equivalent to that which would be needed to become certified in the 

2280 soil fumigant category or allow states to require certification in an EPA-approved soil fumigation 

2281 category in lieu of the training. If applicators who currently perform soil fumigation were 

2282 required to be certified in a general fumigation category, they would face additional costs to 

2283 become familiar with or trained in the non-soil uses. 

2284 Private Cert-10: New Private Applicator Categories for Soil and Non-Soil Fumigation 

2285 The incremental cost for establishing separate soil and non-soil fumigation categories for private 

2286 applicators is estimated to be about $122,000 annually. One alternative, a general fumigation 

2287 category covering both soil and non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-08), would be more costly at 

2288 $674,000 annually because, as with commercial applicators, private applicators making soil 

2289 fumigations must already be trained under the pesticide label requirements. An alternative 

2290 requirement to pass an exam or complete a more detailed training for certification in the two 

2291 categories (Private Cert-11) would cost about $218,000. EPA chose the proposed option because 

2292 it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or 

2293 incorporating unnecessary information at additional cost. Despite being lower cost than 

2294 alternative options, it will ensure that soil and non-soil fumigant applicators have the knowledge 

2295 and skills necessary to use fumigants without causing unreasonable adverse effects. 

2296 New Category for Chemigation – Not Proposed 

2297 EPA considered adding both private applicator and commercial applicator categories for 

2298 chemigation, the application of a pesticide through irrigation equipment, the application of a 

2299 pesticide through irrigation equipment. Chemigation has a relatively high potential for 

2300 environmental contamination if not conducted properly, and, due to the nature of the equipment, 

2301 chemigation poses additional risks to the applicator or those working under his direct 

2302 supervision. However, based on a review of incidents, most of the chemigation risks are 

2303 associated with chemicals that are covered by the soil fumigation category. The incremental cost 

2304 of adding this category for commercial applicators is about $80,000 per year; about $59,000 for 

2305 initial certification (which includes state costs for developing materials) and $21,000 for 

2306 recertification. There are an estimate 875 commercial chemigators, so the cost per chemigator 

2307 would be about $91. The cost of a private chemigation category is estimated to be $222,000 

2308 with a four-hour training requirement (Private Cert-06) and $409,000 with an eight-hour training 

2309 requirement (Private Cert-07). Despite the relatively low cost, EPA decided not to propose this 

2310 new category: EPA does not have sufficient data, such as evidence of significant health or 

2311 environmental impacts, to justify the creation of an additional certification category for 

2312 chemigation. The proposed fumigation categories are likely to address the major risks associated 

2313 with chemigation. Additional benefits from a chemigation category are likely to be small in 

2314 comparison to the costs. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

2315 4.1.3 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for 

2316 Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training 

2317 Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator 

2318 currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, these noncertified 

2319 applicators also have a high potential for exposure and could pose a risk to public health and the 

2320 environment if they misapply RUPs. The Agency is proposing changes to the training of the 

2321 noncertified person and is clarifying the information supervisors must provide and what it means 

2322 to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

2323 Comm Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct 

2324 Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator 

2325 The Agency is proposing to establish the competency of a noncertified applicator working under 

2326 the direct supervision of a commercial certified applicator in one of three ways (Comm Sup-01). 

2327 First, noncertified applicators can complete proposed training outlined in the regulation. Second, 

2328 noncertified applicators can complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). 

Third, noncertified applicators may pass the commercial applicator core exam5 2329 . These proposals 

2330 are expected to cost noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial 

2331 applicators, their supervising applicators or employers about $6.6 million per year. 

2332 An alternative for commercial applications is to limit noncertified applicators to only those who 

2333 have passed the commercial applicator core exam (Comm Sup-02). This alternative would be 

2334 substantially more expensive than the proposed alternative. The estimated cost of Comm Sup-02 

2335 is $31.8 million per year. While passing the commercial core exam may be a more reliable 

2336 option for establishing competency, the additional benefits over an annual, focused training do 

2337 not outweigh the additional cost. 

2338 Private Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct 

2339 Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 

2340 EPA is proposing the same three options for noncertified applicators working under the direct 

2341 supervision of private applicators. These proposals are expected to cost noncertified applicators 

2342 working under the direct supervision of private applicators and their supervising applicators or 

2343 employers $639,000 per year. 

2344 EPA considered an alternative to the proposed option that would limit the ways of establishing 

2345 the competency of noncertified applicators to completion of the training proposed under the rule 

2346 or completion of the WPS handler training (Private Sup-02). EPA did not choose this alternative 

2347 because it was no less expensive than the proposed option (both had an annual cost of $639,000), 

 

5

 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial applicator. The applicator must also pass 

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

7 

2348 and provides less flexibility of private applicators and noncertified applicators working under 

2349 their direct supervision to decide how to meet the qualifications. 

2350 Comm Sup-06: Retain Records of Training for Noncertified Applicators Working under the 

2351 Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators for Two Years 

2352 EPA is also proposing that commercial certified applicators supervising noncertified applicators 

2353 retain records of the training for two years (Comm Sup-06). The estimated cost of this 

2354 requirement is $324,000 per year. Keeping records of the training is important because to ensure 

2355 the safety of the noncertified applicators working under the supervision of the certified 

2356 applicators. Requiring commercial applicators to maintain records of noncertified applicators’ 

2357 training would increase the likelihood that the noncertified applicators will be trained in 

2358 accordance with the proposed requirements. In addition, records can help ensure that 

2359 noncertified applicators meet the proposed minimum age requirement. Records are a key 

2360 component of an effective enforcement program. EPA considered an alternative requirement to 

2361 maintain records for five years (Comm Sup-07). Retention of records for five years has an 

2362 annual cost of $591,000, or an additional cost of $267,000 over the proposal. The extra expense 

2363 of the longer retention period is not justified because the current recordkeeping requirements for 

2364 commercial applicators is two years and has proven to be an adequate retention period to 

2365 determine compliance. 

2366 EPA is prohibited under FIFRA from requiring private applicators to keep records, so EPA is not 

2367 proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified applicators 

2368 working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed requirements.    

2369 Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03: Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators Working 

2370 under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

2371 In addition to general training or knowledge, the Agency is proposing to clarify the instructions 

2372 for each specific application that must be given to noncertified applicators working under the 

2373 direct supervision of commercial and private applicators. Currently the supervising commercial 

2374 or private applicator must provide guidance on performing the application and information on 

2375 how to contact the supervisor. The proposal would specify that the supervising commercial or 

2376 private applicator must provide a copy of all applicable labeling to each noncertified applicator 

2377 for each supervised application; provide specific instructions related to each application, 

2378 including the site-specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain and describe 

2379 how to comply with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03). EPA did not 

2380 consider alternative options because this proposal is a clarification of the existing requirements 

2381 and because the estimated incremental cost of these proposed options is zero. 

2382 Comm Sup-05 and Private Sup-05: Communication between the Supervising Commercial or 

2383 Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator 

2384 EPA is proposing to replace the current requirement for the supervising commercial or private 

2385 applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor 

2386 (such as a cell phone number), with a requirement for the supervising commercial or private 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

2387 applicator to ensure the noncertified applicator can communicate immediately with the 

2388 supervising applicator (Comm Sup-05 for commercial applicators, Private Sup-05 for private 

2389 applicators). This immediate communication standard could be satisfied by the supervising 

2390 applicators ensuring that they and all noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct 

2391 supervision have cell phones, two-way radios, or other forms of communication technology and 

2392 contact information for the supervisors. Immediate communication between the supervising 

2393 applicator and the noncertified applicator is critical if the noncertified applicator has a question 

2394 before application or encounters an emergency situation related to the misapplication. This was 

2395 a low cost option (estimated to be zero) because most certified applicators and the noncertified 

2396 applicators have cellular phones which can be used for immediate communication, so EPA 

2397 decided that the benefits of immediate communication outweigh the minimal cost. 

2398 EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator 

2399 maintain the noncertified applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm Sup2400 04 and Private Sup-04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in 

2401 hilly, forested, or obstructed view areas, it would require commercial or private applicators to 

2402 hire more certified applicators instead of noncertified applicators, thus incurring higher labor 

2403 costs. As a result, it would be extremely expensive (about $80 million annually for private 

2404 applicators and about $14.9 billion annually for commercial applicators). At the same time, it 

2405 would not be substantially more protective than the option chosen; in some locations, being in 

2406 sight would not necessarily mean being in immediate communication. 

2407 4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators 

2408 Comm Age-02 and Private Age-02: Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators 

2409 The Agency is proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become certified as a 

2410 commercial (Comm Age-02) or private (Private Age-02) applicator. These proposals are 

2411 expected to cost about $294,000 for commercial applicators and about $174,000 for private 

2412 applicators annually. It is unclear who would ultimately bear these costs, but it is likely that the 

2413 impacts would fall primarily on the adolescent applicator who might find opportunities limited if 

2414 he or she could not obtain certification. Employers of certified commercial applicators could 

2415 bear some costs in that they are expected to pay higher wages, on average, to older, more 

2416 experienced applicators. However, the costs are unlikely to reflect actual increases in labor costs 

2417 since adolescents can still be employed to work with non-RUP pesticides. In those cases where 

2418 an adolescent private applicator would have been used, he or she would likely be a family 

2419 member of the farm owner/operator. The farm would have to assign an adult family member, 

2420 presumably at a higher opportunity cost, to make the RUP application and in some situations 

2421 farms would have to pay a commercial applicator to apply RUPs. 

2422 EPA decided that these costs are justified because there is currently no minimum age for 

2423 certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to handle some of the highest risk 

2424 pesticides. EPA estimates that there are about 200 adolescents who are certified private 

2425 applicators and fewer than 200 adolescents who are certified commercial applicators. The cost 

2426 per adolescent of this proposal is therefore about $1,500 per year per adolescent commercial 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

2427 applicator and $900 per year per adolescent private applicator. Aside from avoiding the risks to 

2428 the adolescents from pesticide exposures, discussed in Chapter 6, adolescents generally lack the 

2429 experience and judgment about consequences of inappropriate behavior. The heightened 

2430 potential for immature decision making places the applicator, the public, and the environment at 

2431 significant risk if pesticides are mishandled. 

2432 EPA also considered establishing a minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either 

2433 commercial or private applicators (Comm Age-01 and Private Age-01). On the commercial side, 

2434 we estimate the incremental costs and benefits to be zero since there are likely no certified 

2435 commercial applicators under 16 years of age due to various labor laws and business practices. 

2436 The cost to private applicators is estimated to be about $61,000 annually. EPA estimates that 

2437 there are 55 to 60 certified private applicators under 16 at any given time, implying a cost per 

2438 adolescent protected of about $1,100 per year. Thus, at approximately the same cost per 

2439 adolescent, about 140 more adolescents are protected under the proposal. EPA also considered 

2440 an additional option for private applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 years old, 

2441 with a minimum age of 16 only for private applicators who are family members on family farms 

2442 (Private Age-03), which has an estimated cost of about $68,000 annually. This option would 

2443 cover just over 100 adolescents, including hired applicators of 16 or 17 years of age, implying a 

2444 cost of around $680 per year per adolescent protected. Although these alternatives are less 

2445 expensive, EPA decided that the additional expense of a minimum age of 18 is justified because 

2446 of the risks posed to the adolescent, bystanders, and the environment. 

2447 4.1.5 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Using RUPs under the 

2448 Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 

2449 Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05: Minimum Age for Noncertified Applicators 

2450 To protect noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and 

2451 private applicators as well as human health and the environment, EPA is proposing to establish a 

2452 minimum age for noncertified applicators. The proposed minimum age for persons to qualify as 

2453 noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private and commercial applicators is 18 

2454 (Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05). EPA made this decision for the same reasons as choosing 

2455 a minimum age of 18 for certified applicators. Younger people are more likely to lack the 

2456 experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unnecessary exposure to RUPs. These proposals 

2457 are estimated to be expensive – about $12.8 million annually for commercial applicators and 

2458 about $1.1 million for private applicators. Costs are driven by estimates of the number of 

2459 adolescents applying RUPs under the supervision of certified applicators. EPA estimates that 

2460 there are over 11,000 such adolescents working under the supervision of commercial applicators, 

2461 meaning that the proposal costs about $1,100 per adolescent applicator. EPA also estimates that 

2462 there are 2,800 adolescents working under the supervision of private applicators, resulting in a 

2463 cost per applicator of about $400 per year. The lower cost per adolescent working under a 

2464 private applicator is due to many fewer hours any one adolescent on farm spends applying RUPs. 

2465 EPA considered less expensive alternatives, as well. The alternatives include a minimum age of 

2466 16 for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 

2467 (Comm Age-03). As with certified applicators, this option is estimated to have zero costs and 

2468 benefits due to a lack of adolescents under 16 working in these jobs. A similar alternative was 

2469 considered for noncertified applicators working under the supervision of a private applicator 

2470 (Private Age-04). An additional alternative (Private Age-06) would require noncertified 

2471 applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators to be 18, but with an 

2472 exception for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a private applicator who is 

2473 also an immediate family member of the noncertified applicator. These alternatives were 

2474 estimated to be less expensive than the proposed alternative. For private applicators, we estimate 

2475 the cost of the minimum age of 16 to be about $83,000 annually, or about $120 for each of the 

2476 estimated 690 adolescents applying RUPs, and for a minimum age of 18 but with a minimum age 

2477 of 16 for family members to be about $634,000 annually, or about $920 per adolescent. Thus, on 

2478 the basis of the cost per adolescent protected, the proposal provides the greatest cost 

2479 effectiveness even though it is more costly in total. 

2480 4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators 

2481 EPA is proposing new standards for recertification of both private and commercial applicators. 

2482 The proposed recertification requirements would establish a maximum duration of three years for 

2483 certifications and set minimum standards for continuing education programs. Security standards 

2484 discussed in Chapter 4.1.7 apply to recertification as well. 

2485 Comm Recert-01: Commercial Applicator Recertification – Exams or Six CEUs for Core 

2486 Recertification plus 6 CEUs for Each Category, Three Year Recertification Interval 

2487 The proposal establishes requirements for recertification of commercial applicators – either 

2488 passing exams relevant to existing certifications or completing a specific number of continuing 

2489 education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency. EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50 

2490 minutes of educational contact time. For commercial applicators, the proposed recertification 

2491 training requirements are six CEUs for core certification and six CEUs per category of 

2492 certification (Comm Recert-01), with recertification administered by the states. 

2493 The estimated cost of these proposals is about $6.5 million annually for commercial applicators. 

2494 This estimate only includes costs to applicators, it does not include the costs to states of altering 

2495 and administering recertification at shorter interval. 

2496 The Agency considered an alternative with the same recertification requirements at five year 

2497 intervals (Comm Recert-04) rather than three years. The estimated annual cost is about $1.7 

2498 million per year. This option is substantially lower in cost because most jurisdictions already 

2499 meet or exceed the requirement. Only one state, Maine, has a recertification period of six years; 

2500 all others are five years or fewer. While many states do not specify requirements to recertify in 

2501 core categories, most require a sufficient number of CEUs that, with some reallocation, 

2502 applicators would face few changes to meet the requirements of this alternative. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 

2503 While substantially more expensive, the proposal offers substantially higher benefits as well. 

2504 Maintaining competency necessities that applicators are knowledgeable about changing 

2505 technology, product reformulations, new labeling and regulatory requirements, and other 

2506 essential labeling information. Applicators also must be reminded about personal safety and 

2507 basic application principles (Anger, et al., 2009). A three-year recertification period ensures that 

2508 even those commercial applicators who delay obtaining the required training receive new 

2509 information and are reminded of safety protocols at a reasonable interval. Moreover, the same 

2510 training requirement, concentrated into a three year period, permits more content and more rigor 

2511 than would be obtained if spread over five years. The advantage of the proposals over the 

2512 alternatives is that it ensures a continuing level of competency among certified applicators by 

2513 more frequent recertification, which will help to reduce the risk of RUPs. 

2514 Two other alternatives for commercial applicator recertification were considered that would 

2515 require passing an exam, without the option of training or CEUs, over three years (Comm 

2516 Recert-02) or five years (Comm Recert-05). EPA assumes that the option of exam is equivalent 

2517 in effort to obtaining CEUs; therefore the estimated annual costs of these options are the same as 

2518 the respective alternative allowing an exam or CEUs. These alternatives, which rely on an exam 

2519 without the options of certification by CEUs, have less flexibility for the certified applicators, 

2520 and also impose an additional burden on the certifying authority, which would be required to 

2521 hold exams. 

2522 Private Recert-01: Exams or Six CEUs for General Recertification plus Three CEUs for Each 

2523 Category, Three Year Recertification Interval 

2524 The proposal is similar to that for commercial applicators, but with fewer CEUs required for 

2525 category certification (six CEUs for general private applicator certification and three CEUs per 

2526 category). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to be $13.6 million per year, which is 

2527 approximately $30 per year per private applicator. As with commercial applicators, the benefits 

2528 are derived by maintaining the competency of private applicators given changing technology, 

2529 product reformulations, new labeling and regulatory requirements, and new practices to better 

2530 control undesirable effects of pesticide exposure. Applicators also must be reminded about 

2531 personal safety and basic application principles. 

2532 For private applicators, EPA considered requiring private applicators to obtain eight CEUs for 

2533 general private applicator certification and an additional four hours of training per application 

2534 method-specific category. If recertification would take place every three years (Private Recert2535 02), the estimated cost is about $22.4 million, or $50 per applicator per year, not including the 

2536 cost of recertification in application-specific categories. If the recertification period would be 

2537 every five years (Private Recert-05), the estimated cost is about $7.4 million, or $16 per year per 

2538 private applicator. Finally, if six CEUs were required to maintain general certification over five 

2539 years (Private Recert-04), the cost is estimated to be $3.5 million. Impacts would be 

2540 concentrated, however, in fewer than 20 states. EPA selected a three-year recertification period 

2541 over the five year option because of the benefits of more frequent training to maintain safety and 

2542 competency and the lower CEU requirement because the benefits of more training do appear to 

2543 justify the substantial increase in cost. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 

2544 4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private 

2545 Applicators 

2546 The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the certification exams and 

2547 conducting training. These changes may impose costs on states and other jurisdictions in 

2548 administering exams or trainings or in approving CEUs for recertification. 

2549 The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and conducting 

2550 training: that exam takers provide identification for themselves, and that the exams be written, 

2551 proctored, “closed book” exams. Three are multiple line item designations are for costing 

2552 purposes, because initial and recertification exams, and for different periods of recertification 

2553 (three vs. five years) were considered separately. 

2554 There are substantial benefits to closed-book, proctored exams. These standards ensure the 

2555 security of the exams, reduced the burden on certifying authorities to update exams after security 

2556 breaches, and limiting instances where candidates taking an exam can cheat. The value of 

2557 setting federal standards for examination practices is that states, employers, and the public can be 

2558 confident that all certified applicators have met a consistent standard without having to verify the 

2559 examination practices of each state. Certifying authorities using EPA-developed exams or 

2560 sharing a state-developed exam with another state have confidence that the exam administration 

2561 would meet a consistent security standard. Confirming the identity of the test takers would 

2562 ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requirements. It would also help 

2563 prevent persons from taking a certification exam or training or attending a recertification training 

2564 session in the place of the actual candidate, thereby limiting certification to the candidates who 

2565 are qualified. 

2566 In addition to verifying the identity of test takers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing 

2567 policy related to the security of the exam process. These standards include requiring that the 

2568 exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed-book exams to ensure that no outside 

2569 materials are used in the exam. These changes should also ensure that only competent 

2570 applicators become certified. The Agency chose to codify the exam standards and identification 

2571 of test takers because they were low cost, and no other way to ensure the security of 

2572 examinations and training was identified. These requirements would help preserve the integrity 

2573 of the exam process and give confidence that the security of EPA-developed exams is not 

2574 compromised by varying administration standards across states. 

2575 

2576 Checking identification of the test takers (e.g., checking their driver’s license as they enter the 

2577 examination room) would take a few seconds of both the state employee proctoring the exam and 

2578 test takers’ time. These costs are very small and are incorporated into the proctoring cost (one 

2579 hour proctoring time for one hour exam) for the state proctor and one hour of exam taking time 

2580 for the test takers.
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

2581 4.1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal 

2582 Agencies for Submission, Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans 

2583 There are several proposed new requirements that are administrative in nature, which would 

2584 include recordkeeping requirements for industry, and requirements for state and federal 

2585 governments to implement the changes in the rule. 

2586 Dealers Maintain Records of Restricted Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01) 

2587 The EPA proposal Admin-01 would require pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, 

2588 including the pesticide(s) purchased, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the 

2589 sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a 

2590 zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisdictions are already doing these activities. 

2591 Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03) 

2592 Changes to the regulations governing certification programs would require all jurisdictions, i.e., 

2593 states, territories, and tribes, to rewrite their laws and regulations, and to update plans as 

2594 necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. While many states have 

2595 implemented similar changes, no state has implemented all revisions and EPA assumes that all 

2596 jurisdictions would need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total cost of $119 

2597 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations, detailed under Admin-02 in Chapter 3. Since the 

2598 potential regulatory requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, 

2599 regulations, and plans, EPA assumes that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each 

2600 of the two years. 

2601 EPA estimates a total incremental cost of submitting revised certification plans at $4 thousand. 

2602 See Admin-03 in Chapter 3. 

2603 Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06) 

The proposed revisions would also necessitate changes to federal certification plans and the 

tribal certification plans administered by EPA. The total incremental cost of the latter is 

estimated at $4 thousand (Admin-06). Federal agencies are expected to incur a total incremental 

cost at $41 thousand (Admin-04). 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

2604 Chapter 5. Cost of Proposed Rule 

2605 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the requirements for 

2606 the certification of pesticide applicators in 40 CFR 171. EPA estimates that the present value 

2607 (PV) of the incremental cost of the proposed rule over ten years to be $415 million, given a three 

2608 percent discount rate. The annualized cost is about $47.2 million per year. Using a seven 

2609 percent discount rate would have little effect in this case as most of the costs recur annually. 

2610 Private applicators, as a group, would bear additional costs of about $19.5 million per year, about 

2611 41 percent of the total cost of the proposed rule. Commercial applicators would be expected to 

2612 bear costs of about $27.4 million per year. States and other jurisdictions that administer 

2613 certification programs would bear annualized costs of about $359,000 per year, but most of the 

2614 state costs would be borne immediately after the rule is finalized as they modify their programs 

2615 to follow the new federal rules. Those immediate costs of the proposed rule if it is implemented 

2616 are estimated to be about $2.2 million, with subsequent incremental costs in administering the 

2617 certification programs to be around $936,000 per year. 

2618 The changes in the certification requirements would be unlikely to have an impact on jobs. Most 

2619 private applicators are self-employed. The annualized incremental cost of obtaining and 

2620 maintaining private certification would be about $30 per applicator, on average, and this would 

2621 represent a small fraction of the cost of employing an applicator, even part time. The average 

2622 annualized cost of obtaining and maintaining commercial certification would be less than $80 in 

2623 all jurisdictions and is similarly a very small fraction of the cost of employing a part-time 

2624 applicator. 

2625 The changes are not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 

2626 businesses. In most cases, incremental costs represent less than one percent of gross revenues 

2627 for commercial enterprises or less than one percent of total sales of agricultural products for 

2628 farming enterprises. Incremental costs in a few states could exceed two percent of total sales of 

2629 agricultural products for farms with sales less than $5,000 per year. The number of farms facing 

2630 such impacts is likely to be quite small, however. Perhaps a fifth of the farms affected by 

2631 proposed changes to the certification requirements might also bear costs associated with 

2632 proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard. 

2633 5.1 Overview 

2634 The proposed Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule consists of a number of requirements 

2635 that would affect commercial and private applicators; state and other government agencies; and 

2636 pesticide dealers. Table 5.1-1 presents the estimated regional incremental cost (RIC), that is, by 

2637 state and jurisdiction, using a three percent discount rate. Variations in state cost depend on 

2638 current state requirements and the number of certified applicators in each state. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

2639 Table 5.1-1. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements, by State or Jurisdiction. 

State/Jurisdiction NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 4,391 499 

Alaska 436 50 

Arizona 4,482 510 

Arkansas 19,300 2,198 

California 27,110 3,085 

Colorado 6,704 762 

Connecticut 1,999 227 

Delaware 2,149 246 

Florida 10,141 1,154 

Georgia 25,126 2,858 

Hawaii 1,255 143 

Idaho 1,798 203 

Illinois 3,547 403 

Indiana 7,835 891 

Iowa 356 40 

Kansas 8,287 943 

Kentucky 21,186 2,412 

Louisiana 6,503 740 

Maine 1,748 199 

Maryland 1,901 216 

Massachusetts 282 31 

Michigan 5,449 620 

Minnesota 5,287 602 

Mississippi 7,109 808 

Missouri 21,428 2,439 

Montana 3,129 357 

Nebraska 16,193 1,843 

Nevada 1,882 215 

New Hampshire 223 25 

New Jersey 1,987 226 

New Mexico 1,559 177 

New York 7,218 822 

North Carolina 16,839 1,917 

North Dakota 9,890 1,125 

Ohio 15,362 1,747 

Oklahoma 14,502 1,651 

Oregon 2,172 247 

Pennsylvania 16,283 1,853 

Rhode Island 1,328 151 

South Carolina 7,490 854 

South Dakota 12,949 1,475 

Tennessee 14,712 1,675 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

Texas 8,390 955 

Utah 3,507 399 

Vermont 630 71 

Virginia 3,035 345 

Washington 16,992 1,933 

West Virginia 767 87 

Wisconsin 19,839 2,258 

Wyoming 3,650 416 

Puerto Rico 16,106 1,834 

Other Jurisdictions 2,454 279 

Federal Agencies 19 2 

U.S. 414,928 47,227 

2640 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

2641 The states with the highest incremental costs would include California, Georgia, Missouri, 

2642 Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Kentucky. The main driver in these states is the relatively large 

2643 number of certified applicators. In California, commercial applicators would bear a relatively 

2644 large proportion of the cost, in part because California would need to establish a new non-soil 

2645 fumigation category and EPA anticipates a large number of commercial applicators would obtain 

2646 certification. For the other states, the primary change would be in the initial certification of 

2647 private applicators. 

2648 States with the lowest incremental costs include Alaska and the New England states where there 

2649 are relatively few certified applicators. Other low-cost states, such as Iowa and Virginia have 

2650 state requirements that largely meet or exceed the proposed federal requirements. 

2651 5.2 Methodology 

2652 The cost of the proposed rule is largely the sum of the costs of the individual requirements as 

2653 estimated in Section 3.3. However, there may be some interactions between the proposed 

2654 requirements. In Chapter 3, EPA estimated the increased labor cost if employers shift certain 

2655 tasks from adolescent workers to adult workers, who presumably are paid a higher wage. In 

2656 estimating the cost of the proposed rule, we also take into account the changes in the labor force 

2657 and the differences in the opportunity cost of time when estimating the impact of new 

2658 requirements, e.g., initial certification. 

2659 Where interactions occur, EPA’s methodology for estimating the cost of the proposed rule is 

2660 similar to the methodology employed for estimating the cost of individual potential 

2661 requirements. In the first two steps, we estimate the per-actor costs for the suite of proposed 

2662 requirements and the associated baseline. Typically, the main actors are certified applicators, 

2663 where private and commercial applicators are separated into those obtaining initial certification 

2664 and those pursuing recertification. We also consider noncertified applicators under their 

2665 supervision. To account for the age restrictions, we further define actors within each of these 

2666 groups by age: adults (18 years old and older), 16 and 17 year old adolescents, and adolescents 

2667 under age 16. Other actors include state regulators, who would have to revise regulations and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

2668 develop examinations and/or training programs, and state administrators, who would have to 

2669 oversee or proctor the trainings or examinations. Federal agencies, including EPA, will also bear 

2670 some costs. 

2671 As in Chapter 3, the third step extrapolates the per-actor costs, baseline and proposal, to the state 

2672 level by multiplying by the number of actors within each state or jurisdiction who would be 

2673 affected by the proposed set of requirements. Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas 

2674 that operate certification programs. In Step 4, state level costs are estimated over a 10-year time 

2675 horizon. It is at this step that interactions with the minimum age requirement may come into 

2676 play, as adolescents who are certified before the requirement goes into effect would be allowed 

2677 to continue to work as applicators and pursue recertification. 

2678 Subsequent steps are essentially identical to those presented in Section 3.3. The incremental cost 

2679 of the proposed rule is calculated as the difference between the present value (PV) of baseline 

2680 cost and the PV of the compliance cost. State or jurisdictional costs are summed to obtain 

2681 national costs. Finally, we calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed rule at the 

2682 state and national levels. 

2683 The next section presents the results of the analysis of costs to private applicators and 

2684 demonstrates the methodology for the case of the private applicator obtaining an initial 

2685 certification, if the proposed rule becomes regulation. The data required for the analysis are 

2686 presented in Chapter 3. 

2687 5.3 Private Applicator Costs of Proposed Rule 

2688 Table 5.3-1 presents the requirements EPA is proposing that would impact private applicators. 

2689 These include new or amended requirements for initial certification and recertification and 

2690 requirements for training and communication with applicators under their supervision. Age 

2691 restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and applicators under their supervision. In 

2692 total, EPA estimates the cost of the proposed changes would be about $18.8 million per year or, 

2693 on average, about $38.50 per year per certified private applicator, given around 490,000 private 

2694 applicators. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

2695 Table 5.3-1. Proposed Private Applicator Requirements. 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

Description 

Private Cert-02 Exam or 12-hour training for private certification 

Private Cert-04 Add private aerial category and require exam or 4-hour training for certification 

Private Cert-10 Add private soil and non-soil fumigation categories and require exam or 4-hour training for 

certification 

Private Cert-12 Add private predator control category, codifying existing label requirements 

Private Cert-15 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for certification 

Private Recert-01 Within three years, exam or 6-hours of training for private core competency and exam or 3-

hours of training for category recertification 

Private Recert-03 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for recertification 

Private Sup-02 Private noncertified applicators must complete training or be handlers under the Worker 

Protection Standard or complete commercial core exam 

Private Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators by certified private applicators 

Private Sup-05 Private noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors 

Private Age-02 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for certified private applicators 

Private Age-05 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for private noncertified applicators 

2696 As an example of how costs are computed, EPA presents the details of the cost calculation for 

2697 the proposed initial certification requirements for private applicators. For the other components, 

2698 including recertification, training for and communication with supervised applicators, and labor 

2699 costs, we only present the present value of costs over ten years. Details of the estimations are 

2700 provided in Appendix B. 

2701 5.3.1 Initial Certification, Private Applicators 

2702 This section presents the method for calculating the costs of the proposed suite of requirements. 

2703 As an example, we present the costs to first time private applicators, who may be self-employed 

2704 or employed on an agricultural establishment. The underlying data and assumptions can be 

2705 found in Chapter 3.3. 

2706 Step 1. Calculate the per-applicator cost to each actor of the requirements under the current 

2707 regulatory regime. Per-applicator costs will generally consist of the value of time to conduct 

2708 required activities. This is calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the time spent multiplied by 

2709 the frequency or probability that an actor will engage in the activity. In the case of initial 

2710 certification, the actor is the individual seeking certification who must prepare for an exam 

2711 and/or obtain training as explained in Chapter 3.4.1. Because of the proposed age requirement 

2712 (Chapter 3.4.5), however, we also distinguish these individuals by age. 

2713 Table 5.3-2 presents the baseline costs that first-time private applicators in selected states would 

2714 incur if they were to become a certified applicator, given the training requirements. These are 

2715 states where the baseline cost differs from the cost under the proposal. Other states have initial 

2716 certification requirements similar to the proposal, which is described in Step 2 of this example. 

2717 Costs are calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the amount of time required to obtain 

2718 certification and by the frequency of the action. See Chapter 3 for details. The wage rate 

2719 depends on the age of the applicator. The time required for the states shown in Table 5.3-2 are in 

2720 terms of a required training. All first-time certified applicators must go through this process. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

2721 Table 5.3-2. Per-Applicator Baseline Cost for Initial Private Certification. 

Action Wage/price Training time Frequency Cost 

Arkansas 

 Adults 51.96 4 1 207.84

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 4 1 124.70

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 4 1 103.70

Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee 

 Adults 51.96 2 1 103.92

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 2 1 62.35

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 2 1 51.96

Mississippi 

 Adults 51.96 19 1 779.39

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 19 1 467.63

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 19 1 389.69

Missouri 

 Adults 51.96 3 1 155.88

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 3 1 93.53

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 3 1 77.94

Montana 1

 Adults 51.96 7-12 1 376.70

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 7-12 1 226.02

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 7-12 1 188.35

New York 

 Adults 51.96 42 1 2,182.28

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 42 1 1,309.37

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 42 1 1,091.14

South Dakota 1

 Adults 51.96 3-12 1 268.11

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 3-12 1 160.87

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 3-12 1 134.05

Wyoming 2

 Adults 51.96 2-6 1 301.36

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 2-6 1 180.82

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 2-6 1 150.68

All other jurisdictions 3

 Adults 51.96 12 1 623.51

 16-17 Year Olds 31.18 12 1 374.10

 < 16 Years Old 25.98 12 1 311.75

2722 Source: EPA estimation. Adult wage rates are from BLS (2014a); training time from state regulations. 

2723 Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2724 Montana and South Dakota offer the choice of training or exam (12 hour preparation), where the 

2725 majority of applicators take the training. Per-applicator cost is a weighted average of the cost of the 

2726 two options. 

2 2727 Wyoming offers the choice of a 6-hour training or a take-home exam (approximately 2 hours), where 

2728 the majority of applicators take the training. Per-applicator cost is a weighted average of the cost of 

2729 the two options. 

3 2730 All other jurisdictions require an exam, which EPA considers equivalent to the proposed training. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 

2731 Step 2. Calculate the per-applicator cost to each actor of the activities under the proposed rule. 

2732 Costs to prepare for an exam or take a training that covers the proposed content are calculated in 

2733 the same fashion, as shown in Chapter 3 (Private Cert-02). A training is expected to take about 

2734 12 hours, as in the case of EPA’s training for programs the Agency administers. Preparing for an 

2735 exam is assumed to require a similar investment in time. Costs for an adult are calculated to be 

2736 $623.51. Under the proposal, only individuals at least 18 years of age would be certified (Private 

2737 Age-02). 

2738 Step 3. Calculate the state/jurisdiction baseline cost and cost of the proposed requirements. To 

2739 obtain the yearly costs in each state to comply with current requirements and with the proposed 

2740 regulation, we multiply the adjusted cost per actor by the number of affected actors in a state and 

2741 sum across all types of actors: 

௜,ோܥܴ

௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋ோ,a

௑

௧

ൈ ܰa,௜௧

a

2742 

where RCR,iX 2743 t is the state cost of the proposed set of requirements, R; X = B, P for baseline and 

2744 proposed, i denotes the state or jurisdiction, and t the year; costR,a represents the per-actor cost of 

2745 the proposed set of requirements and N is the number of actors, as explained in Section 3.3. 

Table 5.3-3 presents the baseline state cost, RCR,iB 2746 t, for t = 1, for first-time private applicators. 

2747 In fact, this would be the baseline cost in all years. States noted in Step 1 are presented 

2748 separately; all other jurisdictions, where requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements, 

2749 are aggregated. Per applicator costs are multiplied by the number of applicators in each age 

2750 group and summed. Adolescent applicators are likely to be few in number and many states have 

2751 established minimum ages. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of private certified applicators 

2752 has averaged 34,039 and has been relatively stable. 

2753 Table 5.3-3. Baseline costs, Initial Private Certification 

Jurisdiction Adult 16-17 Year Old < 16 Years Old 

RCR,iB

($1000) 

Arkansas 

costINIT CERT,a

B $207.84 $124.70 103.70 

Na 1,482 0.9 1.5 

costINIT CERT,a

B x Na $308,019 $112 $156 $308 

Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee 

costINIT CERT,a

B $103.70 $62.35 $51.96 

Na, GA 1,667 1.7 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NGA $172,868 $106 $0 $173 

Na, KY 2,567 4.8 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NKY $266,198 $299 $0 $267 

Na, TN 401 1.3 2.0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NTN $41,584 $81 $104 $42 

Mississippi 

costINIT CERT,a

B $779.39 $467.63 $389.69 

Na, MS 1,344 0 0 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NMS $1,047,364 $0 $0 $1,047 

Missouri 

costINIT CERT,a

B $155.88 $93.53 $77.94 

Na, MO 1,628 0 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NMO $253,773 $0 $0 $254 

Montana 

costINIT CERT,a

B $376.70 $226.02 $188.35 

Na, MT 257 1.4 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NMT $96,812 $316 $0 $97 

New York 

costINIT CERT,a

B $2,182 $1,309 1,091 

Na, NY 244 2.1 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NNY $531,603 $3,142 $0 $535 

South Dakota 

costINIT CERT,a

B $268.11 $160.87 $134.05 

Na, SD 2,147 1.3 2.0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NSD $575,632 $209 $268 $576 

Wyoming 

costINIT CERT,a

B $301.36 $180.82 $150.68 

Na, WY 387 0.7 0 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NWY $116,626 $127 $0 $117 

Other Jurisdictions 

costINIT CERT,a

B $623.51 $374.10 $311.75 

Na, total 21,807 55.8 36.8 

costINIT CERT,a

B x NOTHER $13,548,566 $20,594 $9,576 $13,579 

U.S. Total, Na 33,934 68.6 31.8 

costINIT CERT,a

B x Na $16,960,528 $20,594 $10,136 $16,995 

2754 Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

2755 Baseline costs by state for initial certification are presented in the final column of the table. The 

2756 baseline national cost for the initial certification for first-time private applicators is estimated to 

2757 be $17.0 million per year. This estimate is different from that estimated in Chapter 3 because it 

2758 considers adolescent applicators, whose time is assumed to be less valuable. 

The costs of the proposed requirements for first-time private applicators, RCR,iP 2759 , are presented in 

2760 Table 5.3-4 for the first year of implementation, which is expected to be in the third year 

2761 following finalization of the rule. The eight states shown in Table 5.3-4 would see cost increases 

2762 due to more hours needed for training or to prepare for exams. Due to the age restrictions 

2763 (Private Age-02), no adolescents would be allowed to obtain certification. This restriction would 

2764 contribute to the cost of initial certification, including in states that meet or exceed the proposed 

2765 training requirements for certification, as adults, who are assumed to have a higher opportunity 

2766 cost of time, replace those certified as adolescents. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

2767 Table 5.3-4. Proposed Initial Certification Costs for First-Time Private Adult Applicators 

2768 in Year 3. 

Jurisdiction 

Adult 

(Na) 

State/Jurisdiction Cost 

RCR,iP 

($1000)

costINIT CERT,a

P = $623.51 1 

Arkansas 1,485 $926 

Georgia 1,669 $1,041 

Kentucky 2,572 $1,603 

Tennessee 404 $252 

Missouri 1,628 $1,015 

Montana 258 $161 

South Dakota 2,151 $1,341 

Wyoming 388 $242 

Other Jurisdictions 23,485 $15,236 

U.S. Total 34,039 $21,817 

2769 Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2770 Costs in Mississippi and New York are assumed to remain at $779 and $2,182 per applicator, 

2771 respectively. 

2772 Step 4. Calculate the present value of state and national costs. Per-applicator costs for the 

2773 baseline are expected to remain constant through time, that is, EPA assumes that states will not 

2774 revise their certification requirements. As explained in Section 3.3, the equation for the PV of 

2775 the cost stream is 

ܸܲ൫ܴܥோ௜

஻൯ ൌ ܴܥோ௜,ଵ஻ ∙෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ

2776 

2777 where r is the discount rate, and all other variables are as previously defined. Given a three 

2778 percent discount rate, the value of the summation on the right hand side is 8.79. 

2779 Under the proposed rule, states will have two years to revise their requirements and applicators 

2780 would incur new costs beginning in the third year. The PV of the cost stream is, therefore 

ܸܲቀܴܥோ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܴܥோ௜,ଵ஻ ∙ ෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଶ

௧ୀଵ

൅ ܴܥோ௜,ଵ

௉ ∙෍ 1

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ௧ିଵ

ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ

2781 

2782 where the values of the summations are 1.97 and 6.82, respectively. 

2783 State and jurisdictional costs are summed to obtain national level costs for both the baseline and 

2784 the proposed rule. Table 5.3-5 presents the PV of costs for first-time private applicators initial 

2785 certifications. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 

2786 Table 5.3-5. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators, Initial Certification. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC ($1,000) 

Alabama 3,071 3,071 0 0 

Alaska 47 47 0 0 

Arizona 459 456 4 0 

Arkansas 6,918 2,711 4,206 479 

California 8,886 8,879 6 1 

Colorado 2,149 2,145 4 0 

Connecticut 112 112 0 0 

Delaware 383 383 0 0 

Florida 1,865 1,865 0 0 

Georgia 7,433 1,523 5,910 673 

Hawaii 170 170 0 0 

Idaho 759 759 0 0 

Illinois 5,882 5,871 10 1 

Indiana 4,358 4,351 6 1 

Iowa 4,777 4,762 15 2 

Kansas 6,059 6,050 9 1 

Kentucky 11,454 2,346 9,108 1,037 

Louisiana 2,050 2,047 3 0 

Maine 414 413 1 0 

Maryland 589 588 2 0 

Massachusetts 461 461 0 0 

Michigan 2,720 2,720 0 0 

Minnesota 3,663 3,652 11 1 

Mississippi 9,202 9,202 0 0 

Missouri 7,420 2,230 5,190 591 

Montana 1,287 851 436 50 

Nebraska 4,197 4,188 9 1 

Nevada 264 264 0 0 

New Hampshire 178 178 0 0 

New Jersey 1,093 1,093 0 0 

New Mexico 1,230 1,224 6 1 

New York 4,713 4,698 14 2 

North Carolina 2,571 2,566 4 1 

North Dakota 5,056 5,056 0 0 

Ohio 1,522 1,511 11 1 

Oklahoma 8,557 8,546 11 1 

Oregon 1,014 1,014 0 0 

Pennsylvania 3,642 3,634 8 1 

Rhode Island 35 34 0 0 

South Carolina 4,009 4,009 0 0 

South Dakota 10,274 5,062 5,212 593 

Tennessee 1,801 368 1,433 163 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 

Texas 16,597 16,577 20 2 

Utah 1,530 1,528 2 0 

Vermont 230 230 0 0 

Virginia 4,728 4,724 4 0 

Washington 3,666 3,662 3 0 

West Virginia 432 431 1 0 

Wisconsin 5,862 5,855 7 1 

Wyoming 1,878 1,026 852 97 

Puerto Rico 4,086 4,085 0 0 

Other Jurisdictions 1 426 86 339 39 

U.S. 182,181 149,323 32,858 3,740 

2787 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2788 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

2789 Step 5. Calculate the incremental cost of the proposed rule. Incremental costs are simply the 

2790 difference between the cost of compliance with the proposed rule and the baseline compliance 

2791 cost. 

ܸܰܲቀܴܥܫோ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܸܲቀܴܥோ௜,௧௉ ቁ െ 	ܸܲቀܴܥோ௜,௧஻ 2792 ቁ

2793 The national PV of the incremental cost for initial certification is $32.9 million over 10 years, 

2794 using a three percent discount rate (Table 5.3-5). Annualized costs are calculated to be about 

2795 $3.7 million per year. Given that there are about 34,000 new private applicators certified each 

2796 year, the average additional cost per applicator is about $110. For an individual, this would be a 

2797 one-time cost. Note, however, that about the same number of new applicators become certified 

2798 each year. The incremental costs are heavily concentrated in eight states with low requirements, 

2799 as discussed in Chapter 3.4.1. Costs are highest in Kentucky, where current certification 

2800 standards are less stringent than those proposed (incremental costs are around $400) and over 

2801 2,500 private applicators obtain certification each year. 

2802 5.3.2 Category Certification and Recertification, Private Applicators 

2803 The proposal establishes several new categories: aerial application (Private Cert-04), soil and 

2804 non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-10), and predator control (Private Cert-12). The cost to private 

2805 applicators of the new application method-specific categories is simply the sum of the cost of 

2806 initial certification and of recertification (Private Recert-01). No adolescents are expected to 

2807 obtain certifications in these very technical application methods and so there are no interactions 

2808 as was the case for initial core certification. Table 5.3-6 presents the present value of the 

2809 incremental cost over a ten-year time horizon as well as the annualized cost of certification and 

2810 recertification of new categories. 

2811 Table 5.3-6. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators, Category Certification. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC ($1,000) 

Alabama 17 0 17 2 

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

12 

Arizona 37 37 0 0 

Arkansas 50 0 50 6 

California 191 0 191 22 

Colorado 38 0 38 4 

Connecticut 2 0 2 0 

Delaware 6 0 6 1 

Florida 326 0 326 37 

Georgia 21 0 21 2 

Hawaii 12 0 12 1 

Idaho 15 0 15 2 

Illinois 13 0 13 1 

Indiana 21 0 21 2 

Iowa 63 57 6 1 

Kansas 36 0 36 4 

Kentucky 28 0 28 3 

Louisiana 35 0 35 4 

Maine 4 0 4 0 

Maryland 70 0 70 8 

Massachusetts 2 0 2 0 

Michigan 21 0 21 2 

Minnesota 33 30 3 0 

Mississippi 24 0 24 3 

Missouri 24 0 24 3 

Montana 0 0 0 0 

Nebraska 29 9 20 2 

Nevada 77 77 0 0 

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 

New Jersey 24 0 24 3 

New Mexico 50 0 50 6 

New York 34 0 34 4 

North Carolina 60 0 60 7 

North Dakota 762 759 3 0 

Ohio 26 26 0 0 

Oklahoma 42 0 42 5 

Oregon 36 0 36 4 

Pennsylvania 88 49 39 4 

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 

South Carolina 65 0 65 7 

South Dakota 18 0 18 2 

Tennessee 15 0 15 2 

Texas 57 0 57 6 

Utah 64 64 0 0 

Vermont 0 0 0 0 

Virginia 63 0 63 7 

Washington 56 0 56 6 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

West Virginia 13 0 13 1 

Wisconsin 13 0 13 1 

Wyoming 3 0 3 0 

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 

Other Jurisdictions 1 0 0 0 0 

U.S. 2,681 1,097 1,576 179 

2812 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2813 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

2814 Total annualized cost of the new private category certification and recertification is estimated to 

2815 be about $179,000 per year. California and Florida see the highest costs, due to the number of 

2816 applicators expected to obtain certifications in the new categories in those states. 

2817 5.3.3 Noncertified Applicators under the Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 

2818 A few proposed requirements would impact noncertified applicators under the direct supervision 

2819 of certified applicators. They must show competency (Private Sup-02) through completion of 

2820 the core exam or be trained, which for many would be covered by the proposed Worker 

2821 Protection Standards; they must be provided guidance by their supervisor (Private Sup-03); and 

2822 they must have a means of immediate communication with the supervisor (Private Sup-05). As 

2823 with the certified applicators, the age restriction (Private Age-05) influences the impact of the 

2824 other requirements through the wage rates that determine the value of time spent in training. 

2825 The present value of proposed and baseline costs associated with private noncertified applicators 

2826 under the direct supervision are shown in Table 5.3-7. Details of the calculations are provided in 

2827 Appendix B. 

2828 Table 5.3-7. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators under the Supervision of a 

2829 Certified Applicator. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC ($1,000) 

Alabama 143 0 143 16 

Alaska 5 0 5 1 

Arizona 7 0 7 1 

Arkansas 678 0 678 77 

California 837 0 837 95 

Colorado 200 199 1 0 

Connecticut 12 12 0 0 

Delaware 49 0 49 6 

Florida 103 102 2 0 

Georgia 645 0 645 73 

Hawaii 6 0 6 1 

Idaho 159 158 1 0 

Illinois 984 982 2 0 

Indiana 601 598 3 0 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 

Iowa 0 0 0 0 

Kansas 691 690 2 0 

Kentucky 209 206 3 0 

Louisiana 237 236 1 0 

Maine 20 0 20 2 

Maryland 166 165 1 0 

Massachusetts 24 23 0 0 

Michigan 286 284 2 0 

Minnesota 0 0 0 0 

Mississippi 490 489 1 0 

Missouri 577 573 3 0 

Montana 339 338 1 0 

Nebraska 1,638 1,638 1 0 

Nevada 15 15 0 0 

New Hampshire 7 7 0 0 

New Jersey 48 48 0 0 

New Mexico 62 61 1 0 

New York 299 297 2 0 

North Carolina 906 905 2 0 

North Dakota 607 0 607 69 

Ohio 613 609 4 0 

Oklahoma 295 0 295 34 

Oregon 134 133 1 0 

Pennsylvania 762 759 4 0 

Rhode Island 3 0 3 0 

South Carolina 129 0 129 15 

South Dakota 0 0 0 0 

Tennessee 130 0 130 15 

Texas 1,054 1,047 7 1 

Utah 30 0 30 3 

Vermont 15 0 15 2 

Virginia 143 141 2 0 

Washington 457 0 457 52 

West Virginia 18 17 1 0 

Wisconsin 500 0 500 57 

Wyoming 244 0 244 28 

Puerto Rico 808 0 808 92 

Other Jurisdictions 1 8 0 8 1 

U.S. 16,388 10,731 5,657 644 

2830 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2831 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

2832 Nationally, the cost of proposed supervision requirements, which are essentially the competency 

2833 (training) requirements, are estimated to be about $644,000 per year. Twelve states or 

2834 jurisdictions would bear the majority of the costs because they have the largest number of private 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 

2835 applicators and, by assumption, the largest number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

2836 under their supervision. 

2837 5.3.4 Private Applicators Labor Costs 

2838 The direct effect of the proposed age requirements, Private Age-02 and 05, affect the cost of 

2839 labor because older, typically higher paid individuals would be needed to replace adolescents. 

2840 These costs were estimated in Section 3.3 and are not affected by other proposed requirements. 

2841 The combined costs of the age restrictions are shown in Table 5.3-8. Note that ‘baseline’ costs 

2842 are not the result of any regulation or requirement as in other cases, such as initial certification. 

2843 Further, the analysis captures only those labor costs estimated to arise from the employment of 

2844 adolescents, not total costs of employing or utilizing private applicators. Hence, a state like 

2845 Alabama, which does not allow applications of RUPs by anyone under 18 years of age, would 

2846 have zero labor costs. 

2847 Table 5.3-8. Incremental Labor Cost for Private Applicators. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC 

($1,000) 

Alabama 0 0 0 0 

Alaska 6 4 2 0 

Arizona 264 168 97 11 

Arkansas 1,251 798 453 52 

California 1,516 971 545 62 

Colorado 492 314 178 20 

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 

Delaware 0 0 0 0 

Florida 346 217 129 15 

Georgia 1,140 731 408 46 

Hawaii 25 16 9 1 

Idaho 321 203 118 13 

Illinois 1,579 1,020 559 64 

Indiana 1,195 766 429 49 

Iowa 396 262 134 15 

Kansas 1,211 777 434 49 

Kentucky 796 511 285 32 

Louisiana 444 286 158 18 

Maine 90 58 31 4 

Maryland 287 184 103 12 

Massachusetts 82 52 31 3 

Michigan 612 386 225 26 

Minnesota 277 183 94 11 

Mississippi 532 339 193 22 

Missouri 1,094 692 402 46 

Montana 516 330 185 21 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

Nebraska 1,712 1,135 577 66 

Nevada 40 25 14 2 

New Hampshire 44 27 16 2 

New Jersey 0 0 0 0 

New Mexico 326 209 117 13 

New York 617 392 225 26 

North Carolina 1,127 724 403 46 

North Dakota 1,009 646 363 41 

Ohio 1,513 966 547 62 

Oklahoma 1,009 645 364 41 

Oregon 332 209 123 14 

Pennsylvania 1,486 952 535 61 

Rhode Island 20 13 7 1 

South Carolina 287 182 105 12 

South Dakota 169 112 57 7 

Tennessee 712 453 259 30 

Texas 2,336 1,489 847 96 

Utah 183 117 66 8 

Vermont 47 32 16 2 

Virginia 461 294 166 19 

Washington 838 539 299 34 

West Virginia 169 107 62 7 

Wisconsin 1,246 798 448 51 

Wyoming 285 183 102 12 

Puerto Rico 765 491 273 31 

Other Jurisdictions 1 258 165 93 11 

U.S. 31,463 20,172 11,291 1,285 

2848 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2849 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

2850 In total, EPA estimates the cost of the minimum age provisions to be about $1.3 million per year. 

2851 As noted in Chapter 3, these estimates are heavily influenced by assumptions as to the number of 

2852 adolescents certified or working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, the hours 

2853 spent working with RUPs, and the difference in wage rates between adolescents younger than 18 

2854 and those 18 and older. 

2855 5.3.5 Recertification, Private Applicators 

2856 Recertification requirements, like initial certification and supervision requirements, would 

2857 interact with the minimum age requirements. Adolescents who obtain certification before the 

2858 rule goes into effect could maintain their certification and some may even go through the 

2859 recertification process before turning 18. Thus, the same methodology is applied to account for 

2860 the potential interaction; we consider each age group as a separate category of actors. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 

2861 Table 5.3-9 presents the present value of proposed and baseline compliance costs along with the 

2862 incremental costs of the proposed private recertification requirements. Details of the estimation 

2863 can be found in Appendix B. The PV of the national incremental cost is $120 million, or about 

2864 $13.6 million annually. In twenty jurisdictions, applicators bear little or no cost because current 

2865 state requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements. In other jurisdictions, cost 

2866 differences are largely a function of the number of applicators. 

2867 Table 5.3-9. Present Value of Cost for Recertification, Private Applicators. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC 

($1,000) 

Alabama 4,564 3,288 1,275 145 

Alaska 147 147 0 0 

Arizona 443 442 1 0 

Arkansas 15,018 5,345 9,673 1,101 

California 23,252 23,250 2 0 

Colorado 4,681 3,012 1,669 190 

Connecticut 595 595 0 0 

Delaware 537 257 279 32 

Florida 3,255 2,818 437 50 

Georgia 13,862 4,933 8,929 1,016 

Hawaii 754 754 0 0 

Idaho 3,965 3,965 0 0 

Illinois 19,749 19,747 1 0 

Indiana 10,146 6,687 3,459 394 

Iowa 20,180 20,178 2 0 

Kansas 15,328 10,102 5,226 595 

Kentucky 8,333 3,266 5,067 577 

Louisiana 5,499 1,653 3,846 438 

Maine 1,004 1,004 0 0 

Maryland 2,494 978 1,517 173 

Massachusetts 1,591 1,591 0 0 

Michigan 17,446 17,446 0 0 

Minnesota 13,813 8,888 4,926 561 

Mississippi 7,386 2,629 4,758 541 

Missouri 15,007 5,341 9,667 1,100 

Montana 5,014 3,304 1,709 195 

Nebraska 16,705 8,008 8,697 990 

Nevada 340 340 0 0 

New Hampshire 642 642 0 0 

New Jersey 1,368 1,146 222 25 

New Mexico 2,008 1,130 878 100 

New York 6,214 6,214 0 0 

North Carolina 13,331 9,605 3,726 424 

North Dakota 9,087 6,548 2,540 289 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 

Ohio 12,764 11,048 1,716 195 

Oklahoma 13,624 8,979 4,645 529 

Oregon 5,979 5,979 0 0 

Pennsylvania 14,138 7,962 6,176 703 

Rhode Island 150 99 51 6 

South Carolina 4,657 2,623 2,034 232 

South Dakota 11,193 3,983 7,210 821 

Tennessee 8,170 3,202 4,968 565 

Texas 55,011 55,004 7 1 

Utah 1,264 1,263 0 0 

Vermont 454 380 74 8 

Virginia 5,050 5,050 0 0 

Washington 11,555 10,003 1,552 177 

West Virginia 1,053 911 142 16 

Wisconsin 14,201 9,360 4,841 551 

Wyoming 3,721 3,117 604 69 

Puerto Rico 12,547 5,472 7,074 805 

Other Jurisdictions 1 175 32 143 16 

U.S. 439,463 319,719 119,743 13,629 

2868 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2869 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 

2870 5.3.6 Total Costs, Private Applicators 

2871 The total incremental cost of the proposed rule to private applicators is the sum of the five 

2872 components: (1) initial certification costs, (2) category certification costs, (3) costs for 

2873 noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, (4) additional labor 

2874 due to minimum age requirements, and (5) recertification costs. Table 5.3-10 presents the 

2875 compliance costs for the proposed requirements and the baseline for the states and jurisdictions 

2876 and at the national level. 

2877 Table 5.3-10. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Private Applicators. 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC 

($1,000) 

Alabama 7,795 6,359 1,435 163 

Alaska 205 198 7 1 

Arizona 1,210 1,103 109 12 

Arkansas 23,914 8,852 15,062 1,715 

California 34,682 33,100 1,581 180 

Colorado 7,560 5,670 1,890 214 

Connecticut 721 719 2 0 

Delaware 975 640 334 39 

Florida 5,895 5,002 894 102 

Georgia 23,101 7,187 15,913 1,810 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 

Hawaii 967 940 27 3 

Idaho 5,219 5,085 134 15 

Illinois 28,207 27,620 585 66 

Indiana 16,320 12,400 3,920 446 

Iowa 25,421 25,279 142 16 

Kansas 23,325 17,619 5,707 649 

Kentucky 20,820 6,329 14,491 1,649 

Louisiana 8,265 4,222 4,043 460 

Maine 1,532 1,475 56 6 

Maryland 3,606 1,915 1,693 193 

Massachusetts 2,160 2,127 33 3 

Michigan 21,085 20,836 248 28 

Minnesota 17,786 12,753 5,034 573 

Mississippi 17,634 12,659 4,976 566 

Missouri 24,122 8,836 15,286 1,740 

Montana 7,156 4,824 2,330 266 

Nebraska 24,281 14,978 9,304 1,059 

Nevada 736 721 14 2 

New Hampshire 871 854 16 2 

New Jersey 2,533 2,287 246 28 

New Mexico 3,676 2,624 1,052 120 

New York 11,877 11,601 275 32 

North Carolina 17,995 13,800 4,195 478 

North Dakota 16,521 13,009 3,513 399 

Ohio 16,438 14,160 2,278 258 

Oklahoma 23,527 18,170 5,357 610 

Oregon 7,495 7,335 160 18 

Pennsylvania 20,116 13,356 6,762 769 

Rhode Island 208 146 61 7 

South Carolina 9,147 6,814 2,333 266 

South Dakota 21,654 9,157 12,497 1,423 

Tennessee 10,828 4,023 6,805 775 

Texas 75,055 74,117 938 106 

Utah 3,071 2,972 98 11 

Vermont 746 642 105 12 

Virginia 10,445 10,209 235 26 

Washington 16,572 14,204 2,367 269 

West Virginia 1,685 1,466 219 24 

Wisconsin 21,822 16,013 5,809 661 

Wyoming 6,131 4,326 1,805 206 

Puerto Rico 18,206 10,048 8,155 928 

Other Jurisdictions 1 867 283 583 67 

U.S. 672,176 501,042 171,125 19,477

2878 Source: Summation of Tables 5.3-5 to 5.3-9. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1 2879 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 

2880 Private applicators are estimated to face incremental costs of $19.5 million dollars annually due 

2881 to changes in certification requirements. Given that there are nearly 490,000 certified private 

2882 applicators nationally, the average cost per applicator is approximately $39.80 per year. Per2883 applicator costs are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6. 

2884 Table 5.3-11 presents the incremental cost by component. Recertification costs comprise about 

2885 70 percent of the total cost because of the large number of applicators obtaining or working 

2886 toward recertification. Additional costs for initial certification requirements make up about 19 

2887 percent of the total incremental cost. The impacts of the supervision and minimum age 

2888 requirements are each estimated to be about three to four percent of the total. 

2889 Table 5.3-11. Incremental Cost, Private Certified Applicators, by Component.

Component Annualized Incremental Cost 

($1,000)

Initial Certification 3,740 

Application-Specific Categories 179 

Supervision 644 

Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 1,285 

Recertification 13,629 

Total 19,477 

2890 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

2891 5.4 Commercial Applicator Costs of the Proposed Rule 

2892 Table 5.4-1 presents the proposed requirements that affect commercial applicators. As with 

2893 private applicators, these include new certification categories, supervision requirements, and 

2894 recertification requirements. Commercial applicators would also be subject to some 

2895 recordkeeping requirements. Age restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and 

2896 applicators under their supervision. 

2897 The costs of the proposed requirements to commercial applicators are calculated using the 

2898 methodology described above for private applicators. For further details discussing the costs of 

2899 the proposed option for each line item and the proposed regulation see Appendices A and B. 

2900 Table 5.4-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting Commercial Applicators. 

Regulatory 

Requirement 

Description 

Comm Cert-01 Add commercial aerial category 

Comm Cert-04 Add commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories 

Comm Cert-05 Add commercial predator control category 

Comm Cert-06 Identification check for commercial certification 

Comm Sup-01 Commercial noncertified applicators must complete training, be handlers under the 

Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam 

Comm Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators by certified commercial applicators 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 

Comm Sup-05 Commercial noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with 

supervisors 

Comm Sup-06 Commercial applicators keep records of noncertified applicators (for two years) 

Comm Age-02 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for certified commercial applicators 

Comm Age-04 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for commercial noncertified applicators 

Comm Recert-01 Exam or 6-hour training for commercial core competency and category recertification, at 

least every three years 

Comm Recert-03 Identification check for commercial recertification (every three years, Industry cost) 

2901 There are very minor interactions between the minimum age requirements and the training 

2902 requirement for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

2903 commercial applicator, we estimate slightly higher incremental costs here. Given the presence of 

2904 adolescents currently employed in pest control operations, who are presumably paid less than 

2905 their adult counterparts, the baseline costs are slightly lower than shown in Chapter 3. Table 5.4-

2906 2 presents the national annualized incremental cost for commercial applicators to comply with 

2907 the proposed regulatory requirements. Nationally, the proposed requirements are estimated to 

2908 cost $23.6 million annually. 

2909 Table 5.4-2. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Commercial 

2910 Applicators 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RC P) 

($1,000) 

PV(RC B) 

($1,000) 

NPV(RIC) 

($1,000) 

Annualized 

RIC 

($1,000) 

Alabama 14,049 11,138 2,911 331 

Alaska 1,600 1,198 402 46 

Arizona 24,569 20,228 4,341 494 

Arkansas 9,115 5,007 4,108 468 

California 149,087 123,633 25,454 2,897 

Colorado 16,824 12,068 4,757 542 

Connecticut 11,268 9,307 1,960 223 

Delaware 9,799 8,026 1,773 202 

Florida 82,452 73,268 9,185 1,045 

Georgia 22,062 12,999 9,063 1,031 

Hawaii 4,759 3,568 1,191 136 

Idaho 22,373 20,772 1,601 181 

Illinois 30,835 27,919 2,916 332 

Indiana 48,261 44,401 3,860 439 

Iowa 22,138 21,977 161 18 

Kansas 20,727 18,236 2,491 284 

Kentucky 34,697 28,187 6,510 742 

Louisiana 11,754 9,356 2,398 273 

Maine 3,916 2,261 1,654 189 

Maryland 8,152 7,984 168 19 

Massachusetts 6,443 6,231 211 24 

Michigan 63,127 57,979 5,149 586 

Minnesota 10,808 10,608 200 23 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 

Mississippi 7,207 5,128 2,079 236 

Missouri 23,605 17,608 5,997 683 

Montana 5,203 4,444 759 86 

Nebraska 27,944 21,117 6,827 777 

Nevada 8,362 6,526 1,837 209 

New Hampshire 1,017 847 170 19 

New Jersey 12,417 10,714 1,703 194 

New Mexico 5,753 5,288 464 52 

New York 63,668 56,766 6,901 785 

North Carolina 59,159 46,577 12,582 1,432 

North Dakota 15,600 9,268 6,332 721 

Ohio 43,441 30,396 13,046 1,485 

Oklahoma 39,899 30,839 9,060 1,031 

Oregon 18,311 16,353 1,958 223 

Pennsylvania 50,179 40,698 9,481 1,079 

Rhode Island 3,112 1,882 1,230 140 

South Carolina 11,414 6,299 5,115 583 

South Dakota 6,960 6,675 285 33 

Tennessee 40,692 32,865 7,827 891 

Texas 75,362 67,987 7,375 840 

Utah 14,033 10,652 3,381 385 

Vermont 1,343 855 488 55 

Virginia 11,667 8,909 2,758 314 

Washington 54,255 39,690 14,564 1,657 

West Virginia 2,760 2,254 506 58 

Wisconsin 34,145 20,162 13,983 1,592 

Wyoming 6,538 4,746 1,792 204 

Puerto Rico 18,546 10,637 7,908 901 

Other Jurisdictions 1 4,481 2,693 1,788 203 

U.S. 1,295,884 1,055,222 240,665 27,391

2911 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

2912 California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, and 

2913 Wisconsin are estimated to see incremental costs to commercial applicators of over $1 million 

2914 annually, but this is mostly due to the large number of commercial applicators in those states. 

2915 Together, these eight states account for almost one-third of the 414,000 commercial applicators 

2916 in the United States. The overall average cost per applicator of around $66.18 per year, although 

2917 there is considerable variation across states and jurisdictions. Per-applicator costs are discussed 

2918 in more detail in Section 5.6. 

2919 Table 5.4-3 presents the incremental cost to commercial applicators by component. The costs 

2920 associated with initial certification are a function of the minimum age requirement; adolescent 

2921 applicators are presumed to cost less to certify because they have a lower opportunity cost of 

2922 time than adults. The impacts of the minimum age requirements in terms of additional labor cost 

2923 are estimated to be half of the total cost, and are a function of assumptions made about 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 

2924 uncertified applicators applying RUPs. Data are extremely limited and EPA assumes that 

2925 adolescents are typically employed for 40 hours per week for 16 weeks, which may be long for 

2926 summer employment. Further, we assume that 50 percent of the adolescent’s time is spent 

2927 handling RUPs, which is likely extremely high for youths who are probably working on golf 

2928 courses or in residential, commercial, and public areas where RUPs would rarely be used. If 

2929 only 25 percent of adolescents’ time is spent handling RUPs, the additional labor costs fall to 

2930 $6.7 million annually and the total incremental cost to commercial applicators would be 

2931 estimated at $17.1 million per year. Recertification costs and supervision costs each comprise 

2932 about 20 percent of the total incremental cost. 

2933 Table 5.4-3. Incremental Cost, Commercial Certified Applicators, by Component.

Component Annualized Incremental Cost 

($1,000)

Initial Certification 0 

Application-Specific Categories 540 

Supervision 7,269 

Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 13,082 

Recertification 6,500 

Total 27,391 

2934 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

2935 5.5 State and Governmental Agency Costs of the Proposed Rule 

2936 The costs of the proposed requirements to state and government agencies are calculated simply 

2937 as the sum of the components as there are no interactions. Table 5.5-1 presents the proposed 

2938 requirements that would affect states or other government entities. Admin-02, 03, and 04 are not 

2939 strictly proposed requirements. However, any changes EPA makes in the existing requirements 

2940 will obligate authorizing agencies to revise their plans, which must then be reviewed by EPA. 

2941 Admin-04, 05, and 06 are costs borne by EPA. Several other requirements merely codify 

2942 existing policies or label requirements (e.g., certification requirements for predator control). 

2943 Some governmental agencies employ certified applicators; thus they would bear some part of the 

2944 incremental costs to commercial applicators estimated in the previous section. 

2945 Table 5.5-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting States, Other Jurisdictions, and Federal 

2946 Agencies. 

Regulatory 

Requirement Description 

Admin-02 Revise State regulations and Update plans 

Admin-03 Submit state plans 

Admin-04 EPA review of State and Federal Agency plans 

Admin-06 Revise EPA administered tribal plans 

Comm Cert-01 Develop/Adapt commercial aerial category exam; ID check and proctor exams 

Comm Cert-04 Develop commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories; ID check and proctor 

exams 

Comm Cert-05 Commercial predator control category exam (codification) 

Private Cert-02 Develop/Adapt private certification training and/or exam 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 

Private Cert-04 Develop/Adapt private aerial category exam/training 

Private Cert-10 Develop/Adapt private soil and non-soil fumigation categories exam/training 

Private Cert-12 Private predator control category exam (codification) 

Private Cert-15 ID Check and Proctor/Administer private certification exams/trainings 

Comm Recert-03 ID Check and Proctor commercial recertification 

Private Recert-03 ID Check and Proctor private recertification 

2947 Table 5.5-2 presents the estimated costs to government entities other than EPA. The two key 

2948 components of these requirements are (1) states, territories, and other jurisdictions, along with 

2949 several federal agencies, must revise regulations and certification plans and (2) administer exams 

2950 or trainings to certify applicators, both commercial and private. Costs for the former would be 

2951 incurred immediately after the rule is finalized; EPA anticipates the process would take about 

2952 two years. The administration costs occur as the new requirements are implemented and would 

2953 be on-going. See Chapter 3 and Appendix A for details. 

2954 Table 5.5-2. Total Incremental Cost to Government Entities of Proposed Requirements 

State/Jurisdiction 

PV(RIC) Revise & 

Others1

($1,000) 

PV(RIC) 

Administer 

($1,000) 

Total Annualized 

RIC 

($1,000) 

Alabama 41 4 5 

Alaska 27 0 3 

Arizona 31 1 4 

Arkansas 50 80 15 

California 56 19 8 

Colorado 50 7 6 

Connecticut 37 0 4 

Delaware 41 1 5 

Florida 46 16 7 

Georgia 46 104 17 

Hawaii 37 0 4 

Idaho 60 3 7 

Illinois 46 0 5 

Indiana 46 9 6 

Iowa 37 16 6 

Kansas 60 29 10 

Kentucky 37 148 21 

Louisiana 56 6 7 

Maine 37 1 4 

Maryland 37 3 4 

Massachusetts 37 1 4 

Michigan 46 6 6 

Minnesota 37 16 6 

Mississippi 46 8 6 

Missouri 50 95 16 

Montana 27 13 5 

Nebraska 46 16 7 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 

Nevada 31 0 4 

New Hampshire 37 0 4 

New Jersey 37 1 4 

New Mexico 41 2 5 

New York 37 5 5 

North Carolina 50 12 7 

North Dakota 37 8 5 

Ohio 27 11 4 

Oklahoma 50 35 10 

Oregon 50 4 6 

Pennsylvania 27 13 5 

Rhode Island 37 0 4 

South Carolina 37 5 5 

South Dakota 50 117 19 

Tennessee 50 30 9 

Texas 46 31 9 

Utah 27 1 3 

Vermont 37 0 4 

Virginia 37 5 5 

Washington 50 11 7 

West Virginia 41 1 5 

Wisconsin 37 10 5 

Wyoming 37 16 6 

Puerto Rico 31 12 5 

Other Jurisdictions 83 0 9 

Federal Agencies 19 0 2 

U.S. 2,202 936 359 

2955 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

1

Includes all requirements in Table 5.5-1 except Private Cert-15, Comm Recert-03, and Private Recert-03 

2956 The annualized cost to government entities including EPA, assuming a three percent discount 

2957 rate, is estimated to be about $359,000. As shown in Table 5.5-2, Column 2, revisions to state 

2958 plans and certification programs, including development of new application-specific categories, 

2959 is likely to cost about $2.2 million over the first two years after the rule is finalized. The cost per 

2960 governmental entity is around $36,700, with a dozen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

2961 Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, 

2962 Tennessee, and Washington) facing costs of around $50,000-60,000 because they must develop 

2963 multiple new categories. Costs for administering the certification program under the proposed 

2964 requirements (Column 3) would most affect the seven states that currently certify private 

2965 applicators by training. This may overstate costs. The new required content is anticipated to 

2966 take about 12 hours of training, but some of these states currently offer an option for exam. 

2967 Incremental costs are estimated assuming that the states continue to offer training and the 

2968 applicators continue to choose training instead of exam. State costs could be lower if more 

2969 applicators opt for exams as the state would not need to provide trainers for as many sessions. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 

2970 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (P.L. 104-4) requires Federal 

2971 agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments 

2972 and the private sector. In general, Title II mandates especially rigorous economic analysis for 

2973 rules imposing high costs on either the public or the private sector, and it directs energetic 

2974 consultation with small governments prior to actions that may significantly or uniquely affect 

2975 them. Under UMRA, an agency must generally prepare a written statement, including a benefit2976 cost analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in 

2977 expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

2978 $100 million or more in any one year. This proposal does not result in expenditures of this 

2979 amount, but EPA has prepared this benefit-cost analysis to better inform the Agency’s decision2980 making process. 

2981 5.6 Impact on Employment 

2982 Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job 

2983 creation and employment. Labor is an important input into production and changes in the cost of 

2984 labor may induce farms and firms to adjust employment levels. If farms and commercial 

2985 pesticide services bear the cost of changes in certification requirement, by, for example, paying 

2986 for training or allowing employees to prepare for exams during working hours, there would be an 

2987 increase in the cost of employing a certified applicator and, potentially, a reduction in the 

2988 demand for certified applicators. On the other hand, if the applicator bears the cost of changes in 

2989 certification requirements, because training and exams are taken outside working hours as a 

2990 means of increasing skills and employment opportunities, increased costs of obtaining and 

2991 retaining certification may lead to a reduction in the supply of certified applicators. 

2992 Thus, an important consideration is the impact the revisions to the Certification requirements 

2993 have on employment. The magnitude of the incremental per-applicator cost, relative to the cost 

2994 of employment or return to employment, provides a measure by which EPA can judge the 

2995 impacts on jobs. Tables 5.6-1 and 5.6-2 present the estimated annual cost for private and 

2996 commercial applicators for each state (from Tables 5.3-10 and 5.4-2), the total number of 

2997 applicators, and the average cost per applicator. 

2998 Table 5.6-1. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Private Applicators. 

Jurisdiction

Annualized RIC, 

Private 

($1,000) 

Number of Private 

Applicators 

Cost per Private 

Applicator 

Alabama 163 5,963 $ 27.34 

Alaska 1 89 $ 11.24 

Arizona 12 473 $ 25.39 

Arkansas 1,715 20,997 $ 81.68 

California 180 18,601 $ 9.68 

Colorado 214 6,049 $ 35.38 

Connecticut 0 564 $ -. 

Delaware 39 746 $ 52.26 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 

Florida 102 4,044 $ 25.22 

Georgia 1,810 19,679 $ 91.98 

Hawaii 3 444 $ 6.75 

Idaho 15 3,613 $ 4.15 

Illinois 66 17,297 $ 3.82 

Indiana 446 13,004 $ 34.30 

Iowa 16 22,977 $ 0.70 

Kansas 649 14,939 $ 43.44 

Kentucky 1,649 13,304 $123.95 

Louisiana 460 7,616 $ 60.40 

Maine 6 1,175 $ 5.11 

Maryland 193 3,320 $ 58.13 

Massachusetts 3 1,130 $ 2.66 

Michigan 28 7,662 $ 3.65 

Minnesota 573 17,359 $ 33.01 

Mississippi 566 10,941 $ 51.73 

Missouri 1,740 21,127 $ 82.36 

Montana 266 6,291 $ 42.28 

Nebraska 1,059 21,818 $ 48.54 

Nevada 2 296 $ 6.75 

New Hampshire 2 502 $ 3.99 

New Jersey 28 1,768 $ 15.84 

New Mexico 120 2,702 $ 44.41 

New York 32 7,051 $ 4.54 

North Carolina 478 16,251 $ 29.41 

North Dakota 399 11,680 $ 34.16 

Ohio 258 14,803 $ 17.43 

Oklahoma 610 13,858 $ 44.02 

Oregon 18 4,278 $ 4.21 

Pennsylvania 769 18,107 $ 42.47 

Rhode Island 7 186 $ 37.57 

South Carolina 266 6,477 $ 41.07 

South Dakota 1,423 16,694 $ 85.24 

Tennessee 775 10,927 $ 70.93 

Texas 106 43,201 $ 2.45 

Utah 11 1,663 $ 6.61 

Vermont 12 562 $ 21.35 

Virginia 26 6,395 $ 4.07 

Washington 269 13,817 $ 19.47 

West Virginia 24 1,277 $ 18.79 

Wisconsin 661 13,886 $ 47.60 

Wyoming 206 4,655 $ 44.26 

Puerto Rico 928 16,728 $ 55.48 

Other 67 333 $201.00 

U.S. 19,477 489,317 $39.80
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 

2999 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 

3000 The average cost per private applicator across the United States is estimated to be about $39.80 

3001 per year (Table 5.6-1). There is substantial variation across states, however. Average 

3002 incremental cost per applicator is estimated to be less than $10 per year in 17 states while 

3003 applicators in five states – Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, and South Dakota – are 

3004 expected to bear incremental cost of over $80 per year. The estimated cost to applicators in other 

3005 jurisdictions such as tribes and Pacific Islands are estimated to be $195 per year, but this is an 

3006 artifact due to lack of specific information about current certification requirements in these 

3007 territories. EPA assumed that these jurisdictions maintained the minimum standards in all 

3008 components for the certification of private applicators. 

3009 The average cost per applicator can be influenced by the turnover in applicators. For example, 

3010 Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee have very similar requirements for certification and 

3011 recertification, but the average per-applicator cost in Kentucky is higher because they have a 

3012 higher proportion of first-time applicators obtaining certification, who face much higher 

3013 incremental costs than do applicators obtaining recertification. Compared to current state 

3014 requirements, the proposed certification requirements would increase the cost of initial 

3015 certification in those states by about $400. Two things should be noted. Initial certification is a 

3016 one-time cost, not an annual cost, and this increase in cost largely brings the cost of certification 

3017 in these states in line with the cost to applicators in other states. 

3018 As to the impact on jobs, it is important to note that most private applicators are self-employed as 

3019 the owner or operator of a farm or livestock operation. Some operations, however, would 

3020 employ a pesticide applicator and he or she may need to be certified. A closer examination of 

3021 the incremental costs to Kentucky applicators may be revealing. As an example, consider a farm 

3022 in Kentucky that may need to use a RUP and therefore needs to have a certified private 

3023 applicator. Let us assume that there is a 20 percent chance over a ten-year time horizon that an 

3024 initial certification is needed while 80 percent of the time the holder may need recertification. 

3025 This represents the likelihood of turnover in employees, where newly certified applicators in 

3026 Kentucky make up nearly 20 percent of the total number of applicators. For a farm that does not 

3027 need certification in one of the new application-specific categories, the incremental costs are 

3028 estimated to be about $108 per year. The additional cost in the year an initial certification is 

3029 required would be about $400, but maintaining the certification in Kentucky would cost about 

3030 $54 per year more than is currently the situation. If an application-specific certification is 

3031 needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumigating grain in storage, the cost of a certified 

3032 applicator is estimated to be about $128 per year. According to wage data from BLS (2014a), a 

3033 private applicator earns about $38.83 per hour and costs the employer about $51.96 per hour, 

3034 including non-monetary benefits. Employing an applicator 40 hours per week for a six-month 

3035 growing season would therefore cost about $54,000. An incremental change in certification 

3036 costs of $130 represents about 0.25 percent of the cost of employing the applicator, which is 

3037 unlikely to affect the employment decision. For the applicator, a 40-hour week for six months 

3038 implies a take-home pay of just over $18,600. The increased cost of changes in certification and 

3039 recertification requirements represents less than one percent of the likely returns to a typical 

3040 salary for a certified applicator. Given this analysis, EPA concludes that the revisions to the 

3041 Certification requirements would not negatively impact employment for private applicators. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 

3042 Table 5.6-2. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Commercial Applicators. 

Jurisdiction

Annualized RIC, 

Commercial 

($1,000)

Number of 

Commercial 

Applicators 

Cost per 

Commercial 

Applicator 

Alabama 331 4,102 $ 80.70 

Alaska 46 665 $ 69.17 

Arizona 494 7,105 $ 69.53 

Arkansas 468 4,332 $ 108.04 

California 2,897 36,236 $ 79.95 

Colorado 542 3,899 $ 139.00 

Connecticut 223 2,810 $ 79.36 

Delaware 202 1,967 $ 102.71 

Florida 1,045 17,005 $ 61.45 

Georgia 1,031 11,178 $ 92.23 

Hawaii 136 1,267 $ 107.34 

Idaho 181 4,001 $ 45.24 

Illinois 332 15,330 $ 21.66 

Indiana 439 10,125 $ 43.36 

Iowa 18 13,401 $ 1.34 

Kansas 284 6,023 $ 47.15 

Kentucky 742 12,929 $ 57.39 

Louisiana 273 4,498 $ 60.69 

Maine 189 1,613 $ 117.17 

Maryland 19 4,556 $ 4.17 

Massachusetts 24 2,187 $ 10.97 

Michigan 586 14,816 $ 39.55 

Minnesota 23 10,225 $ 2.25 

Mississippi 236 3,045 $ 77.50 

Missouri 683 7,647 $ 89.31 

Montana 86 2,411 $ 35.67 

Nebraska 777 9,711 $ 80.01 

Nevada 209 1,691 $ 123.62 

New Hampshire 19 1,262 $ 15.05 

New Jersey 194 9,037 $ 21.47 

New Mexico 52 2,377 $ 21.88 

New York 785 18,904 $ 41.53 

North Carolina 1,432 18,373 $ 77.94 

North Dakota 721 5,316 $ 135.62 

Ohio 1,485 12,968 $ 114.51 

Oklahoma 1,031 10,539 $ 97.82 

Oregon 223 4,873 $ 45.76 

Pennsylvania 1,079 16,127 $ 66.91 

Rhode Island 140 659 $ 212.34 

South Carolina 583 5,762 $ 101.19 

South Dakota 33 5,757 $ 5.73 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 

Tennessee 891 14,378 $ 61.97 

Texas 840 19,194 $ 43.76 

Utah 385 4,318 $ 89.16 

Vermont 55 994 $ 55.36 

Virginia 314 7,484 $ 41.96 

Washington 1,657 15,713 $ 105.46 

West Virginia 58 1,987 $ 29.18 

Wisconsin 1,592 12,909 $ 123.32 

Wyoming 204 1,910 $ 106.81 

Puerto Rico 901 5,889 $ 153.01 

Other 203 2376.5 $ 85.42 

U.S. 27,391 413,879 $66.18 

3043 As shown in Table 5.6-2, we estimate the average incremental cost per applicator for commercial 

3044 certification to be about $62 per year, ranging from $1.34 in Iowa to about $212 per year in 

3045 Rhode Island. Eight states are expected to see incremental costs of over $100 per year. Note, 

3046 however, that this cost includes the cost of supervising noncertified applicators, which would not 

3047 be a consideration in an employer’s decision to hire a certified applicator. Absent supervision 

3048 costs, the incremental cost per applicator is $100 in or less in all jurisdictions, even accounting 

3049 for the possibility of obtaining certification in one of the new, application specific categories. 

3050 The unloaded wage rate for commercial applicators is $14.82 per hour while the loaded wage 

3051 rate is $21.49 per hour, according to BLS data (2014a). Even assuming part-time employment of 

3052 about six to eight months, a commercial applicator would cost an employer around $22,300 to 

3053 $29,200 per year. An incremental cost of $100 per year due to the rule would be 0.3 to 0.5 

3054 percent of employment costs. The applicator’s take-home pay would range from $7,700 to 

3055 $12,450 for six to eight months and an incremental cost of $100 per year would represent 0.8 to 

3056 1.3 percent of his or her salary. It is unlikely that such modest changes would impact 

3057 employment. 

3058 5.7 Potential Impacts on Small Businesses 

3059 This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the requirements for the 

3060 certification of pesticide applicators may have on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

3061 (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

3062 (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, 

3063 including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments. In some instances, when 

3064 significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, agencies are 

3065 also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic effects on 

3066 significantly impacted small entities. 

3067 The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 

3068 economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 

3069 incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual revenue as significant, costs less 

3070 than one percent of annual revenue as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of 

3071 revenue as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual revenue, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 

3072 EPA considers both the number of significantly affected small firms and their proportion of all 

3073 affected small firms to determine if a substantial number of small firms would be impacted. 

3074 Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we set the following 

3075 thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial” for impacts 

3076 greater than one percent of annual sales: 

3077  Fewer than 100 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 

3078 than 30 percent of all small entities; 

3079  Between 100 and 1,000 small entities may be affected, provided the number 

3080 represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or 

3081  More than 1000 small entities may be affected, but the number represents less than 

3082 ten percent of all small entities. 

3083 If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, or if impacts cannot be quantified, the thresholds 

3084 at which EPA concludes a substantial number of small entities would not be affected are as 

3085 follows: 

3086  Fewer than 100 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 

3087 than 20 percent of all small entities; 

3088  Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than ten percent of all 

3089 small entities; or 

3090  More than 1000 small entities may be affected, but the number represents less than 

3091 five percent of all small entities. 

3092 For firms employing commercial applicators, we utilize lower thresholds for the number of 

3093 impacted small entities considered substantial because there are fewer firms than there are farms. 

3094 For impacts greater than one percent of gross revenues, the number of impacted entities is not 

3095 considered substantial if: 

3096  Fewer than 20 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 

3097 than 30 percent of all small entities; 

3098  Between 20 and 200 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents 

3099 less than 20 percent of all small entities; or 

3100  Between 200 and 1000 small entities may be affected, provided the number 

3101 represents less than ten percent of all small entities. 

3102 To determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized incremental costs on 

3103 a per-company basis is compared to the annual revenue for small businesses to develop cost-to3104 sales ratios. 

3105 In the next section, we explain the methodology for estimating the average cost per entity of the 

3106 proposed rule. Section 5.7.2 estimates the per-entity cost for small businesses (farm) employing 

3107 or operated by private applicators. We also present a profile of the affected industry, including 

3108 estimates of per-entity revenues and calculate the impacts. In Section 5.7.3, we present the same 

3109 information for small business employing commercial applicators. 

3110 Based on this analysis, EPA certifies that there would not be a significant impact to a substantial 

3111 number of small businesses. Agricultural establishments may be owned or operated by private 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 

3112 certified applicators or may employ private certified applicators. Average impacts to small crop 

3113 producing enterprises, those making less than $750,000 in annual sales of agricultural products, 

3114 are estimated to be around 0.1 percent of annual sales. Even in the most heavily impacted 

3115 regions, the estimated impacts on most small agricultural operations are less than one percent of 

3116 average annual sales. Small entities with commercial applicators, including agricultural 

3117 pesticide services, extermination services, and landscaping services, are estimated to face 

3118 impacts of 0.2 percent or less of annual revenue. 

3119 5.7.1 Methodology 

3120 The basis for this analysis is the results from Section 5.6, cost per applicator. The methodology 

3121 requires the determination of the number of applicators (certified and noncertified applicators 

3122 under the direct supervision) for representative entities, and the impacts are measured in terms of 

3123 the incremental cost to small entities relative to their sales revenues. 

3124 5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments 

3125 Private applicators are largely employed by or operate establishments in agricultural production. 

3126 EPA has identified a number of specific types of establishments. The SBA specifies a revenue 

3127 threshold to distinguish small entities, as shown in Table 5.7-1. 

3128 Table 5.7-1. Private Applicator Establishment NAICS Codes with Small Business 

3129 Thresholds (Annual Revenue) 

Farming Sector NAICS Code Large Business 

Threshold 

Crop Farming 111 $750,000 

Animal Farming 112 $750,000 

Feedlots 112112 $7,500,000 

3130 Source: SBA, 2014 

3131 Impacts could differ across these types given different pest problems and, therefore, different 

3132 certification needs. Within crop farming, producers of field crops such as soybean and grain 

3133 farmers, for example, may require an aerial certification and/or a certification for commodity 

3134 (non-soil) fumigation. Nut, fruit, and vegetable farms may need a soil fumigation certification. 

3135 While many farms produce multiple types of crops, generally speaking, a small farm would be 

3136 unlikely to need more than one application-specific certification. The proposed rule would 

3137 impose similar training or exam requirements for each category certification. Impacts on 

3138 individuals and individual entities are more likely to be a function of the state or region, given 

3139 the variability in current certification requirements. 

3140 Profile of Private Applicator Establishments 

3141 The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the Department of Agriculture conducts a 

3142 census of agriculture every five years. A farm is defined as “any place from which $1,000 or 

3143 more of agricultural product were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold, during 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 

3144 the year of the census (NASS, 2014c).” According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 

3145 2014c), there are over 2.1 million farms in the United States, including about 430,000 places 

3146 with less than $1,000 in total sales of agricultural products. Excluding the latter places, which do 

3147 not strictly meet the definition of ‘farm’ and, moreover, are extremely unlikely to utilize RUPs, 

3148 there are between 1.5 and 1.6 million farms classified as small by the SBA criterion. The 

3149 publicly available Census data reports that about 76,000 farms have annual revenue between 

3150 $500,000 and $999,999, whereas the SBA criterion for a small farm is sales less than $750,000. 

3151 We therefore have a range for farms and average revenue. Revenue includes sales of agricultural 

3152 products and government payments, but does not include farm-related income, such as crop and 

3153 livestock insurance payments, rental income, and income from agricultural services. 

3154 To better understand the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA identifies 

3155 three categories of small farms. We define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales 

3156 between $1,000 and $10,000, medium-small farms as those with annual sales between $10,000 

3157 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. 

3158 Table 5.7-2 provides the distribution of small crop and animal farms across these various 

3159 categories. The table also provides similar data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 

3160 2008b), for which a special tabulation distinguished farms with annual revenue of $750,000 or 

3161 less. The number of small farms and average revenues for each category are consistent over 

3162 time. 

3163 Table 5.7-2. Number and Average Revenue of Small Farms. 

All Small 

Farms 1

Small-Small 

($1,000 - 

$10,000/year) 

MediumSmall 

($10,000 - 

$100,000/year)

LargeSmall 

($100,000 - 

$750,000/year)

2012, Number of Farms 1,521,271-

1,598,833 716,505 567,438 237,328-314,890 

 Average Revenue $52,775-

$85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948-$359,877 

2007, Number of Farms 1,622,838 771,855 566,898 284,085 

 Average Revenue $67,093 $4,072 $34,182 $301,182 

3164 Source: USDA NASS, 2008b and 2014c. 

1 3165 The criterion for small farm is that sales are less than $750,000 per year. The lower bound is for 

3166 farms with sales less than $500,000 and the upper bound includes farms with sales less than 

3167 $1,000,000. Does not include operations with less than $1,000 in total sales. 

3168 Not all farms utilize pesticides every year, however; thus some farms may not need a private 

3169 applicator. EPA obtained a special tabulation of data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture to 

3170 identify those farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2008b). The likelihood that a farm will use 

3171 pesticides is inversely related to size; around eighty percent of large and large-small farms use 

3172 pesticides while only about 25 percent of small-small farms use pesticides. Overall, about 53 

3173 percent of small farms used pesticides in 2007. Assuming a similar proportion used pesticides in 

3174 2012, about 820,000 small farms might be affected by this rule. Use of RUPs will be even 

3175 lower. According to proprietary market data, RUPs account for less than 20 percent of pesticide 

3176 treatments, by acreage. Data of use by farm is not available, however. Many farms, even small 

3177 farms, use pesticides occasionally and may, therefore, obtain and maintain certification in order 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 

3178 to have the capacity to use a RUP if needed. Thus, EPA assumes that most small farms would be 

3179 affected by changes to the certification requirements at some point. 

3180 Costs per Small Entity, Private Applicators 

3181 In Section 5.6, EPA estimated the total incremental cost to private applicators of changes in the 

3182 Certification requirements would average $38.50 per private applicator per year. This includes 

3183 the costs associated with requirements for certification, recertification, and for noncertified 

3184 applicators under the direct supervision of the certified applicator. This cost per private 

3185 applicator is also a reasonable estimate of the cost per small entity, as it would represent the 

3186 owner/operator of a small farm or animal operation who may, at least occasionally, employ or 

3187 use a family member to apply a pesticide under his or her supervision. See Table 5.6-1. 

3188 We also considered, in more detail, a farm in Kentucky, which has the highest average estimated 

3189 cost per applicator, that may need to use a RUP and therefore needs to employ a certified private 

3190 applicator. A similar scenario could describe a small farm where the owner or operator is the 

3191 certified applicator, but turnover in ownership is likely to be much lower than the 20 percent 

3192 assumed for the employment scenario. A ten percent likelihood of obtaining an initial 

3193 certification is still highly conservative, given that a generation may be 20 to 30 years. For a 

3194 farm that does not need certification in one of the new application-specific categories, the 

3195 incremental costs are estimated to be about $102 per year. If an application-specific certification 

3196 is needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumigating grain in storage, the cost of a certified 

3197 applicator is estimated to be about $157 per year. If the farm also has someone noncertified, 

3198 whether a family member or employee, who applies RUPs under the direct supervision of the 

3199 owner/operator, the incremental cost for training and other supervisory requirements are 

3200 expected to cost another $20 per year. Note that the overall average cost per private applicator in 

3201 Kentucky was estimated to be $125 per year. 

3202 Impacts per Small Entity, Private Applicators 

3203 Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small farms and the revenues of these farms, 

3204 EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of annual sales revenue. Results are shown in Table 

3205 5.7-3. Note that it is highly unlikely that a small-small operation would need to obtain 

3206 certification in one of the new application-specific categories (aerial application or non-soil 

3207 fumigation) or rely on a noncertified applicator. A medium-small operation may have someone 

3208 noncertified, likely a family member, apply a RUP under the direct supervision of the 

3209 owner/operator. A large-small operation is more likely to have someone noncertified working 

3210 under the direct supervision of the certified applicator and could need certification in non-soil 

3211 fumigation for on-farm grain storage. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 

3212 Table 5.7-3. Impact per Small Entity, Private Applicator. 

All Small 

Farms Small-Small MediumSmall 

LargeSmall 

Type, Level of Impact $52,775-

$85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948-$359,877 

Average Impact; $38/year 0.04-0.07% 0.91% 0.11% 0.01-0.02% 

Kentucky, no application 

category or applicator UTS; 

$102/year 

0.12-0.19% 2.44% 0.29% 0.03-0.04% 

Kentucky, no application 

category, applicator UTS; 

$121/year 

0.14-0.23% n/a 0.35% 0.03-0.05% 

Kentucky, new application 

category, no applicator 

UTS; $157/year 

0.18-0.30% n/a n/a 0.04-0.06% 

Kentucky, new application 

category, applicator UTS; 

$178/year 

0.21-0.34% n/a n/a 0.05-0.07% 

3213 Source: EPA calculations. 

3214 As shown in Table 5.7-3, the impact on the average small crop farm would range from 0.04 to 

3215 0.34 percent of average revenue, even for very high impacts. The average impact of $38 would 

3216 exceed three percent of revenue for very small farms making $1,250 or less per year. High 

3217 impacts, which could occur in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, states that currently require 

3218 only two hours of training for initial certification, would be greater than one percent of sales 

3219 revenue for only the smallest types of enterprises, i.e., those with revenues averaging less than 

3220 $4,200 per year. 

3221 According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c), there are 236,500 farms with 

3222 revenues of $1,000 to $2,500 per year or less, averaging about $1,660 annually. Assuming a 

3223 uniform distribution of farms within this range, about 39,400 farms would have revenues of less 

3224 than $1,250 per year. A conservative estimate for the proportion of farms using pesticides, based 

3225 on farms with revenue up to $10,000 per year, would be 25 percent (NASS, 2008b), or fewer 

3226 than 10,000 farms. Of those, perhaps 20 percent would use RUPs, based on the percent of acres 

3227 treated, or about 2,000 farms. In the high-impact states of Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 

3228 there are another 23,500 farms with annual revenue of $2,500 to $5,000, a range where impacts 

3229 could be over two percent of annual revenue. Of those, an estimated 1,200 might use RUPs. In 

3230 total, around 3,200 farms many face impacts of two percent or more of annual revenue. These 

3231 farms comprise less than one-fourth of one percent of all small farms and about 0.4 percent of all 

3232 small farms that use pesticides, which may be affected by the rule. 

3233 In the case of the high-impact states, most of the impact is a result of increased requirements for 

3234 initial certification. It should be noted that private applicators in other states are currently 

3235 obtaining certifications under requirements very similar to those proposed. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 

3236 An additional factor to consider is that EPA has proposed changes to the Worker Protection 

3237 Standard (WPS), which sets requirements that agricultural establishments hiring labor must meet 

3238 when pesticides are used on the establishment. Hired labor are persons outside the immediate 

3239 family who receive compensation for their work. The WPS imposes requirements include 

3240 providing pesticide safety training for employees that will be entering treated fields and notifying 

3241 employees when applications have been made so that they can take proper precautions. A subset 

3242 of the farms using RUPs, who are impacted by revisions to the certification requirements, will 

3243 also employ workers and will also be impacted by revisions to the WPS. 

3244 EPA estimated that, on average, small farms would face costs of about $125 to $140 per year 

3245 from proposed changes to the requirements of the WPS. These costs would essentially be 

3246 additive to the estimated costs of changes to the certification requirements for farms that have a 

3247 certified applicator and hire labor to work in the field. When considering the two proposals 

3248 together, the focus remains on the small-small farms. Because smaller farms generally employ 

3249 fewer workers, the impacts of changes in the WPS are also smaller. EPA estimates that the 

3250 proposed changes to the WPS would cost small-small farms between $65 and $80 per year, 

3251 implying that the average small-small farm affected by both proposals would face combined 

3252 incremental costs of about $120 per year and our example establishment in Kentucky would have 

3253 combined costs of around $180 per year with impacts of around three to four percent of gross 

3254 revenues from farm products. 

3255 The number of small-small farms affected by both rules is likely to be small. According to data 

3256 from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were about 316,000 small-small 

3257 farms that used any kind of pesticide. Of those, fewer than 60,000 farms also employed labor, or 

3258 less than 20 percent, and might bear some impacts from proposed changes to the WPS. If, as 

3259 above, about 20 percent of farms using pesticides use RUPs and rely on a certified applicator, 

3260 then perhaps around 12,000 small-small farms in the U.S. might face impacts from changes to 

3261 both the WPS and to the certification requirements. This is around 0.8 percent of all small farms 

3262 in the U.S. and less than four percent of small-small farms that use pesticides. 

3263 5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments 

3264 Commercial pesticide applicators are employed by businesses that service a broad array of 

3265 activities, including agricultural sites, urban and residential sites, and industrial sites. The Small 

3266 Business Administration (SBA) uses a variety of criteria in sizing commercial applicator 

3267 establishments depending on a firm’s primary industry (as classified by its NAICS code). The 

3268 relevant criterion for small business designation may include revenue or the number of 

3269 employees. 

3270 Table 5.7-4 presents the SBA large-business thresholds, by NAICS code, used to determine the 

3271 size of each firm in the commercial applicator establishment portion of the small business impact 

3272 analysis. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 

3273 Table 5.7-4. Commercial Applicator Establishment Small Business Thresholds 

NAICS Code NAICS Sector Description Sizing Criterion Small Business 

Threshold 

115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and 

Cultivating Revenue $7,500,000 

115210 Support Activities for Animal 

Production Revenue $7,500,000 

221121 Electric Bulk Power 

Transmission and Control Employees 1,000 

221210 Natural Gas Distribution Employees 500 

221310 Water Supply and Irrigation 

Systems Revenue $27,500,000 

221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities Revenue $20,500,000 

321114 Wood Preservation Employees 500 

325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing Employees 500 

424690 Other Chemical and Allied 

Products Merchant Wholesalers Employees 100 

424910 Farm Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers Employees 100 

561710 Exterminating and Pest Control 

Services Revenue $11,000,000 

561730 Landscaping Services Revenue $7,500,000 

3274 Source: SBA, 2014. 

3275 Existing category certifications cover different sites. In addition to agricultural certifications, 

3276 there are categories, such as rights-of-way, which is relevant to power transmission industries; 

3277 aquatic sites, which is relevant to water supply and irrigation systems and other activities; and 

3278 ornamental/turf sites, which would be required for landscaping services. The new certification 

3279 categories are more application focused and would be required by different types of services. 

3280 For example, power transmission systems may need to hire applicators with aerial certification to 

3281 reach some of their rights-of-way and exterminators would likely need certification in structural 

3282 fumigation. 

3283 Profile of Commercial Applicator Establishments 

3284 For this analysis, EPA focuses on entities providing pest control services, rather than the broader 

3285 array of entities that may require pest control services. In particular, we narrow the analysis to 

3286 Agricultural Pesticide Services, within NAICS codes 115112 and 115210, Exterminating and 

3287 Pest Control Services (561710), and Landscaping Services (561730). Table 5.7-5 presents the 

3288 number of small establishments and financial and employee information, based on information 

3289 obtained from the Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) database of U.S. commercial establishments. 

3290 Compared to the small business size thresholds of the Small Business Administration, which 

3291 range from $7.5 million to $11 million annually, the average annual revenues shown here would 

3292 seem to represent some of the smallest of the small firms. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 

3293 Table 5.7-5. Size Distribution of Establishments that Employ Commercial Applicators 

Entity Number of small 

establishments Average Revenue Average Number of Employees 

Agricultural 

Pesticide Services 17,562 $139,000 3 

Exterminating and 

Pest Control 

Services 

25,179 $178,000 4 

Landscaping 

Services 95,466 $159,000 4 

Total 138,297 $159,816 4 

3294 Source: Dun and Bradstreet (2010) 

3295 Costs per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators 

3296 In Section 5.4, EPA estimated the total incremental cost of the proposed rule to commercial 

3297 applicators to be $25.6 million annually. The rule would impact an estimated 414,000 

3298 commercial applicators for a per-applicator cost of $61.73 per year. This includes the costs 

3299 associated with requirements on noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of the 

3300 certified applicator, assuming that most certified applicators supervise two or three others. 

3301 Per-applicator incremental costs vary across the different states and jurisdictions of the country, 

3302 depending on the baseline certification and recertification requirements of the jurisdiction, 

3303 including category certifications. See Table 5.6-2 for estimates of the total incremental cost, 

3304 number of commercial certified applicators, and average per-applicator cost, by region. Costs 

3305 range from essentially zero in Iowa, where the current state requirements meet or exceed the 

3306 proposed federal requirements and noncertified applicators are not allowed to apply RUPs, to 

3307 $211 per year in Rhode Island, which does not currently have an aerial certification category and 

3308 where EPA estimates that there are about five noncertified applicators for every certified 

3309 applicator. As explained in Chapter 3, the number of noncertified applicators is subject to 

3310 considerable uncertainty. In the case of Rhode Island, the number of noncertified applicators is 

3311 estimated by taking BLS employment figures for those involved in ‘pest control’ and subtracting 

3312 the number of certified commercial applicators. 

3313 Given the average number of employees shown in Table 5.7-5, small entities providing pesticide 

3314 application services could have one to two certified applicators, including the owner of the 

3315 service, with two to three noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. Thus, 

3316 EPA anticipates the cost to be $62 to $123 per year for the average small entity and from $98 to 

3317 $188 for a small entity in a state such as Rhode Island. These estimates include the costs of 

3318 supervision, but for two noncertified applicators under their direct supervision in Rhode Island 

3319 rather than the average estimate of five. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 

3320 Impacts per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators 

3321 Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small firms and the revenues of these firms, 

3322 EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of annual revenue. Results are shown in Table 5.7-6. 

3323 Table 5.7-6. Impact per Small Entity, Commercial Applicator. 

Entity Average Revenue Average Impact 

($62-123/year) 

High Impact 

($188/year)

Agricultural Pesticide 

Services $139,000 0.04-0.09% 0.14% 

Exterminating and Pest 

Control Services $178,000 0.03-0.07% 0.11% 

Landscaping Services $159,000 0.04-0.08% 0.12% 

3324 Source: EPA calculations. 

3325 The impacts to commercial pesticide application services are estimated to be less than one 

3326 percent of average revenues for both the average and high cost scenarios. For impacts to exceed 

3327 even one percent of annual revenue, the enterprise would have to make less than $12,000 to 

3328 $18,000 per year. A firm of that size would likely consist of a single applicator, in which case 

3329 the expected cost of the proposal would be around $30 per year, well under one percent of annual 

3330 revenue. 

3331 5.7.3 Conclusion 

3332 On the basis of this analysis, EPA concludes that there would not be a significant impact to a 

3333 substantial number of small entities. For private applicators, average impacts of the rule 

3334 represent less than one percent of annual sales revenue for the average small farm and even to 

3335 small-small farms with sales of less than $10,000. Impacts to the smallest farms, especially in 

3336 high-impact states, could exceed two percent of annual sales revenue but the number of farms 

3337 facing such impacts is small relative to the number of small farms affected by the rule. 

3338 For commercial applicators, average impacts of the rule represent less than 0.1 percent of annual 

3339 revenue for the average small firm. The impacts are expected to be around 0.1 percent of annual 

3340 revenue even for the high cost scenarios. This is well below the one percent threshold that EPA 

3341 set for significant impact. 

3342 

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

1 

3344 Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule 

3345 

3346 Certification standards for applicators ensure that certified applicators are competent in the use 

3347 of restricted use pesticides. The key goals of the proposed changes are to: improve the 

3348 competency of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides; implement better protections for 

3349 noncertified applicators who apply restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a 

3350 certified applicator; and reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment from the 

3351 use of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Competent applicators possess the skills and knowledge 

3352 necessary to apply pesticides properly to avoid unintended exposures to people and the 

3353 environment. 

3354 

3355 EPA anticipates that the proposed changes would produce benefits to the applicator, the public, 

3356 and the environment. The proposed rule changes would ensure that certified applicators are 

3357 competent in the application of restricted use pesticides, and that noncertified applicators 

3358 working under the direct supervision of certified applicators are well supervised and protected. 

3359 When used in accordance with label restrictions, RUPs can be safely applied; however, if the 

3360 applicators are not competent, then RUPs have the potential to pose unreasonable risks of 

3361 damage to humans, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, non-target animals, plants, and surface 

3362 water. Ensuring that applicators are competent would prevent these unwarranted exposures. 

3363 

3364 The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to certified 

3365 applicators, their families and employees, and the public at large. Chapter 2 provided a summary 

3366 of the individual proposals considered by the Agency in developing this rule, while the preamble 

3367 to the proposed rule describes in detail the proposed requirements. 

3368 

3369 

3370 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified? 

3371 

3372 EPA expects the proposed changes would result in benefits by reduced exposure to RUPs. 

3373 However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This section 

3374 provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced acute 

3375 occupational exposures) and those that cannot. 

3376 

3377 Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by: 

3378  avoiding RUP incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to certified applicators, 

3379 noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, 

3380 and others, such as farmworkers or bystanders who could be exposed to RUPs. 

3381  avoiding non-occupational incidents by reducing exposures to the public. 

3382  reducing chronic pesticide exposure to certified applicators and their families. 

3383 

3384 Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 

3385 have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these only represent a portion of 

3386 the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 

3387 as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

3388 adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to 

3389 appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 

3390 the benefit estimates in this chapter. 

3391 

3392 Effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families are unlikely to be recorded. If they are 

3393 reported, they may enter the database with uncertain causes, with little confidence that the 

3394 incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify improvements 

3395 in health from reduced pesticide exposure. These potential health benefits, which include those 

3396 related to chronic pesticide exposure, and the effects of residues transported home, are described 

3397 but cannot be quantified. 

3398 

3399 In addition to the harm to human health, misuse of RUPs has the potential to harm the 

3400 environment, causing damage to non-target animals and plants, including agricultural crops, and 

3401 pollinating insects, such as bees. Although there is some information on incidents of this nature 

3402 which are described in this chapter, the benefits of reducing incidents like these are difficult to 

3403 quantify. 

3404 

3405 The next section discusses who is at risk from RUP exposure, followed by a discussion of the 

3406 possible effects of acute exposure and chronic exposures to certified applicators and to their 

3407 families. Section 6.4 provides information on the benefits from reduced ecological damage from 

3408 RUPs, Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 

3409 benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 

3410 from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 

3411 surveillance databases, but are potentially important to human health, and may be reduced by the 

3412 proposed rule. 

3413 

3414 

3415 6.2. Who is at Risk? 

3416 

3417 6.2.1. Occupational Exposure 

3418 

3419 Certified pesticide applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of 

3420 certified applicators, agricultural workers, and pesticide handlers may be occupationally exposed 

3421 to pesticides and pesticide residues. EPA estimates that there are about 900,000 certified 

3422 applicators in the United States (See Chapter 3), and about 1 million noncertified applicators 

3423 working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. A small number of adolescents are 

3424 certified applicators, and there are about 14,000 adolescents under 18 estimated to be working 

3425 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (See Chapter 3). All of these people face 

3426 harm from occupational exposure to RUPs. 

3427 

3428 RUPs are commonly used in agriculture, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is 

3429 potentially exposed. This includes the approximately 2.3 million farm workers that are hired by 

3430 agricultural establishments, who are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects 

3431 from pesticide exposure (EPA, 2014a) if they work on farms that use RUPs. Agricultural 

3432 workers do not handle RUPs directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

3433 either through contact with residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact 

3434 from drift or misdirected application. The agricultural workforce occupationally exposed to 

3435 restricted use pesticides and pesticide residues can potentially face significant long and short 

3436 term health risks. However, as a result of an extensive review of the data from incident reporting 

3437 systems and epidemiologic evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature, there is evidence, 

3438 which EPA regards as strong, that pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health 

3439 outcomes. This evidence is discussed and referenced in detail in the sections that follow. 

3440 

3441 6.2.2. Children and Families 

3442 

3443 Young and unborn children may be particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may 

3444 experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the 

3445 floor and putting objects into their mouths (EPA, 2008b), and they can be more sensitive to these 

3446 exposures because their organ systems are still developing, and they have relatively low body 

3447 weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the 

3448 families of certified applicators may be incidentally exposed to pesticides and there is the 

3449 potential for negative health effects from this pesticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (discussed 

3450 below) may be particularly important for long-term development. 

3451 

3452 Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of vulnerability” for 

3453 chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 

3454 means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 

3455 lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 

3456 continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 

3457 developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and chemicals differently than adults 

3458 metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008b). The proposed changes to the 

3459 certification rule include enhanced worker training to reduce incidental, take-home exposures by 

3460 workers to their families. The proposed changes to the certification rule also cover direct 

3461 exposures by including restrictions on allowing adolescents to work with RUPs. These changes 

3462 are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, 

3463 which is also discussed below. 

3464 

3465 Non-occupational exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift 

3466 from nearby agricultural areas, or from pesticide residues taken home on the clothing or in the 

3467 cars and trucks of certified and noncertified applicators. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm 

3468 and 25 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. 

3469 Although not a study strictly of certified applicators, the pesticides for which they tested 

3470 included RUPs. When compared with non-farm households, they found significantly higher 

3471 levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in farm households. The 

3472 distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in the agricultural 

3473 worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported 

3474 home on farmers’ clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in 

3475 home vehicles for farm families. 

3476 

3477 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

3478 Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 

3479 

3480 Adolescents face more risks from pesticide exposure than adults, a problem EPA addresses by 

3481 proposing a minimum age for certified applicators and noncertified applicators working under 

3482 the direct supervision of a certified applicator. There is evidence that adolescents and children 

3483 do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 

3484 to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 

3485 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 

3486 context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 

3487 risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 

3488 risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during work 

3489 time (Rowntree et al., 1998). As reported in Reed et al. (2006), “young agricultural production 

3490 workers were 3 times more likely to die on the job than their nonagricultural counterparts.” This 

3491 statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and suggests that younger workers take 

3492 more risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older workers. In a study of adolescents 

3493 engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi, teens were surveyed on 

3494 their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and symptoms related to farm work that 

3495 included injuries (Reed et al., 2006). When teens were asked whether they used personal 

3496 protective equipment when it was required, the median self-reported frequency for use of 

3497 respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 

3498 was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 

3499 teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 

3500 attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 

3501 leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al., 2006). 

3502 

3503 The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 

3504 risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through 

3505 these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 

3506 risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al., 2010). In an international 

3507 setting, Abdel-Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, 

3508 neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 

3509 applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 

3510 in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high levels 

3511 of pesticides. 

3512 

3513 According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 

3514 youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupationally related pesticide illness, 

3515 attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide 

3516 toxicity. The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than 

3517 adults. Therefore, it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 

3518 decisions. It is not certain why higher risk taking behavior is more common among adolescents, 

3519 but it is a consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between 

3520 behaviors and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar 

3521 to adults, but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al., 2010). 

3522 The cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, 

3523 which indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk 

3524 taking process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

3525 that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, would 

3526 not protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk 

3527 adolescents do not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, 

3528 such as the establishment of minimum age for certain activities are warranted to ensure their 

3529 safety. 

3530 

3531 6.3.What are the Risks? 

3532 

3533 This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 

3534 exposure, including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. 

3535 Some of these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of either acute (in the case 

3536 of developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with 

3537 chronic occupational pesticide exposure is provided in Section 6.6. 

3538 

3539 

3540 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects 

3541 

3542 The use of most pesticides, substances usually designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some 

3543 pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have 

3544 effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Exposures to some pesticides 

3545 can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from overexposure to 

3546 pesticides vary widely, and can range from mild skin irritation to death. Severity of symptoms 

3547 depends largely on the dose and route of exposure. Exposure to organophosphate (OP) 

3548 pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and 

3549 diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). Severe acute exposures can 

3550 result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 2013). 

3551 In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the wide 

3552 range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide exposure; the Recognition and 

3553 Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different symptoms that a medical 

3554 professional could expect to see following an acute exposure to various pesticides (Reigart and 

3555 Roberts, 2013). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, certified applicators 

3556 also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including several 

3557 forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 

3558 

3559 Evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide-related illnesses can be 

3560 observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure is underreported (see below), there 

3561 are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that 

3562 show evidence of illnesses. Calvert, et al. (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide 

3563 poisoning incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem.” This 

3564 study looked at pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and 

3565 analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural 

3566 workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers 

3567 (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness 

3568 cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with 

3569 mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al. found that about half of all occupational pesticide 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

3570 related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other 

3571 industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying 

3572 pesticides. The most common symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 

3573 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin 

3574 contact, followed by inhalation and eye contact. 

3575 

3576 Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 

3577 high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 

3578 period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 

3579 one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 

3580 is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 

3581 can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 

3582 of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study (and 

3583 which we use for the analysis in Section 6.5), at least two post-exposure symptoms must have 

3584 been reported. Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, 

3585 nausea, vomiting, and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to result in missing 

up to three days of work or hospitalization for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases6 3586 . 

3587 

3588 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families 

3589 

3590 This section discusses potential risks to families of certified applicators, as well as the families of 

3591 others who may be exposed to RUPs. These are just a subset of diseases that have an association 

3592 with pesticide exposure to families; many others, including some cancers also have an 

3593 association with pesticide exposure. The discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure 

3594 and cancers is in Section 6.6, because most of the epidemiological research on the links between 

3595 pesticides and cancer has been based on occupational exposure. 

3596 

3597 Reproductive Risks 

3598 

3599 Certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified 

3600 applicator, farmworkers and women with pest control activities near their homes face exposure 

3601 to RUPs when they are pregnant. Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of 

3602 pesticide exposure during pregnancy on reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al. (2007) found 59 

3603 peer-reviewed studies that examined the relationship between pesticides and reproductive 

3604 outcomes between 1992 and 2003. A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 

 

6

 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 

Table 6.3-1. Summary of Findings on the Association between Pesticide Exposure and 

Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al., 2007 

Outcome Examined 

Number of 

Papers Found 

Number of Papers Found that 

Display an Association Between 

the Outcome Examined and 

Pesticide Exposure* 

Birth Defect 15 14 (+) 

Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) 

Fertility** 14 7 (-) 

Altered Growth 10 7 (+) 

Fetal Death 11 9 (+) 

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+) 

*The direction of the association is shown in parentheses. 

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and 

infertility. 

3605 

3606 As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 

3607 between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 

3608 defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 

3609 nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 

3610 studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death, which includes 

3611 “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 

3612 preconception exposure was associated with early first-trimester abortions and post-conception 

3613 exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al., 2007). For most 

3614 effects, half or more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 

3615 exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 

3616 the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 

3617 publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 

3618 suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 

3619 

3620 Potential Health Effects in Children 

3621 

3622 There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 

3623 pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure may have effects on the neurological 

3624 development of children (see below), and Wigle et al. (2009) studies have found an association 

3625 between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood leukemia. As an example, there 

3626 are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis of developmental toxicity (i.e., 

3627 structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss). These 

3628 developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker during 

3629 windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. Possible effects from an acute 

3630 overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain tissue outside the skull), 

3631 hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes often resulting in 

3632 blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could occur, for example, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

3633 should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an application or through drift 

3634 of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field. 

3635 

3636 Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 

3637 exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 

3638 the systems in adults. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than those of 

3639 younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood. In 

3640 particular, brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through 

3641 synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron 

3642 connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases 

3643 the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 

3644 during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 

3645 particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). Adolescents may be subject to incidental exposures by 

3646 being in proximity to areas where pesticides are applied or from take home exposures via parents 

3647 who work with pesticides, all of which can result in adverse health effects. In addition, 

3648 adolescent workers can be subject to direct occupational exposure, which is a concern due 

3649 because acute exposure at important stages of development may cause significant health effects 

3650 and also because employment at a younger age increases the chance and likelihood of chronic 

3651 exposure, which may result in delayed health effects that are debilitating over a longer 

3652 timeframe. 

3653 

3654 Several studies have investigated pesticide exposure and children, in both rural and urban 

3655 settings, although not the children of certified applicators. These studies show the effect of 

3656 prenatal or early-life pesticide exposure from occupational exposure to the family or incidental 

3657 exposure in the home. These have reported delayed mental development associated with an 

3658 increased exposure to organophosphate pesticides (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, 

3659 Engel et al., 2007). Studies with rural and urban cohorts report associations between 

3660 organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in children (Engel et al., 2007, 

3661 Young et al., 2005), and increased developmental disorders were reported in both the 

3662 CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, Lovasi, et al., 

3663 2011, Engel et al., 2011). 

3664 

3665 Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate pesticides and the 

3666 development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 

3667 hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from a rural cohort concluded that in utero

3668 levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were associated 

3669 with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al., 2010). Similar associations are 

3670 seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, chlorpyrifos and 

3671 attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive 

3672 developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al., 2006, Lovasi, et al., 2011, Engel 

3673 et al., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al. (2010), found an 

3674 association between organophosphate metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared 

3675 to children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample 

3676 median had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. 

3677 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

3678 The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 

3679 epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 

3680 However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 

3681 between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 

3682 that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro-developmental and 

3683 neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures. 

3684 

3685 

3686 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding RUP Incidents 

3687 

3688 In Section 6.5, a quantified estimate of the benefits from reduced human health incidents due to 

3689 the rule changes is provided, but these quantified estimates are based only on the value of 

3690 reduced illness from acute occupational RUP exposure. The quantified estimates are limited to 

3691 these effects because sufficient data on illness from acute RUP exposure exists to make a 

3692 reasonable estimate. The estimates, however, do not quantify many real health benefits that may 

3693 result from the rule, but for which sufficient data are not available to estimate the monetary value 

3694 of these benefits. For that reason, non-quantified benefits, both to human health and the 

3695 environment, are discussed here. The human health benefits that can be quantified are presented 

3696 in Section 6.5. Other non-quantifiable benefits from reduced chronic exposures are presented in 

3697 Section 6.6. 

3698 

3699 The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section 

3700 that are not easily observed and reported. Because of insufficient information on the rates of 

3701 illness, the reduction in exposure that would result from the rule changes, and the dose/response 

3702 relationship between exposure and illness, the value of reducing pesticide exposure that may 

3703 have reproductive effects for women is difficult to quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women 

3704 or chronic exposure to families could result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and 

3705 behavioral effects in children, and it is challenging to quantify the benefits from the proposed 

3706 rule changes that may reduce these effects. 

3707 

3708 There are also non-quantifiable ecological benefits, from reduced RUP exposure to non-target 

3709 plants and animals. These are discussed in Section 6.4.1. 

3710 

3711 6.4.1. Non-Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents 

3712 

3713 In addition to the benefits to human health, the proposed changes would also be expected to 

3714 reduce environmental damage associated with RUP use by reducing the incidents of RUP misuse 

3715 and other errors. This section will discuss the harm that RUP misuse and other errors can cause 

3716 to non-target animals, wild plants and crops, and the ways which the proposed changes would 

3717 reduce the environmental costs of misuse and other errors. 

3718 

3719 It is difficult to get an accurate picture of how much damage to plants, animals and crops is 

3720 caused by RUP misuse and misapplication. Although EPA maintains databases of pesticide3721 related incidents, these data are insufficient to reliably estimate the number of incidents that may 

3722 be prevented by the rule. In addition, the available information is generally insufficient to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 

3723 reliably estimate the cost of incidents, even when they have been reported. Because of these 

3724 inadequacies, we will use the available data to provide a qualitative discussion of the kind of 

3725 environmental incidents that are caused by misuse of RUPs, and whether the incidents can be 

3726 prevented by the rule. 

3727 

3728 Data 

3729 Ecological incident data are used by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as a line of 

3730 evidence (in a weight-of-evidence approach) for making risk conclusions in pesticide risk 

3731 assessments. Incident data can provide important information on what can happen to non-target 

3732 plants and wildlife when a pesticide is used in the ‘real world’, and they can help support or 

3733 refute risk predictions based on laboratory data. 

3734 

3735 The primary sources of ecological incident information available to EPA for this analysis are the 

3736 Incident Data System (IDS) and the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), both 

databases that are maintained by EPA7 3737 . These databases contain information from pesticide 

3738 incident reports from a variety of sources. Some are submitted directly to OPP by pesticide 

3739 registrants, the public, and state, federal, and local government agencies, and others are from 

3740 information available through other sources, such as the United States Geological Survey’s 

3741 Contaminant Exposure and Effects – Terrestrial Vertebrate Database, the American Bird 

3742 Conservancy’s Avian Incident Monitoring System, the open literature and media accounts. 

3743 

3744 The IDS database includes all pesticide incidents involving humans, wildlife, pets, and other 

3745 domestic animals of which OPP is aware. IDS is primarily used by OPP to track the total 

3746 number of all incidents (human, wildlife, etc.) that may have been caused by a pesticide. The 

3747 EIIS database contains information on pesticide incidents involving primarily plants, non3748 domesticated birds and mammals, fish, and honey bees. Information from ecological incident 

3749 reports is only included in the EIIS if the reports contain, at a minimum, information on a 

3750 specific pesticide, the effects, and the identity of the wildlife or plants involved in the incident. 

3751 For this analysis, EPA uses the EIIS database, because information on the specific pesticide (and 

3752 whether it was an RUP) and the specific events are essential to understanding the circumstances 

3753 of an incident and whether or not it would be preventable. 

3754 

3755 Incidents in the EIIS are given a certainty index classification [i.e., ‘unrelated’, ‘unlikely’, 

3756 ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘highly probable’– and the relatively new classification of ‘exposure only’ 

3757 (residues detected but no effects noted)]. The certainty level indicates the likelihood that a 

3758 particular pesticide caused the observed effects. In general, “highly probable” incidents require 

3759 residues and/or clear circumstances linking the exposure to the effects. “Probable” incidents 

3760 include those where residues are not available and/or circumstances are slightly less conclusive 

3761 than for “highly probable.” “Possible” incidents are those where there was exposure to multiple 

3762 chemicals, and it is not clear which one was the primary causal factor, although circumstances 

3763 surrounding the incident and toxicological properties of the pesticide suggest a possible causal 

3764 relationship. “Unlikely” incidents are those for which evidence suggests that another pesticide or 

3765 another stressor was the primary cause of the effect, but contribution by the given chemical 

 

7

 These databases are not generally available to the public. More information about these databases is available in 

OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA 2007): http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10-

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

11 

3766 cannot be completely ruled out. Finally, “unrelated” incidents are those in which evidence 

3767 clearly indicates that another stressor besides the given pesticide caused the effects. Each 

3768 incident in the EIIS is also given a legality of use classification [‘registered use’ (the label 

3769 directions were followed), ‘misuse’ [label directions were not followed; for example, the 

3770 application involved (accidental or intentional) higher than labeled rates, non-labeled application 

3771 sites, or the intentional targeting on non-labeled species], or ‘unknown’ (it is not known whether 

3772 or not the label directions were followed)]. 

3773 

3774 As with most reporting of pesticide incidents, ecological incidents are subject to under-reporting. 

3775 Ecological incident data are not systematically collected, and, thus, they may not be 

3776 representative of unreported incidents. The collection of incident data is largely opportunistic, 

3777 and reported incidents represent a very small portion of the actual incidents that likely occur 

3778 (Vyas, 1999). The following steps typically need to occur for OPP to receive information on a 

3779 pesticide incident involving wildlife: 

3780 

3781 Step 1: Seeing an Incident: 

3782 

3783 For one, damage from misuse of an RUP, such as a dead animal or plant damage, must be seen to 

3784 be reported. Many animals that are sick and/or dying will hide as a predator-avoidance response, 

3785 making it more difficult to find their remains if they die while hidden. If an affected animal is 

3786 killed by a predator, it is often consumed immediately. Carcasses of animals not killed by a 

3787 predator and not consumed immediately can be removed fairly quickly from the environment 

3788 (within hours of death) by scavengers and/or more slowly (within days of death) via 

3789 decomposition. Therefore, it can be surprisingly difficult to find dead animals and most animals 

3790 that die (for any reason), are likely not ever seen by someone before they are scavenged or they 

3791 decompose. Carcass recovery efficiency rates, even for trained individuals searching for 

3792 carcasses in a known, limited area, are often well below 100% (Madrigal et al., 1996 reported 

3793 recovering only about two-thirds of bird carcasses placed in the study zone). Although plants do 

3794 not move or disappear from the environment the same way that animals do, any damage to non3795 target plants must be noticed, which may be rare. Damage to crop plants is more likely to be 

3796 noticed, since they are monitored by farmers. 

3797 

3798 Step 2: Reporting an Incident: 

3799 

3800 Even when an incident is noticed, it is unlikely to be reported to anyone. There are several 

3801 reasons why incident reporting is unlikely. For example, the incident observer may not realize 

3802 the importance of reporting the incident or they may not know to whom to report it. Motivation 

3803 can be an important consideration for someone reporting an incident. People may be more likely 

3804 to report an incident if the effects impact them economically (e.g., if the incident involves crop 

3805 damage or a bee kill) or personally (e.g., it involves a pet or plants in their yard) than if it 

3806 involves a wild animal. Additionally, if only one or two dead animals are found, it may be 

3807 assumed that the animals simply died from natural causes. 

3808 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 

3809 Step 3: Linking an Incident to a Pesticide: 

3810 

3811 For an incident to be considered a pesticide incident, it must be linked to a pesticide exposure. 

3812 Incidents are most likely to be associated with a pesticide if the effect is close in time and space 

3813 to an application. For slower acting chemicals, affected animals may move from the site of 

3814 exposure and likely will not die near the pesticide application site (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), 

3815 making it difficult to link the deaths to a specific pesticide. Typically, only severe acute toxic 

3816 effects are observed (principally mortality) and chronic effects (e.g., effects to reproduction or 

3817 growth) usually are not observed. Weakened and sick animals may be preyed upon, hit by cars, 

3818 die of disease, etc., and their deaths may not necessarily be attributed to a pesticide, even if it is a 

3819 major factor in their deaths. Additionally, with the exception of honey bees and crayfish, effects 

3820 to invertebrates are not typically reported. Because incident investigations can be very complex 

3821 and resource intensive (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), even if a dead animal is reported, and the 

3822 death is suspected to be caused by a pesticide, the incident may not be investigated due to limited 

3823 resources. 

3824 

3825 Step 4: Submitting an Incident Report to OPP: 

3826 

3827 Incidents reported to local or municipal authorities or independent wildlife rescue organizations 

3828 are unlikely to ever be forwarded to OPP. Some state agencies and some wildlife rescue 

3829 organizations routinely report incidents to OPP (for example California and New York), but most 

3830 do not. Therefore, even if a carcass is found and reported to local authorities, and an 

3831 investigation concludes that the death was due to a pesticide, the incident report may not be 

3832 submitted to OPP. Reporting by non-registrants is completely voluntary and information on 

3833 ecological incidents can be gathered by a wide variety of government agencies (e.g., federal, 

3834 state, and local) and private organizations (e.g., toxicology laboratories and wildlife 

3835 rehabilitation centers). Not all of these agencies/organizations may know to submit information 

3836 on ecological incidents to OPP; may not know how to submit the information to the OPP; or may 

3837 simply choose not to submit the data to OPP (especially if it involves a case going through 

3838 litigation or some enforcement action). 

3839 

3840 Although pesticide registrants are required to report adverse effect incidents under FIFRA, a 

3841 registrant cannot report incidents it is unaware of, or that do not appear related to its pesticides. 

Furthermore, the reporting requirements defined in FIFRA8 3842 allow registrants to aggregately 

3843 report all ‘minor’ ecological incidents. Incidents that can be aggregately reported include 

3844 incidents that involve fewer than 200 birds or 5 mammals. The aggregate incident reports lack 

3845 details including information on effects, specific taxa involved, and descriptions of use; 

3846 therefore, aggregate incident reports are not included in the EIIS, but they are included in the 

3847 IDS. 

3848 

3849 Overall, because of the many ways that reporting of an incident to OPP can fail, it is likely that 

3850 only a small fraction of the pesticide ecological incidents that occur are ever recorded. Because 

3851 the incident data in the EIIS are not systematically collected and likely represent a very small 

 

8

 The reporting requirements can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 40, Section 159.184(c)(5)(iii), 

which can be found in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=100c94cd811a48658e383a956da0ef65&node=40:24.0.1.1.10.2.1.13 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

3852 fraction of the incidents that actually occur, these data are likely an underestimate of damage 

3853 from misuse and other errors by certified applicators. For these reasons, no attempt is made to 

3854 quantify the benefits from reduced ecological damage caused by RUPs for the rule; the 

3855 discussion here will be qualitative. Incident data, however, do provide evidence that exposure 

3856 from misuse of RUPs can result in field-observable effects. 

3857 

3858 Method 

3859 

3860 To characterize the potential value of reduced RUP incidents, even qualitatively, requires 

3861 classifying the EIIS data to retain only those incidents that the proposed rule changes would 

3862 prevent. First, a team of OPP staff compiled a list of all RUP pesticides products and active 

3863 ingredients. Many active ingredients have some pesticide products that are RUPs and others, 

3864 with different use patterns or concentrations that are not. The EIIS database was searched for 

3865 incidents in which one of the RUPs active ingredients was identified as the causal agent for the 

3866 years 2009 - 2013. In some cases, the pesticide product was identified, so a definite 

3867 determination about whether the incident involved a RUP could be made. If the causal agent 

3868 was only identified as an active ingredient, the incident was included if a majority of the 

3869 products containing it were RUPs, if information about the intended use made it clear that the 

3870 product used was an RUP, or if the pesticide was applied by a certified applicator. Once the 

3871 incidents related to RUPs were identified and available information gathered, EPA staff 

3872 reviewed the cause of the incidents and by consensus determined whether they would have been 

3873 likely or probably prevented by the rule. The main reason EPA expects the rule to prevent 

3874 incidents like these is that raising the standards for initial certification and more frequent training 

3875 would ensure that applicators and those under their supervision would more carefully follow 

3876 pesticide label instructions, take proper care to prevent harm, and generally have a higher level 

3877 of competency. The team of OPP staff classified the RUP- and certified applicator-related 

3878 incidents into the following categories: 

3879 

3880  Preventable incidents: Incidents where there was a clear link between the 

3881 application/applicator and the effect and the information demonstrated an error by the 

3882 applicator or applicator incompetency. 

3883  Possibly preventable incidents: Incidents where there was a clear link between the 

3884 application/applicator and the effect and there was a significant impact so an applicator 

3885 error seemed likely but the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 

3886  Incidents where there is not enough information: Incidents where there was a clear link 

3887 between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but 

3888 the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 

3889  Not preventable incidents: Incidents that did not meet any of the above criteria, such as 

3890 incidents where there was no clear link between the application/applicator and the effect, 

3891 incidents where there was no evidence of applicator error or if there just was not enough 

3892 information. 

3893 Only incidents that were definitely related to RUP use and considered preventable or possibly 

3894 preventable are reported below. The incidents often do not have sufficient information to 

3895 quantify the damage. For example, some of the incidents reported damage to a crop from misuse 

3896 or misapplication, but the information is insufficient to determine the actual loss to growers. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 

3897 Even when damage to crop plants may result in total yield loss, the response by the grower to the 

3898 problem has not been identified. They could choose to accept the yield loss, or replant the crop, 

3899 or to plant another crop, which might reduce the losses below those of total yield loss. In the 

3900 narrative about the incident, the crop damage is described (e.g. stunting, reduced yields, 

3901 bleaching, leaf burn, etc.), but even when the information has been confirmed by agronomists or 

3902 other experts, the actual yield loss has not been quantified. 

3903 

3904 For the non-crop damage, such as the deaths of wild animals, in addition to the difficulty in 

3905 identifying the numbers of animals affected, it is very difficult to provide a value for the 

3906 potential losses. For example, if a substantial number of bald eagles are killed in a preventable 

3907 incident (as we see in the data), to quantify the value of preventing that incident, we would need 

3908 to know the value of those eagles to society, which is difficult to determine. 

3909 

3910 Loosely speaking, environmental amenities can have multiple sources of value. Economists 

3911 often categorize some of these as a “use value,” where people gain value from somehow using or 

3912 interacting with the resource, such as visiting a beach, catching a fish, or observing wild birds. 

3913 Another category is “non-use value,” because these environmental goods have value to society 

3914 beyond their use to people. These non-use values for the preservation of environmental goods 

3915 have several sources, including that people may want the option to have the goods available in 

3916 the future, or the value that people place on maintaining the good for future generations, or value 

3917 placed by society for the mere existence of environmental goods. Non-use values may comprise 

3918 a substantial fraction of total values for some wildlife species – especially for charismatic 

3919 species, threatened or endangered species, or species that are not popular targets for hunting or 

3920 wildlife viewing – that have been harmed by misuse of RUPs, and these values are difficult to 

3921 estimate. A standard approach would be to use a stated-preference method, like contingent 

3922 valuation (EPA 2010a) to estimate the societal willingness to pay to preserve the animals or 

3923 plants that were harmed in preventable RUP incidents. This is not done for this analysis because 

3924 a high-quality contingent valuation study is very time consuming and expensive, and more 

3925 importantly, the environmental damage here is very diffuse, involving different types of plants 

3926 and animals in all parts of the country, whereas the most reliable contingent valuation work 

3927 involves very concrete choices in a specific location. 

3928 

3929 An alternative is benefits transfer, where the benefits of preserving environmental goods have 

3930 been estimated in one context, and we can adjust or apply those benefit estimates for the relevant 

3931 context. In our case, we are unable to find specific values for the many incidents that can be 

3932 used for benefits transfer. As an example, consider the loss of a bald eagle. There are estimates 

3933 of the societal value of preserving bald eagles. Two studies from the literature (Stevens et al., 

3934 1991, or Boyle and Bishop 1987) report household estimates that range from $21.11 to $42.21 in 

3935 2006 dollars. This indicates substantial societal value for eagles, and aggregated across 

3936 households in a region or the United States would result in a very large number ($34 billion for 

3937 the 115 million households in the US). However, the values that are reported, and which were 

3938 estimated using the underlying contingent valuation studies was a willingness to pay to maintain 

3939 the existence of eagles in a specific state; no attempt was made to estimate the value of 

3940 protecting individual eagles, as we have here. 

3941 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 

3942 However, we could use these estimates, after adjusting them to transform estimates for eagles as 

3943 a whole into estimates for individual eagles. The non-use value for eagles could be defined as: 

3944 

Non-use value = ∆ܰ ∗ ∆௉

∆ே

௡௢௜௚௘௥ܪ ∗ ௑ܹܶܲ ∗ 3945

3946 

3947 Where ∆N is the number of eagles saved per year, ∆P/∆N is the change in extinction probability 

3948 for the population per the number of saved eagles per year, WTPX is the willingness to pay to 

3949 prevent the (local) extinction of the species, and HRegion is the number of households in the 

3950 region. Incident reports may shed light on ∆N, but of course the ability to account for under3951 reporting is important, and we have no information on under-reporting. WTPX for eagles and a 

3952 handful of other species in the incident data may be gleaned from the literature, but estimates 

3953 ∆P/∆N would be at best speculative. 

3954 

3955 Because of the challenge of providing reliable estimates of the value of preventing ecological 

3956 damage from RUP incidents, we make no attempt to quantify them here. Below we provide 

3957 information on the types of incidents that can be prevented by changes to the Certification 

3958 standards, based on the incident data that are available. 

3959 

3960 Incidents 

3961 

3962 The EIIS data were queried in two passes, the first for the period 2009 – 2010, because it 

3963 matched the period used for the human incident data, and later for 2011 – 2013, to see whether 

3964 the data were similar, and to have a larger sample if the incidents varied significantly from year 

3965 to year. There were total of 245 incidents returned when the EIIS was queried for incidents that 

3966 were probably related to an RUP. The incidents that are described here are those that EPA staff 

3967 determined were related to an RUP (some active ingredients have RUP and non-RUP products), 

3968 and the incident was deemed “preventable” or “possibly preventable” by the rule changes using 

3969 the above criteria. As shown in Table 6.4-1, there were a total of 68 RUP incidents recorded in 

3970 EIIS deemed preventable or likely preventable. There were 16 preventable or possibly 

3971 preventable incidents involving fish or other aquatic animals, such as crayfish, 5 involving birds, 

3972 12 involving mammals (dogs, coyote, and fox), 7 incidents involving damage to bee colonies, 

3973 and 28 involving crop damage. The table also shows the number of organisms affected by the 

3974 incidents. There were more incidents related to RUPs available, but these were either 

3975 determined to be unlikely to be prevented by the rule, or there was not enough information to 

3976 make a determination. It is worth mentioning that these are the incidents remaining after the 

3977 screening process, and that there is likely significant under-reporting of ecological incidents. 

3978 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

Table 6.4-1. Preventable Incidents from the EIIS Database, 2009 - 

2013 

Affected Organism 

Number of 

Incidents 

Reported Quantity Affected 

Fish and Aquatic Animals 16 23,633 Killed 

Birds 5 504 Killed 

Mammals 12 23 Killed 

Bees 7 394 Colonies Killed 

Crops 28 6,637 Acres 

Damaged 

Source: EPA EIIS Database; EPA staff determined preventability. 

3979 

3980 As shown in Table 6.4-1, there were 28 reported preventable or possibly preventable incidents 

3981 involving crop damage. As mentioned above, because we do not know how the damage 

3982 ultimately affected yield, we are unable to determine the value of preventing incidents like these. 

3983 These crop incidents typically involve applicator error that more frequent training on the 

3984 importance of following label requirements would be able to prevent. The type of errors found 

3985 include applying pesticides when weather conditions are not appropriate for the pesticide, 

3986 contamination or improper cleaning of application equipment, the wrong active ingredient is 

3987 applied to the crop, incorrect rate or timing of the application. The crops involved were mostly 

3988 corn, including sweet corn. Five of the incidents involve a popcorn crop, all in 2011, and four of 

3989 them occurred in two adjacent counties in Indiana. 

3990 

3991 Although we are unable to estimate the damage caused by these preventable incidents, it is 

3992 possible to put an upper bound on some of them, as an example. If we were to assume the crops 

3993 were a total loss, then in some cases we could multiply the expected yield by the price growers 

3994 received that year to find an estimate of the total revenue lost to the grower. For example, a total 

3995 for 367 acres of popcorn were reported damaged in Indiana. If the 367 acres of popcorn were to 

3996 achieve the 2011 average yield for Indiana of 4,000 pounds per acre (NASS, 2012) at the 2011 

3997 average price (NASS, 2012) of $0.258 per pound (2011 was a relatively high value year) would 

3998 have netted a grower $1,032 per acre (over $378,000 for the total area), which would be the lost 

3999 revenue in Indiana. Of course, if the crop were lost, there would be some savings in unneeded 

4000 harvest activities, etc., but this is a substantial loss to growers. If yield were reduced somewhat, 

4001 rather than fully, the losses would be somewhat lower. 

4002 

4003 Similarly, for field corn, the average incident involved 238 acres. At 2013 yields and prices 

4004 (158.8 bushels per acre (NASS, 2014a) and $4.50 per bushel (NASS, 2014b)), preventing the 

4005 average incident could save revenue to the grower of up to $170,000. These example numbers 

4006 show that misuse incidents involving RUPs can be very costly, and avoiding the incidents 

4007 potentially has substantial value. 

4008 

4009 As shown in Table 6.4-1, the EIIS data show 7 reported preventable incidents involving RUPs 

4010 that killed colonies of bees. In two of the incidents, there was insufficient information to 

4011 determine how many colonies were harmed, although the beekeeper reported mortality (reported 

4012 as 50% mortality in one case). These two incidents are included in the count of 7, but not the 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 

4013 count of colonies harmed. In all cases, the bees were killed by misapplication of RUPs, when the 

4014 applicator applied the pesticide to the area where bees were actively foraging or allowed the 

4015 pesticide to drift into areas where significant numbers of bees were present. It is difficult to 

4016 know the value of the colonies destroyed in the preventable incidents that show up in the EIIS 

4017 data. The value of a bee colony can be thought of in several ways, all of which are incomplete. 

4018 One is the replacement cost for the colony, which includes purchasing of new bees, and possibly 

4019 new hives and frames, if the beekeeper is concerned about past contamination. According to 

4020 Rucker and Thurman (2012), the cost of a new packet of bees which includes a queen is about 

4021 $50. This could be considered the rough cost of replacing a colony, but it ignores the lost value 

4022 of ecosystem services. The first of these is the loss of honey production for the beekeeper. 

4023 Depending on how late in the year the new colony is established, there may be a substantial 

4024 reduction in the honey produced by the bees. Average yield per colony in the US for 2012 was 

4025 56 pounds, with a value of about $1.99 per pound, or about $112 per colony, which could be lost 

4026 if the colony could not produce enough honey to maintain itself and allow harvesting (Rucker 

4027 and Thurman, 2012). Another important service that bees provide is pollination services, critical 

4028 to U.S. agriculture. Beekeepers are contracted to provide bees for pollination for some crops, 

4029 and the price they are paid for this service varies by the crop. Among the more valuable crops 

4030 that depend on pollination services are almonds, which in recent years paid beekeepers about 

4031 $140 per colony (Rucker et al., 2012). This represents a revenue source for beekeepers, but it 

4032 may not reflect the losses to growers if pollination is not available during the essential time when 

4033 plants are flowering. At a very conservative estimate of $100 per hive, the reported loss of hives 

4034 would have a value of over $39,000. 

4035 

4036 The remainder of the preventable incidents from the EIIS data are animals, generally counted 

4037 after they have died. The mammal incidents include the killing of 14 dogs, at least six coyotes 

4038 and two fox. Five of the coyotes were killed in one incident, due to improper disposal of RUP 

4039 containers, but it is possible that they were killed intentionally, which would be a misuse of an 

4040 RUP. The other coyote incident involved a farmer baiting for raccoons to protect a corn crop in 

4041 Connecticut. The farmer used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the deaths of the coyote and 

4042 a dog, and severe injury to another dog. This was a case where the RUP was mishandled several 

4043 ways, including off-label use and distributed to noncertified applicators. There were substantial 

4044 fines in this case, of $55,000 to the distributor and $15,000 to the farmer, although the fines to 

4045 the distributor also included distribution to other noncertified applicators. In a similar incident in 

4046 Missouri, a man baiting for coyote used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the death of three 

4047 crows, a red-tailed hawk, three dogs, a gray fox, a skunk and “several” coyotes. 

4048 

4049 The remainder of the mammal incidents were the killing of dogs and one fox. In all cases, they 

4050 were killed by predacides. In most cases, these incidents were caused by applicators not 

4051 following the label instructions, which have clear use restrictions to protect dogs. One of the 

4052 cases involves a landowner lacing deer meat with predacides to protect deer from coyote, but 

4053 where a dog actually consumed the poison. In this case, the RUP compound was distributed 

4054 illegally, and applied by someone without following label instructions. 

4055 

4056 Most of the deaths of aquatic animals came from the application of RUPs to control lamprey. 

4057 These events typically resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-target fish, because the 

4058 conditions of the application were insufficiently monitored or the application rate was too high. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 

4059 One case from California was a result of confusion in the appropriate rate of application, which 

4060 allowed the chemical to move downstream at high concentration beyond the irrigation canal 

4061 targeted for treatment, resulting in the deaths of several hundred fish, along with crayfish and 

4062 tadpoles. Because of the vague description of the numbers killed, these were not counted in 

4063 Table 6.4-1, although the incident was. The final case with aquatic impacts involves non-aquatic 

4064 applications of RUPs that ended up killing aquatic animals. The disposal ran into an adjacent 

4065 creek, resulting in the deaths of approximately 6,000 fish, 600 crayfish, and four aquatic snakes. 

4066 There are some estimates in the literature that provide a starting place for valuation for fish, but 

4067 these typically provide estimated values for maintaining populations of well-known fish, like 

4068 salmon, rather than individual aquatic animals from these RUP incidents. A 2006 meta-analysis 

4069 of willingness to pay per fish based on recreational fishing reported a mean value of about $17 

4070 per fish protected, but the range of estimates in the underlying studies, even after outliers were 

4071 removed was from under five cents to over $300 per fish (Johnston et al., 2006), which 

4072 highlights the amount of uncertainty in estimates of aquatic valuation. 

4073 

4074 For birds, there are five incidents involving bird fatalities, one of which was already described 

4075 above that resulted in the death of three crows and one hawk in addition to several mammals. 

4076 Two of the remaining incidents, both in 2009, stem from a rodenticide being applied in a faulty 

4077 and careless manner which resulted in the deaths of a total of 30 dead geese in Oregon. Fifty 

4078 Brewer’s blackbirds and grackles were killed in an urban area of Sacramento, California in 2010. 

4079 Although the pesticide was targeting these types of birds, it is designed to frighten rather than 

4080 kill most of the birds, and the application was in an inappropriate area. The final bird kill was 

4081 substantial, and very well documented. An RUP was used for a rat eradication project on an 

4082 island in Alaska, and misuse resulted in the deaths of 420 birds, of which 219 were identified. 

4083 The birds were killed because, although the label requires picking up spilled bait and any animal 

4084 carcasses to prevent killing of non-target animals, this was not done until months after the 

4085 application. There were many birds killed in this incident: 157 gulls, 41 bald eagles, one 

4086 peregrine falcon, along with many others. As with the other species involved in RUP incidents, 

4087 it is difficult to find estimates of the value of individual birds, but it is clear that they have 

4088 substantial societal value, both among recreational bird observers and the general public. There 

4089 are available estimates for protecting populations of birds, and they confirm the substantial value 

4090 for protecting these animals. Kotchen and Reiling (2000) report a mean annual willingness to 

4091 pay per household (in Maine) of about $26 (1997 dollars) to protect the population of peregrine 

4092 falcon. Richardson and Loomis (2009) report annual mean willingness to pay per household in 

4093 their meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies. These include bald eagles, which were one 

4094 of the species in the above incidents, for which they reported the mean values for maintaining the 

4095 population of bald eagles: studies that report an average value of $39 (2006 dollars) per 

4096 household per year, and studies that report a lump sum, or an average value of $297 (2006 

4097 dollars) per household per year. These estimates are based on protecting populations of birds at 

4098 a regional level, so it is difficult to translate losses of individual birds into extinction probabilities 

4099 that these estimates reflect. 

4100 

4101 In all the cases involving wildlife, EPA is unable to estimate the value of these preventable 

4102 losses described above, although they could be substantial. The provisions to the proposed rule 

4103 could help to prevent incidents like these. 

4104 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 

4105 These incidents likely represent a small percentage of the actual ecological incidents caused by 

4106 certified applicator errors. In addition to the reasons for under-reporting mentioned earlier, the 

4107 approach used to search the EIIS database only captured the incidents that occurred from 2009 

4108 through 2013. An example of under-reporting involves deaths of geese in Oregon from zinc 

4109 phosphide poisoning. EPA’s search of 2009 – 2013 incidents identified two of these cases 

4110 during 2009. By limiting ourselves to that time period, this analysis did not capture a number of 

4111 similar incidents. A paper published in the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 

4112 discussed investigations of ten goose mortality events in Oregon from 2004 to 2008. The 

4113 number of birds impacted in these incidents ranged from 5 to over 300 birds (Bildfell, et al., 

4114 2013). 

4115 

4116 

4117 6.5. Quantified Human Health Benefits of Reduced Acute Illness from 

4118 Restricted Use Pesticides 

4119 

4120 EPA expects the proposed changes to the certification standards to result in benefits by reducing 

4121 exposure to certified pesticide applicators, their families and the public. EPA estimates that the 

4122 benefits from reduced acute RUP exposure to be up to $77 million annually, although important 

4123 non-quantifiable human health benefits are discussed later in the chapter, and important 

4124 ecological but unquantified benefits were discussed in the previous section. This section 

4125 quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects associated with acute pesticide 

4126 exposure. 

4127 

4128 6.5.1. Methodology and Data 

4129 

4130 We use a two-step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through 

4131 avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents 

4132 that will be avoided through provisions in the proposed rule. This is done by evaluating a sample 

4133 of pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then 

4134 determines whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the 

4135 proportion of pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total 

4136 number of reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained 

4137 in Section 6.5.2, under-reporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the 

4138 estimated benefits. This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of under-reporting 

4139 was known. A discussion of under-reporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at 

4140 the end of Section 6.5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event 

4141 Notification System for Occupational Risks – Pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides), administered by 

4142 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance 

4143 program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA also reviewed 

4144 its own Incident Data System and annual reports from the Poison Control Centers to document 

4145 unintentional deaths from RUPs over time. 

4146 

4147 The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. 

4148 The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 

4149 underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 

4150 valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL). 

4151 

4152 The value of avoided incidents is measured as avoided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 

4153 Information on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the 

4154 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 

4155 related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and 

sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)9 4156 . HCUP databases bring 

4157 together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data 

4158 organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patient4159 level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 

4160 the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 

4161 costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 

4162 for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 

services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals10 4163 . 

4164 

4165 Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 

4166 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4. 

4167 

4168 6.5.2. Under-reporting of RUP Incidents 

4169 

4170 There is concern that pesticide incidents in general are underreported. At least four steps are 

4171 necessary before a pesticide-related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) the 

4172 exposed person must perceive that they have treatable symptoms; (2) the person must seek 

4173 medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related; and 

4174 (4) the physician or the injured person must report the incident to the correct recordkeeping 

4175 system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide related. A breakdown at any of the steps 

4176 would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al., 

4177 2001). 

4178 

4179 (1) The exposed person must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 

4180 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 

4181 uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 

4182 rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 

4183 common pesticides results in flu-like or cold-like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 

4184 dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory 

4185 problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 

4186 exposure to poison ivy. When farmworkers or bystanders are exposed, they may not perceive 

4187 that their symptoms are related to pesticide exposures because they are not working directly with 

4188 pesticides and may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues. 

4189 

 

9

 More information on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project is available here: 

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/ 

10 More information on the Healthcare Common Procedure Code system and codes is available here : 

http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 

4190 (2) The person must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, many 

4191 pesticide-related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical intervention. For 

4192 example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, causes some of the 

4193 more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this inhibition will gradually 

4194 (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of exposure) recover without 

4195 treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will gradually disappear when 

4196 exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many people with treatable symptoms 

4197 may not seek physician care. A survey of California workers whose illnesses had been reported 

4198 to a surveillance system showed that in 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same 

4199 incidents did not seek medical treatment (Das et al., 2001), an example of cases that are 

4200 underreported. 

4201 

4202 (3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 

4203 treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specifically diagnose the illness or 

4204 injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 

4205 such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 

4206 drawn. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide poisonings for other causes, but 

4207 physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide poisonings. The person seeking 

4208 care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a pesticide. In addition, there may 

4209 not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide exposure, and physicians may be more 

4210 concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming the causes. 

4211 

4212 (4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 

4213 recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under4214 reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 

4215 Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 

4216 compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 

4217 difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington State 

4218 Department of Labor and Industries, 1991) 

4219 

4220 Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 

4221 requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 

4222 bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 

4223 completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al., 2002, Baker et al., 1998). For 

4224 example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 

4225 healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 

4226 becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they might have to defend 

4227 an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 

4228 statement" (Arizona, 1990). 

4229 

4230 If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 

4231 not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 

4232 literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, are underreported, 

4233 although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 

4234 to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). Exposures that do not cause immediate symptoms 

4235 are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is common, 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 

4236 both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of under-reporting 

4237 ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5-1, and a discussion of the 

4238 importance on benefit estimates is given in Section 6.5.4. 

4239 

Table 6.5-1 Summary of Results from Under-reporting Studies 

Date Title Goal of Study Under-reporting Estimate

1990

Treated vs. Reported Toxic 

Exposures: Discrepancies 

Between a Poison Control 

Center and a Member 

Hospital (Harchelroad et al., 

1990)

Compare poison control 

center reports to actual toxic 

exposures presented to an 

urban area hospital

74%a

1983

Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of 

a Regional Poison 

Information Center (ChafeeBahamon et al., 1983)

Observing usage patterns of a 

poison information center by 

hospital staff over a two-year 

period

“Sufficiently Large”b

1987

Interpretation and Uses of 

Data Collected in Poison 

Control Centers in the 

United States (Veltri et al., 

1987)

Identifying the strengths and 

weaknesses of the American 

Association of Poison Control 

Centers National Data 

Collection System

67%

2008

Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses (US 

House of Representatives, 

2008)

Identifying issues involving 

the inclusiveness of reported 

workplace injuries and 

illnesses

69%

2008

Examining Evidence on 

Whether BLS Undercounts 

Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses (Ruser 2008)

Identifying under-reporting 

for the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, and how they can be 

corrected.

20-70%c

Notes: 

a

 The EMD evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCC; resulting in underreport of 74% b“Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the 

hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy. c

 Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS 

4240 

4241 The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 

4242 (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser (2008) 

4243 estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 

4244 70 percent. Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII 

4245 omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers 

4246 are not recorded in the SOII. The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many 

4247 conditions, notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to 

4248 the workplace. 

4249 

4250 The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 

4251 injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 

4252 According to experts, a major cause of under-reporting may be due to the fact that employers 

4253 may have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 

4254 and illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health 

4255 Administration. 

4256 

4257 There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each 

4258 focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control centers with those 

4259 poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a 

4260 substantial under-reporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the 

4261 under-reporting by physicians (i.e., Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – 

4262 poisoned people not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be 

4263 counted in these studies. 

4264 

4265 Harchelroad et al. (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 

4266 toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 

4267 470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26% were ever 

4268 documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 

4269 exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non-reporting. 

4270 

4271 Chafee-Bahamon et al. (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 

4272 similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 

4273 among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 

4274 hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 

4275 hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 

4276 poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases. 

4277 

4278 The third study, by Veltri et al. (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 

4279 illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only under-reporting but misreporting may 

4280 occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center could 

4281 be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and injuries 

4282 are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 

4283 poisonings may be consistently low. 

4284 

4285 There are several reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 

4286 OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 

4287 incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 

4288 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 

4289 

4290  The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents; 

4291  No central reporting point for all incidents; 

4292  Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic symptoms from other 

4293 causes; 

4294  Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects; 

4295  Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 

4296 effects; 

4297  Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects; 

4298  Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; and 

4299  Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 

4300 

4301 The limited available data for pesticide poisonings by RUPs are consistent with the conclusion 

4302 that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to medical 

4303 attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this section estimates of acute benefits from avoided 

4304 pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of under4305 reporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5.4 

4306 

4307 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided 

4308 

4309 For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use a database from the National 

4310 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) called the Sentinel Event Notification 

4311 System for Occupational Exposure (SENSOR-Pesticides). This database contains detail on the 

4312 exposures that led to the incident report, their severity and their causes, although the data are not 

4313 national in scope. SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance program that monitors occupational 

4314 illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a two-year period, 2009 to 2010, 

4315 during which time nine states (California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, 

4316 Oregon, Texas, and Washington) reported incidents involving RUPs to SENSOR-Pesticides 

4317 (Fortenberry and Calvert, 2014). SENSOR-Pesticides reports generally contain sufficient detail 

4318 to identify the type of pesticide involved in the incident to determine if it was an RUP and to 

4319 evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to estimate the proportion of 

4320 incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule. Although SENSOR-Pesticides data are 

4321 available for earlier years, only data from 2009 – 2010 are used here. 2009 and 2010 are the 

4322 most recent years for which the reporting states are consistent. In addition, for these two years 

4323 SENSOR-Pesticides reports any contributing factor (also known as the “prevention code”) 

4324 identified for each incident. EPA initially focused this query on cases with prevention codes to 

4325 draw upon the training and expertise of NIOSH and the SENSOR-Pesticides state surveillance 

4326 coordinators who investigate and code these cases. However, while investigating deaths and 

4327 high severity cases over time in SENSOR, EPA realized that some relevant incidents were not 

4328 captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or “unknown.” 

4329 

4330 To ensure that all relevant cases were considered, EPA took a second step while querying the 

4331 SENSOR-Pesticides data to identify cases to support the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). 

4332 The WPS-relevant cases involve the use of agricultural pesticides used in the production of 

4333 crops. For the WPS-cases, EPA identified whether the incident involved a RUP and compared 

4334 the list to the initial query for 2009 – 2010 certification rule incidents that was based solely on 

4335 prevention codes. About 20 additional incidents involving the use of RUPs were identified that 

4336 were added to the list of cases that were reviewed. 

4337 

4338 EPA reviewed pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR-Pesticides from 2009-2010 that 

4339 involved a pesticide ingredient commonly associated with RUPs. There were initially 197 cases, 

4340 but 55 were removed from consideration. Fifteen were removed because they were either 

4341 intentional exposures, because state follow-up investigation concluded that the symptoms were 

4342 unlikely to be related to pesticide exposure, or because EPA determined that a certified 

4343 applicator was not involved in the incident. Another 30 were eliminated because they were 

4344 more relevant to the protections for workers and handlers under the agricultural Worker 

4345 Protection Standard. EPA is finalizing changes to the Worker Protection Standard, which will 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 

4346 also prevent acute pesticide poisoning incidents, and these incidents were removed to eliminate 

4347 potential double-counting under both rules. Finally, ten incidents were eliminated because they 

4348 were related to fumigant exposures. Recent changes to fumigant labeling requiring increased 

4349 training and safety equipment would probably have prevented those incidents. The proposed 

4350 new fumigant category in the changes to the certification standards codifies the current label 

4351 requirements, so we do not include those incidents (which occurred before the label changes) 

4352 here. 

4353 

4354 Using the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR-Pesticides along with the NIOSH assigned 

4355 prevention codes, EPA was able to identify the proximate causes of the exposure causing the 

4356 incident. EPA reviewed the narrative description of these cases, the information identified in the 

4357 SENSOR-Pesticide database and, additional information from the state if it was available for the 

4358 cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 

4359 the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “preventable” or “possibly 

4360 preventable” by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following guidelines: 

4361 

4362  Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the 

4363 application/applicator and the effect and the information demonstrated an error by the 

4364 applicator or applicator incompetency. 

4365  Possibly Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the 

4366 application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but the available 

4367 information did not identify any specific applicator errors. 

4368  Incidents where the proposed changes would not have prevented the incident, or where 

4369 there is not enough information to make a determination: incidents with a clear link 

4370 between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but 

4371 the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 

4372 

4373 The review of the SENSOR-Pesticides data identified 100 cases that were preventable under the 

4374 proposed revisions to the rule. Another 20 cases were possibly preventable. Cases deemed 

4375 “preventable” were used to calculate the low-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 

4376 unintentional pesticide incidents. Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR4377 Pesticides data. EPA concludes that 70 to 85 percent of RUP incidents would be preventable or 

4378 at least possibly avoidable through the proposed changes. The lower estimate is based on 

4379 avoiding only cases similar to those deemed preventable due to the proposed changes, as 

4380 discussed above. The higher estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibly 

4381 preventable after the proposed changes. 

4382 

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR-Pesticides Cases Avoided under the Proposed Changes, 2009 

- 2010 

Likelihood of being avoided by 

Proposed Rules 

Number of 

Cases 

Avoided, 

2009 - 2010 

Percent of 

RUP Cases 

(142 Cases) 

Annual 

Avoidable 

Incident rate 

per 1,000 

certified 

applicators 

National 

Estimate of 

RUP Cases 

Avoided 

Annually 

Preventable 100 70% 0.177 159 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 

Possibly Preventable 20 14% 0.035 32 

Both Preventable and Possibly 

Preventable 120 85% 0.213 191 

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data. The incident rates are based on an average of 282,323.5 

certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states during 2009 – 2010, and the national estimates are based on an 

average of 896,496 certified applicators during 2009 – 2010. 

Note: The number of cases avoided is based on two years of information, while the final column is an annual estimate. 

4383 

4384 Also shown in Table 6.5-2 are the estimated annual avoided cases per 1,000 certified applicators, 

4385 and the national estimate of annual avoided cases. To estimate the annual national number of 

4386 pesticide incidents avoided by this rule, we need to scale the data from the SENSOR-Pesticides 

4387 states that reported RUP incidents to the national level. If we let PIs,l be the number of 

4388 preventable incidents in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and APPs be the number of certified 

4389 applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, then we can define RPs,l = PIs,l/APPs, which will be 

4390 an estimate of the number of preventable incidents per certified applicator, which is done for 

4391 each level of likelihood for the incident being avoided. We will assume that the rate of 

4392 preventable incidents per applicator nationally, RPn,l, is equal to RPs,l. Therefore, we can 

4393 estimate the national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RPn,l by the number of 

4394 certified applicators nationally. 

4395 

4396 The SENSOR-Pesticides data that we are using is from the years 2009 – 2010. Over those two 

4397 years, the CPARD data on the number of certified applicators show the average number of 

4398 certified applicators as 282,323.5. This number includes existing certified private and 

4399 commercial applicators plus the number of new certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides 

4400 states, averaged for 2009 and 2010. RPs, the rate of preventable incidents per applicator, is 

4401 estimated by taking the number of avoided incidents annually, and dividing it by the average 

4402 number of certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and then scaling the result into 

4403 preventable incidents per 1,000 certified applicators. 

4404 

4405 The number of incidents avoided annually is half what is shown in the second column of Table 

4406 6.5-2, because the prevented incidents shown there are for both years, 2009 and 2010. These 

4407 estimates are presented for both preventable and possibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the 

4408 table. For every 1,000 certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, there are an 

4409 estimated 0.213 RUP incidents that are preventable or possibly preventable by the rule. The 

4410 final column in Table 6.5-2 shows the national estimate of avoided RUP incidents. The 

4411 estimates in this column were calculated by multiplying the annual preventable incident rate per 

4412 applicator (RPn,l = RPs,l) times the number of certified applicators nationally. Nationally the 

4413 average number of certified applicators for 2009 and 2010 was 896,496, which includes new and 

4414 existing private and commercial applicators. These calculations yield an estimate of annual RUP 

4415 incidents prevented by the rule of 159 on the low end, and 191 on the upper end. This estimate 

4416 accounts only for reported incidents, which are likely to be a small proportion of the total 

4417 number of incidents. In Section 6.5.4 below, we consider other sources for unreported deaths. 

4418 

4419 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 

4420 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided 

4421 

4422 As explained in Section 6.5.1, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 

4423 medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 

4424 These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are 

4425 discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the 

4426 effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 

4427 require more treatment, including hospitalization. People suffering from more severe effects are 

4428 more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, a more severe effect is likely to result in a longer 

4429 period of recovery during which the victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. 

4430 Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to 

4431 estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality. 

4432 

4433 Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 

4434 given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by 

4435 

ܸ௜

௜ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ 4436௜ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௩஺

4437 

where Vi

Av 4438 is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti] is the expected medical cost for the case, 

4439 and VPLi is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We use the four severity levels 

4440 described in the SENSOR-Pesticides database as described below: Low Severity, Moderate 

4441 Severity, High Severity, and Death. 

4442 

4443 The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 

4444 

ሿ 4445௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ሻ݅|ܨܥܪሺܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯEሾ

4446 

4447 where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 

4448 severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 

4449 InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self4450 treatments. 

4451 

4452 The value of lost productivity is 

4453 

4454 VPLi= (ωw·work + ωH·housekeeping + ωL·leisure)·DURi

4455 

4456 where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

4457 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

4458 activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 

4459 

4460 The value of a reduction in premature mortality, is simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). 

4461 The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortality risk 

4462 experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates are derived from aggregated estimates 

4463 of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For example, if 10,000 individuals are 

4464 each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, then the value of saving one 

4465 statistical life equals $500 times 10,000 – or $5 million. Note that this does not mean that any 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 

4466 identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate value of reducing a 

4467 collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical case. This analysis 

4468 uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This value is based on a 

4469 distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL, and then adjusted from the base value 

4470 ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010a). 

4471 

4472 Probability of Effect 

4473 

4474 The SENSOR-Pesticides data on RUP illnesses contains information about the severity of the 

4475 illness for each incident. As shown in Table 6.5-3, considering only the preventable and possibly 

4476 preventable incidents, about 61% of the acute cases considered resulted in “low severity illness 

4477 or injury”, over 32% percent in “moderate severity illness or injury,” 5% in “high severity illness 

4478 or injury,” and under 2% in death. The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of low 

4479 or moderate severity. 

4480 

Table 6.5-3: Severity of Symptoms from Preventable SENSOR-Pesticides Cases 

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total 

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 73 60.83% 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 39 32.50% 

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 6 5.00% 

Category S-1: Death 2 1.67% 

Total 120 100.00% 

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 - 2010 

4481 

4482 The four severity categories in the SENSOR-Pesticides data are defined as follows (NIOSH, 

4483 2001): 

4484 

4485  S-4 Low severity illness or injury 

4486 This is the category of lowest severity. It is often manifested by skin, eye or upper 

4487 respiratory irritation. It may also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically 

4488 the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (<3 days) from 

4489 work or normal activities 

4490 

4491  S-3 Moderate severity illness or injury 

4492 This category includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving systemic 

4493 manifestations. Generally, treatment was provided. The individual is able to return to 

4494 normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from work or 

4495 normal activities (3-5 days), compared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual 

4496 impairment is present (although effects may be persistent) 

4497 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 

4498  S-2 High severity illness or injury 

4499 The illness or injury is severe enough to be considered life threatening and typically 

4500 requires treatment. This level of effect commonly involves hospitalization to prevent 

4501 death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal 

4502 failure and/or respiratory depression. The individual sustains substantial loss of time (> 5 

4503 days) from regular work (this can include assignment to limited/light work duties) or 

4504 normal activities (if not employed). This level of severity might include the need for 

4505 continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and 

4506 limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 

4507 permanent functional impairment 

4508 

4509  S-1 Death 

4510 This category describes a human fatality resulting from exposure to one or more 

4511 pesticides. 

4512 

4513 Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 

4514 the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5-2, EPA estimates the distribution of 

4515 preventable RUP incidents across the four severity levels. Table 6.5-4 shows the estimated 

4516 number of national incidents that may be prevented by the rule for each severity level, based on 

4517 the high and low estimates of cases prevented from Table 6.5-2. The estimates, except for 

4518 “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 

4519 

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity 

 

Estimate of Number of 

Cases Prevented 

Annually 

Clinical Effect Share of Total

Low End 

Estimate 

(70%) 

High End 

Estimate 

(85%) 

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 60.8% 97 116 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 32.5% 52 62 

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 5.0% 8 10 

Category S-1: Death 1.7% 2.65 3.18 

 

Total 100.0% 158.77 190.53 

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3. 

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers, except for “Death” and the total. Death estimates are later revised based 

on further investigation, as shown in Table 6.5-10 and 6.5-11. 

4520 

4521 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 

4522 6.5.4.1 Additional Sources for Counting Preventable Deaths 

4523 

4524 Because deaths from pesticide exposure are such infrequent events, there is concern that only 

4525 using two years of data from one data set that covers only a subset of states will not be 

4526 representative of the actual risk and benefit from preventing deaths. In addition to the estimates 

4527 of preventable deaths presented in Table 6.5-4, there are other data sources available that can be 

4528 used to document the number of unintentional fatalities over time. 

4529 

4530 In addition to the SENSOR-Pesticides data, there were two other sources with information on 

4531 deaths from pesticide exposure: Annual reports prepared by the American Association of Poison 

4532 Control Centers (AAPCC) and the EPA’s Incident Data System (IDS). SENSOR-Pesticides data 

4533 are also available beginning in 1999, although the states where data were collected were 

4534 inconsistent, and incidents prior to 2009 were not evaluated by NIOSH staff to determine 

4535 possible causes of incidents. 

4536 

4537 The National Poison Data System (NPDS) is the AAPCC’s database management system used to 

compile poisoning information gathered by the AAPCC-certified poison centers11 4538 . There are 

4539 currently 57 certified poison centers. Poison center staff are health care professionals and are 

4540 available for advice about poisonings free of charge, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In addition 

4541 to responding to calls from the general public, staff also field calls from health care professionals 

4542 and the public health agencies. The poison centers collectively receive over 3.6 million call 

4543 encounters annually. These are primarily consumer oriented incident calls rather than 

4544 occupational “work related” incident calls (Bronstein et al., 2011). EPA does not have access to 

4545 the raw data from the NPDS, and only summary information on pesticide events is available for 

4546 incidents that did not result in deaths. However, for poisoning incidents that did result in deaths, 

4547 including pesticide incidents, the AAPCC annual reports include an appendix of case abstracts 

4548 that provide more information on deaths, with a description of the scenario in which the 

4549 poisoning occurred and the treatment received (American Association of Poison Control Centers, 

4550 1999 – 2012). These descriptions in the annual reports are not a full list of deaths reported to the 

4551 AAPCC, because only a subset of fatal cases are chosen for reporting. Case abstracts presented 

4552 in the annual reports meet a number of criteria by AAPCC report authors (e.g., completeness of 

4553 therapy details, educational value of the incident, etc.). Therefore, the cases gathered from this 

4554 source, while limited, provides EPA with a number of compelling incidents. 

4555 

4556 EPA/OPP’s Incident Data System (IDS) contains reports of alleged human health incidents from 

4557 a variety of sources, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

4558 (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, reports from other federal and state health and 

4559 environmental agencies and individual consumers. Case reports or “narratives” may be provided 

4560 for the reported incidents, with varying levels of detail; however, there is no effort at validating 

4561 or assessing how likely it is that the reported exposure is causally related to the reported 

4562 outcome. This system receives information pertaining to occupational and consumer oriented 

4563 incidents. OPP focused on incidents categorized at the highest severity level (death). 

4564 

4565 

 

11 More information about the data available from the NPDS is available here: http://www.aapcc.org/data-system/ 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 

4566 These two sources were investigated to determine if there was information that would shed 

4567 additional light on the frequency of preventable deaths from RUPs. The data from the AAPCC 

4568 annual reports was available from 1999 – 2012, and there were 13 deaths that EPA staff 

4569 determined were a result of a preventable exposure to an RUP. The EPA IDS was queried from 

4570 2008 – 2014, and showed a total of six deaths that EPA staff classified as preventable. A 

4571 summary of the information about deaths from these different databases is provided in Table 6.5-

4572 5. EPA considered several methods for combining the additional information from AAPCC and 

4573 IDS to better estimate the number of deaths prevented by the rule annually, without any potential 

4574 double counting of the information already available from SENSOR-Pesticides, or from earlier 

4575 years of SENSOR-Pesticides data. 

4576 

4577 When using the SENSOR-Pesticides data set from 2009 – 2010 to create Table 6.5-4, we 

4578 extrapolated from the SENSOR-Pesticides states to the national level by creating an index of 

4579 incidents per certified applicator, which yielded an estimate of 2.65 to 3.18 preventable deaths 

4580 per year. The simplest way to estimate the number of deaths prevented by the rule is to look at 

4581 the total number of preventable deaths across all the data sets for the years in which all are 

4582 available, without any scaling to the national level for SENSOR-Pesticides data. By using three 

4583 different data sets and only using unique incidents, a reasonable estimate can be obtained without 

4584 double counting. There are only three years for which all three data series were available, from 

4585 2008, 2009, and 2010. There were a total of six unique preventable deaths for those three years, 

4586 or two preventable deaths per year. Three were from SENSOR-Pesticides (one each in 2008, 

4587 2009, and 2010). The AAPCC data reported three preventable deaths, one for each year, but the 

4588 deaths for 2008 and 2009 were duplicates of the deaths reported in SENSOR-Pesticides, leaving 

4589 one unique death. There were three preventable deaths reported in IDS for 2010 (none for other 

4590 years), one of which was a duplicate to a report in SENSOR-Pesticides, leaving two unique 

4591 deaths. This suggests that our extrapolation from the SENSOR-Pesticides data in 2009 – 2010 

4592 yielding 2.65 to 3.18 deaths per year may be an overestimate. This approach is not much of an 

4593 improvement on the initial approach using SENSOR-Pesticides data, however, because it only 

4594 uses three years of data, rather than two. The relative rarity of deaths gives an important reason 

4595 to look beyond the three years available for all three data sets. 

4596 

4597 Another possible approach is using the maximum years available, from 1999 – 2014, over which 

4598 time there were 21 unique preventable deaths, or 1.31 per year. The problem with this approach 

4599 is that the correct number of years is not obvious, because none of the data sets spans the entire 

4600 range. That would not be of concern if most of the incidents appear in all the data sets, but that 

4601 is rare – there is surprisingly little overlap (3 cases), even for this most severe of outcomes. 

4602 

4603 To use the data available without double counting the incidents, one option is to combine the 

4604 initial SENSOR-Pesticides estimate for deaths with new estimates from AAPCC and the IDS. 

4605 The estimated rate for the nation estimated from SENSOR-Pesticides is between 2.65 and 3.18 

4606 preventable deaths per year. We exclude any deaths that were reported in AAPCC that were also 

4607 reported in the SENSOR-Pesticides data from 2009 – 2010; there were two, leaving 11 unique 

4608 preventable deaths reported by AAPCC between 1999 and 2012, or 0.786 per year. Finally, we 

4609 consider the IDS cases reported from 2008 – 2014. There were five unique preventable deaths 

4610 from IDS, or an estimated 0.714 per year, although data for 2014 are incomplete. Because these 

4611 estimates from the three different data sources only consider unique preventable deaths, they can 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 

4612 be added together, which would yield between 4.15 and 4.68 estimated preventable deaths per 

4613 year. 

4614 

4615 However, the estimate based on SENSOR-Pesticides data from 2009 – 2010 was extrapolated to 

4616 the national level, and hypothetically, one of the cases from AAPCC or IDS could have been one 

4617 of the cases accounted for by the extrapolation. For that reason, instead of using the estimate of 

4618 preventable deaths from Table 6.5-4 as our starting point, we use only the reported estimates 

4619 from SENSOR-Pesticides, not the extrapolated figures. Two preventable deaths from RUP 

4620 exposure were reported in SENSOR-Pesticides from 2009 – 2010, or one per year. This is a 

4621 conservative estimate because SENSOR-Pesticides only covers a few states, but we use it here. 

4622 Combining that number with estimates from the unique incidents from AAPCC and IDS yields 

4623 an estimate of 2.50 preventable deaths per year. 

4624 

Table 6.5-5: Summary of Pesticide Deaths from Additional Data Sources 

 SENSORPesticides 

2009 - 2010 

AAPCC 

1999 - 2012 

EPA 

Incident 

Data System 

2008 - 2014

Preventable RUP Deaths 2 13 6 

Total Deaths Reported 3 267 49 

Preventable RUP Deaths per Year 1 0.9 0.9 

Total Deaths per Year 1.5 19.1 7.0 

Sources: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data; EPA analysis of the AAPCC Annual Reports; EPA 

queries and analysis of the Incident Data System 

Note: The EPA IDS data for 2014 are not complete 

4625 

4626 Deaths from applicator errors involving RUPs occur for a variety of reasons. These include 

4627 people accidentally ingesting an RUP that was improperly transferred to a beverage container, 

4628 misuse of RUPs in or around homes, faulty equipment and failure to wear appropriate protective 

4629 equipment, and failure to confirm a living space is empty before fumigating. 

4630 

4631 Valuation of Effect 

4632 

4633 The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11). The 

4634 estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated 

4635 number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is 

4636 likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 6.5.2. 

4637 

4638 Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those 

4639 affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 

4640 illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 

4641 for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particular, these estimates do not: (1) address the value 

4642 of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness (i.e., 

4643 defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 

4644 consider person’s anticipated value of preventing illness values (they are based on ex post costs); 

4645 and (5) consider whether treatment returns individuals to their original health state (i.e., is 

4646 equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely). 

4647 

4648 In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 

4649 rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 

4650 are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 

4651 hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except 

4652 “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 

4653 sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost 

4654 productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 

4655 illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 

4656 For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 

4657 work, household activities, and leisure. 

4658 

4659 Direct Medical Costs 

4660 

4661 As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by 

4662 

ሿ 4663௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ሻ݅|ܨܥܪሺܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሿ௜ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯEሾ

4664 

4665 where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 

4666 treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 

4667 

4668 In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 

4669 used the SENSOR-Pesticides information for those cases which deemed preventable or possibly 

4670 preventable for 2009 - 2010. The SENSOR-Pesticides data has a variable which indicates 

4671 whether medical care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a physician’s 

4672 office, an emergency room, or admitted to a hospital. Table 6.5-6 presents the number of cases 

4673 that were seen at a health care facility, the total number of cases over these years, as well as the 

4674 each category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure 

4675 of the probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we use the share of cases 

4676 from that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-6. It is not 

4677 surprising that the share receiving medical care is so high, because to be included in the 

4678 SENSOR-Pesticides database requires at least two reportable symptoms of pesticide exposure, 

4679 and because the cases treated by medical professionals are more likely to be reported to 

4680 SENSOR-Pesticides. 

4681 

4682 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 

Table 6.5-6: Health Care Sought for Preventable Pesticide-Related Acute Exposures, 

SENSOR-Pesticides 2009-2010. 

Clinical Effect 

Cases Seen at 

Health Care 

Facility 

Total 

Cases 

Share of 

Cases Seen 

at Health 

Care 

Facility 

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 55 73 75% 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 39 39 100% 

Category S-2: High severity illness or injury 5 6 83% 

 

Source: SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 – 2010. Incidents from Category S-1, death, are not included, so the total 

number of preventable cases is 118. 

4683 

4684 Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 

4685 specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, average 

4686 for 2009 and 2010. For Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) 

4687 the average charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $29,970 in 2007. 

4688 

4689 Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from physician visit benchmark fees for 

4690 evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 

4691 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 

medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals)12 4692 . 

4693 Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 

4694 established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 

4695 describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 

4696 2009 - 2010, the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC 

4697 category was $68.72 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $75.61 for new 

4698 patients. Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, 

4699 the average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $72.17. That cost seems low, but the 

4700 data reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those 

4701 services. This may be an underestimate, which would imply that the outpatient cost is 

4702 underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 

4703 

4704 Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 

4705 treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-7. 

4706 

 

12The average facility charge for all providers in 2009 - 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 

Table 6.5-7 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect 

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF|i) Outpatient 

Cost 

Inpatient 

Cost 

Expected 

Medical 

Cost 1

Category S-4: Low severity illness or 

injury 75% $72.17 $0 $54.37 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness 

or injury 100% $72.17 $0 $72.17 

Category S-2:High severity illness or 

injury 83% $72.17 $29,970 $25,035.14 

Source: EPA estimation. 

1

Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost]. 

4707 

4708 

4709 The Value of Lost Productivity

4710 

4711 The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is 

4712 typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 

4713 As noted above, we calculate this value as 

4714 

Eሾܸܲܮ௜ሿ ൌ ሺ߱௪ݎ݋ݓ݇ ൅ ߱ு݄ݏݑ݋݁݇݁݁݌݅݊݃ ൅ ߱ ௅4715 ݈݁݅ݎݑݏ݁ሻ ൈ ܦܷܴ௜

4716 

4717 where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

4718 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

4719 activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

4720 

4721 BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 

4722 leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2013d), 

4723 an employed person works an average of 38.6 hours per week or 5.51 hours per day over a 

4724 seven-day week. According to the American Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2013e), the average 

4725 time spent by those over 16 in housekeeping is 1.78 hours per day. Leisure is calculated as the 

4726 remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 8.71 hours per day. 

4727 

4728 The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for adult private and 

4729 commercial certified pesticide applicators, weighted using the number of certified applicators of 

4730 each type in 2014 (see Section 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $38.41 per hour. This is an 

4731 assumption made for simplicity, but the affected person may not be a certified applicator, and 

4732 wages vary by occupation. This analysis assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. The 

4733 value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $11.23 

4734 (BLS, 2013f). This labor category was chosen as most closely representative, given the 

4735 occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an injured worker had to hire 

4736 outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the after-tax wage rate for 

4737 certified applicators, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work and 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 

4738 leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 29.4 percent (Tax 

4739 Foundation, 2013), which leaves an after-tax return of $27.12 per hour for leisure. 

4740 

4741 Table 6.5-8 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 

4742 in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 

4743 Table 6.5-8 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day 

4744 week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 

4745 estimated to be $467.87 per day. 

4746 

Table 6.5-8: Value of a Day of Full Productivity 

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value 

(ω) 

Total Value per 

Day 

Work 5.51 a $38.41c $211.80 

Housekeeping 1.78 a $11.23d $18.07 

Leisure 8.71 b $27.12e $236.08 

 

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $467.86 

Sources: 

a BLS, 2013d, Current Population Survey (CPS) 

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times and subtracting the time known for work and housekeeping and 

assuming 8 hours per day for sleep 

c

EPA Estimates – see Chapter 3 

d

 BLS, 2013f CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($449) and 

assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $11.23 per hour. 

e

Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (29.4%). 

4747 

4748 The SENSOR-Pesticides data do not report the duration of illness from the RUP incident, 

4749 although the bounds of the duration can be inferred by the severity category. The definitions of 

the severity categories contain ranges of time lost from work13 4750 . For the lowest severity category, 

4751 time lost from work is less than three days, while for moderate severity incidents, between three 

4752 and five days of work are lost. For high severity incidents, time lost from work is greater than 

4753 five days, although the description of the category cautions that “[t]his level of severity might 

4754 include the need for continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of 

4755 work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 

4756 permanent functional impairment.” This description indicates that the damage from an RUP 

4757 incident could last substantially longer than five days. As shown in Table 6.5-9, for the 

4758 moderate severity category, we use the low end (three days) and the high end (five days) of the 

4759 range as the estimate of the time lost from the RUP exposure. For the low severity category, the 

4760 high end (three days) is defined, but the low end is not, so we use the midpoint of the range 

4761 between zero and three days, or 1.5 days. For the high severity category, the low end of the 

4762 range is defined as five days, but the upper end is not defined, and could be permanent. For this 

4763 analysis, we assume that the upper end is 30 days, which is somewhat arbitrary. 

4764 

 

13 The description of the severity indices can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pestsevindexv6.pdf 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 

4765 Table 6.5-9 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 

4766 with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 

4767 days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($467.86) to yield high and low 

4768 estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 

4769 

Table 6.5-9: Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by 

Clinical Effect 

Clinical Effect Scenario 

Duration of 

Clinical 

Effect (Days) E[VPLi] a

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury Low-End 1.5 $701.79 

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury High-end 3 $1,403.58 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or 

injury Low-End 3 $1,403.58 

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or 

injury High-end 5 $2,339.31 

Category S-2: High severity illness or injury Low-End 5 $2,339.31 

Category S-2: High severity illness or injury High-end 30 $14,035.83 

Sources: EPA calculations 

a

The unit cost for lost productivity day by severity category was calculated by multiplying the average 

duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($467.86). 

4770 

4771 The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 

4772 

4773 The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA 

4774 (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 

4775 reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 

4776 resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 

4777 productivity is included in the VSL. 

4778 

4779 Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents 

4780 

4781 The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11. For 

4782 each level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the 

4783 value of premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all 

4784 severity levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-10 shows the low end 

4785 estimates, which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the 

4786 number of prevented cases, while Table 6.5-11 shows the high end estimates. 

4787 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 

Table 6.5-10: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the 

Certification Rule 

Clinical Effect 

Avoided 

Cases per 

Year 

Medical 

Costs per 

Case 

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case 

Premature 

Mortality 

per Case 

Average Annual 

Total Cost 

Avoided 

Category S-4: Low severity 

illness or injury 97 $54.37 $701.79 $0 $73,348 

Category S-3: Moderate 

severity illness or injury 52 $72.17 $1,403.58 $0 $76,739 

Category S-2:High severity 

illness or injury 8 $25,035.14 $2,339.31 $0 $218,996 

Category S-1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000 

 

Total 159.50 $20,119,083 

Source: EPA calculations. 

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as average annual costs are rounded. 

4788 

Table 6.5-11: “High-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the 

Certification Rule 

Clinical Effect 

Avoided 

Cases per 

Year 

Medical 

Costs per 

Case 

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case 

Premature 

Mortality 

per Case 

Average 

Annual Total 

Cost Avoided 

Category S-4: Low severity 

illness or injury 116 $54.37 $1,403.58 $0 $169,123 

Category S-3: Moderate 

severity illness or injury 62 $72.17 $2,339.31 $0 $149,512 

Category S-2:High severity 

illness or injury 10 $25,035.14 $14,035.83 $0 $390,710 

Category S-1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000 

 

Total 190.5 $20,459,344 

Source: EPA calculations. 

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as average annual costs are rounded. 

4789 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 

4790 The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from 

4791 $20.1 to 20.5 million. Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is 

4792 between $172 million and $175 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between 

4793 $141 million and $144 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied. Note that these 

4794 estimates are based on the number of deaths using additional sources of information to the 

4795 SENSOR-Pesticides data, as described in Section 6.5.4.1. Therefore, the estimated number of 

4796 preventable deaths per year, 2.50, is lower than either the low- or high-end estimates (2.65 or 

4797 3.18 preventable deaths per year) based on SENSOR-Pesticides alone, which were shown in 

4798 Table 6.5-4. The overall estimates of the benefits for the rule are lower than they would be if 

4799 only the SENSOR-Pesticides estimates were used. If the estimates based on SENSOR-Pesticides 

4800 data alone were used, the total benefit estimate would be between $21.4 and $25.9 million 

4801 annually. 

4802 

4803 There are limitations to these estimates. Because of the substantial value associated with 

4804 preventing a death from RUPs, the estimates are very sensitive to the estimate of deaths 

4805 prevented, although we use the most conservative estimate available here. Also, as discussed 

4806 above, we expect that a large proportion of accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning never get 

4807 reported or investigated for various reasons. All indications are that under-reporting is 

4808 substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in the poisoning surveillance databases 

4809 and, hence, not included in this analysis. This under-reporting will bias estimates of acute 

4810 benefits downward. 

4811 

4812 In Table 6.5-12, we show the effect of under-reporting at different rates on our monetized 

4813 estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% under-reporting), 

4814 the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is under4815 reporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-12 shows a range of 

4816 benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 10%), 

4817 which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about under4818 reporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and under-reporting is equally 

4819 likely in all poisoning cases across all severity levels, then the high-end estimate of the value of 

4820 prevented poisoning due to the rule would be over $204 million per year, substantially higher 

4821 than those reported above, which assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects 

4822 associated with these unreported acute exposures are also not known. If reporting rates vary by 

4823 severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, 

4824 then the effects of under-reporting would be correspondingly lower. A plausible estimate for 

4825 under-reporting, based on the studies reported in Section 6.5.2 is 75%, which corresponds to 

4826 25% reporting in Table 6.5-12. This would yield annual estimated benefits from reduced RUP 

4827 exposure of between $81 and $82 million. 

4828 

4829 The estimated cost of the rule is between $47.2 million per year, based on a 3% discount rate 

4830 (see Chapter 5). If we assume that there is no under-reporting of RUP incidents, then the annual 

4831 estimated benefits from the rule do not reach that level. Annual benefits of $47.2 million per 

4832 year corresponds to a reporting rate of about 43% for the high-end estimates, or 57% of incidents 

4833 not being recorded in the surveillance databases. This is a low assumption for under-reporting, 

4834 based on the information from the studies in Section 6.5.2. Also, we have made no attempt to 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

40 

4835 measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be substantial; the 

4836 estimates are based on the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. 

4837 

Table 6.5-12. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions 

about Under-reporting 

Share of 

Cases 

Reported 

Low-End 

Estimate of 

Prevented 

Cases 

Low-End 

Estimate of 

Benefits 

High-End 

Estimate of 

Prevented 

Cases 

High-End 

Estimate of 

Benefits 

100% 159.5 $20,119,083 190.5 $20,459,344 

50% 319.0 $40,238,165 381.0 $40,918,688 

25% 638.0 $80,476,330 762.0 $81,837,377 

20% 797.5 $100,595,413 952.5 $102,296,721 

10% 1,595.0 $201,190,826 1,905.0 $204,593,442 

Source: EPA Calculations 

4838 

4839 The values shown in Table 6.5-12 assume that under-reporting is equal across all severity levels. 

4840 It is plausible that deaths, for example, are less likely to be underreported than less severe events, 

4841 although the lack of duplication in the available databases discussed above suggests this may not 

4842 be the case. Because such a large portion of the overall value is from prevented deaths, different 

4843 assumptions about reporting rates are important. For example, if 100% of deaths were reported, 

4844 even if we assumed that that only 10% of less severe incidents were reported would not yield 

4845 annual benefits that exceeded the annual costs – the estimated benefits would be about $27 

4846 million annually at the high-end. For the estimated acute benefits of the rule to exceed the cost, 

4847 the reporting rate for deaths is just under 50%, even when only 10% of less severe incidents are 

4848 reported. 

4849 

4850 All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section include only the effects of reduced 

4851 illness from acute exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section, 

4852 which will discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 

4853 families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 

4854 

4855 

4856 6.6. Risks to Human Health from Chronic RUP Exposure 

4857 

4858 In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 

4859 presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 

4860 reflected in the estimates, e.g., potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 

4861 are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. 

4862 EPA anticipates that benefits from reduced chronic health effects would accrue primarily to 

4863 commercial pesticide applicators, since they are most likely to face long-term minor exposures, 

4864 but there may also be benefits from reduced exposure to applicators’ families and those working 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

41 

4865 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. This section will describe the potential 

4866 chronic health effects to commercial pesticide applicators from pesticide exposure. 

4867 

4868 It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 

4869 outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. Available data do not establish a causal link 

4870 between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information finding correlations 

4871 between pesticide exposure and illness is compelling enough to suggest some of the observed 

4872 statistical associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. 

4873 Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through changes to the certification rule may 

4874 have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time. 

4875 

4876 While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 

4877 pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 

4878 evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

4879 non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically, several 

4880 epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within 

4881 different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before 

4882 researchers can move from a statistical association to a causal determination. The environmental 

4883 epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in terms of both quantity and quality of pesticide 

4884 epidemiology studies, and EPA expects additional causal links between pesticide exposure and 

4885 adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time. However, at this 

4886 time, EPA is not making definitive causal connections between any one specific pesticide 

4887 exposure and a specific adverse health outcome. 

4888 

4889 Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real 

4890 world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposure4891 chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 

4892 the scientific peer- reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 

4893 collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 

4894 issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. There is a large body of epidemiological 

4895 evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (such as cancer, neurological, 

4896 respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result from 

4897 pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to 

4898 specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. 

4899 

4900 There are several ongoing studies with large agricultural cohorts funded by federal governments 

4901 in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within these populations suggest several plausible hypotheses 

4902 to link pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The most notable of these is the Agricultural 

Health Study14 4903 funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute of 

4904 Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other collaborating 

4905 agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, including private 

4906 and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses. The nature of this powerful 

4907 epidemiologic study design allows investigators to examine many different adverse health 

4908 outcomes within the study population, i.e., pesticide exposure is ascertained at the beginning of 

 

14 More information on the Agricultural Health Study and partners can be found on their website, here: 

http://aghealth.nih.gov/ 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

42 

4909 the study and updated periodically, while health information is continually updated and/or 

4910 collected over time. Another study cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 

4911 links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al., 1996, 

4912 Nordby et al., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between 

4913 agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al., 2006). The Korean 

4914 Multi-Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 

4915 as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 

4916 (Yoo et al., 2002). These investigators have initiated a collaborative effort, AGRICOH, which is 

4917 designed to encourage international collaboration. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine countries 

4918 pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from pesticide exposure and other 

4919 causes (Leon, et al., 2011). 

4920 

4921 A complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 

4922 implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 

4923 protective equipment, revised re-entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide 

4924 products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 

4925 contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 

4926 necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g., if the pesticide was already cancelled or 

4927 withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 

4928 pesticide product formulation changes and other factors may have resulted in significant changes 

4929 in the use of pesticides over the last several decades, which is the relevant period for 

4930 investigating chronic effects with typically long latency periods such as cancer. As a result, 

4931 studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with caution when applied to 

4932 current use patterns. 

4933 

4934 Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 

4935 linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early life exposures may occur from 

4936 pesticides that are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pesticide applicators and brought into 

4937 the applicator home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take 

4938 home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or an agricultural worker may bring pesticide 

4939 residues home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). 

4940 

4941 These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information are evaluated to 

4942 determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health effects in the 

4943 applicator population and their families. EPA takes action to mitigate the estimated risks of 

4944 individual pesticides to human health. However, there are also instances in which there is cause 

4945 for concern over generalized pesticide exposure (beyond those that can be modeled using 

4946 aggregate and/or cumulative risk assessment practices). The proposed rule changes are also 

4947 designed to protect against commercial pesticide applicator exposures from all RUPs even when 

4948 the causal link between individual pesticides and specific health outcomes is not demonstrated. 

4949 

4950 In this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic health effects that result from 

4951 pesticide exposure. These case study examples are selected for discussion here because they 

4952 meet EPA data quality standards, and due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the 

4953 hypothesized link, the number of studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the 

4954 health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

43 

4955 suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific research and 

4956 measures of chronic exposure at this time, estimates of the quantitative benefits from the 

4957 proposal are not possible. 

4958 

4959 

4960 6.6.1. Cancer Risks 

4961 

4962 Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 

4963 various peer-review bodies, there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 

4964 associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical cancer sites, with biological 

4965 plausibility illustrated in experimental toxicology studies. Many studies have evaluated other 

4966 possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. While it is premature to state there is a 

4967 causal association between the studied pesticides and cancer in the applicator population, EPA 

4968 presents this information to demonstrate the growing body of knowledge as to possible chronic 

4969 health effects of pesticide exposure. 

4970 

4971 Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 

4972 articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide 

4973 exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 

4974 specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 

4975 cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 

4976 exposure (Bassil et al.; 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele 

4977 et al.; 2011; Wigle et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2009; Alavanja and Bonner, 2012; and Alavanja et 

4978 al., 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 

4979 pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 

4980 

4981 Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 

4982 agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 

4983 excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 

4984 and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 

4985 cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 

4986 of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 

4987 to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 

4988 pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 

4989 engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009). 

4990 

4991 

4992 Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 

4993 

4994 Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 

4995 example, since the 1980s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 

4996 exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al., 1997). 

4997 Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973 -1990, a time period 

4998 coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 

4999 et al., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 

5000 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 

5001 as a result of pesticide exposure; however, this is not known with certainty at this time. 

5002 Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general 

5003 population, Koutros, et al. (2010a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 

5004 lymphoma. Eriksson et al. (2008) reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 

5005 population-based case-control study in Sweden (Eriksson et al., 2008). There may be a link 

5006 between pesticide exposure and these cancers; however, additional research is necessary to 

5007 understand whether the link is causal in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and 

5008 other farm related exposures may contribute to the risk of these cancers. 

5009 

5010 In a review by Bassil et al. (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 

5011 leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies 

5012 with statistically significant results. Several case-control studies looked at children that had been 

5013 exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia for children whose 

5014 parents used insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed 

5015 while pregnant (Bassil et al., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies 

5016 included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether publication bias 

5017 was a factor in the results of this review. 

5018 

5019 In the Bassil et al. (2007) review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 

5020 examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 

5021 the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 

5022 associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 

5023 pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 

5024 pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 

5025 postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 

5026 risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al., 2007). 

5027 

5028 Wigle et al. (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 

5029 exposure to pesticides and leukemia in farmworkers’ children. They found no evidence of a 

5030 direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report 

5031 an association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides 

5032 and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other 

5033 related exposures. 

5034 

5035 Prostate Cancer 

5036 

5037 For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 

5038 are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 

5039 disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al., 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 

5040 prostate cancer, which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 

5041 non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 

5042 members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 

5043 increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al., 2010a). Case-control analysis within the AHS 

5044 suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 

5045 only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al., 2003). Additional follow-
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

45 

5046 up within the AHS cohort corroborates this initial finding (Mahajan et al., 2006 and 2007; 

5047 Christensen et al., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure 

5048 varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 

5049 that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 

5050 not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic 

5051 variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 

5052 and prostate cancer (Koutros et al., 2010b). Since these genetic variations do not fully explain 

5053 the cancer relationships within a family, other shared environmental exposures may play an 

5054 important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, possibly 

5055 due to differing study designs used. 

5056 

5057 Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 

5058 this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al. 2012). For the 

5059 purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 

5060 outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 

5061 a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 

5062 among those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. 

5063 This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 

5064 and prostate cancer. It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the 

5065 aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 

5066 slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 

5067 to distinguish clear causal pathways. However, the study is supportive of previous work 

5068 concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 

5069 the AHS. 

5070 

5071 Lung Cancer 

5072 

5073 There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al.

5074 (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 

5075 AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in 

5076 the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the 

5077 population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung 

5078 cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004). 

5079 

5080 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects 

5081 

5082 Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide 

5083 exposure; however, none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 

5084 investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are 

5085 preliminary investigations, other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 

5086 However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 

5087 and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general 

5088 neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the proposed changes to the 

5089 certification rule reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these 

5090 chronic health effects as well. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

46 

5091 

5092 Neurological Function 

5093 

5094 The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 

5095 spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al. (2007), investigated the 

5096 hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Study participants included licensed 

5097 private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 

5098 contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of 

5099 PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those 

5100 who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a dose5101 response relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no 

5102 association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has 

5103 recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant self5104 reporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if 

5105 participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al., 2011). 

5106 

5107 In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al. (2007) 

5108 evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 

5109 and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude 

5110 that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 

5111 exposures of pesticides on the job.” 

5112 

5113 Sanborn et al. (2007) examined the non-cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found 

5114 most (39/41) studies displayed an increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 

5115 association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 

5116 preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 

5117 depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al., 2007). Kamel et al. (2007), 

5118 using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide 

5119 exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. 

5120 

5121 Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies (Rauh 

5122 et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2011; and Bouchard et al., 2011) have investigated the relationship 

5123 between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 

5124 neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 

5125 al., 2011) reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides 

5126 and adverse neurological symptoms. The authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data 

5127 at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of 

5128 action, among other study characteristics. 

5129 

5130 Respiratory Function 

5131 

5132 Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 

5133 effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 

5134 trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 

5135 asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 

5136 several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et al. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

47 

5137 (2008) reported an association between exposure to a range of pesticides and asthma in farm 

5138 women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of asthma attacks. This 

5139 study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an important effect from 

5140 generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families, rather than exposure as a pesticide 

5141 applicator. An association has been reported for children, as well. Salam et al. (2004) describe a 

5142 range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and 

5143 other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with early onset asthma. An 

5144 international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al., 2003) also 

5145 reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms. 

5146 

5147 Studies have also reported an association between pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 

5148 inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 

5149 a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes 

5150 it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 

5151 Hoppin et al. (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and 

5152 chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an association that was stronger among those with a 

5153 high pesticide exposure event. 

5154 

5155 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 

5156 

5157 Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause-effect relation 

5158 between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes. However, the totality 

5159 of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with 

5160 plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic 

5161 adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 

5162 and standards. 

5163 

5164 The proposed changes to the certification rule are designed to reduce occupational exposure to 

5165 all RUPs, as well as reduce non-occupational exposure to the families of certified applicators and 

5166 the general public. There is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that 

5167 reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic 

5168 illness (Section 6.6 above). In general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations 

5169 between exposure and illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health 

5170 effects of specific pesticides for use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the 

5171 proposed rule changes are a way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an 

5172 overall benefit to health. 

5173 

5174 The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 

5175 effects on the health and welfare of those who suffer from these diseases. These illnesses do not 

5176 only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by family 

5177 members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those stricken with 

5178 illness. 

5179 

5180 Because of the uncertainties in the number of chronic illnesses that may be caused by, and 

5181 therefore prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates 

5182 of pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

48 

5183 disease are high, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 

5184 paragraph. As examples, the additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s 

5185 disease have been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al., 2005). NHL treatment costs 

5186 have been estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for 

5187 slower-growing NHL (Kutikova, et al., 2006). For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment 

5188 over 5 and half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al., 2006). These costs are only 

5189 treatment costs, which is an under-estimate of the true cost of illness. 

5190 

5191 EPA’s preferred approach for valuation of reduced risk is to use an estimate of “willingness to 

5192 pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (EPA, 2010). As described in Freeman 

5193 (2003), this measure consists of four components: 

5194 

5195  “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 

5196  “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 

5197  Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 

5198 activities; and 

5199  Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 

5200 

5201 WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

5202 benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

5203 excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

5204 health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

5205 value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected. 

5206 

5207 As with the estimated value of prevented acute illness in Section 6.5, we are unable to use the 

5208 WTP to value prevented chronic illnesses, but the WTP for these serious chronic illnesses is 

5209 surely much higher than the cost of illness estimates provided above. This indicates that 

5210 prevention of these illnesses would have substantial value. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

5211 Chapter 7 Information Requested – Paperwork Burden 

5212 Requirements 

5213 The information collection activities (ICR) for the current requirements for the certification of 

5214 pesticide applicators are addressed in an information collection request document and approved 

5215 under OMB Control No. 2070-0029 (EPA ICR No. 0155.10). The proposed rule contains some 

5216 information collection activities that must be approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

5217 Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in accordance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. 

5218 Therefore, EPA prepared a rule-related ICR document (EPA ICR number 2499.01; OMB 

5219 Control No. 2070-NEW) to address the information collection requirements contained in the 

5220 proposed rule and the related total incremental burden related. 

5221 The rule-related ICR addresses various the paperwork requirements contained in the propose 

5222 rule, including: 

5223  Annual reports required from States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies with EPA 

5224 approved certification programs. 

5225  Pesticide dealer record keeping. 

5226  Commercial applicator records for both federal and state agencies. 

5227  Certified applicator training for both private and commercial applicators including 

5228 records and exams. 

5229  Noncertified commercial and private applicator training record keeping including records 

5230 and exams. 

5231  State plan revisions. 

5232 The currently approved ICR for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators also includes 

5233 paperwork burden estimates for anthrax related products which are ancillary to the Certification 

5234 ICR and have not been changed. The burden estimates for anthrax products is due to the 

5235 requirement for anthrax product registrants to develop trainings, exams, and keep records of 

5236 purchases of anthrax products. This annual burden is estimated to include 87 hours and $5,050 

5237 in costs both of which are included respectively in the total estimates below. 

5238 Because of the changes to existing requirements as well as new requirements under the proposed 

5239 rule, there will be an estimated increased burden for information collection related 

5240 activities. The total annual hours for the information collection related activities associated with 

5241 this action is estimated to be 1,853,117 hours for all respondents. This represents a 140 percent 

5242 increase in the number of hours estimated in the currently-approved ICR, bringing the total 

5243 burden of activities under this ICR to 3,173,371 hours. The total annual cost burden annualized 

5244 at 3% for the information collection related activities associated with this action are estimated to 

5245 be $57,363,250 for all respondents, an increase of 134 percent in paperwork costs over the 

5246 currently-approved ICR. The total annual paperwork cost of activities under this ICR is 

5247 estimated to be $100,001,116.
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

5248 References 

5249 

5250 

5251 Abdel Rasoul, GM, Abou Salem ME, Mechael AF, Hedy OM, Rohlman DS, Ismail AA, Effects 

5252 of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides, NeuroToxicology 29 

5253 (2008) 833–838 

5254 Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubin, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP 

5255 Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the 

5256 agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85. 

5257 Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A 

5258 Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 

5259 Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

5260 Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide 

5261 applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 

5262 January 15, 2013. 

5263 Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, 

5264 Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and 

5265 prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 

5266 1;157(9):800-14. 

5267 Anger WK, Patterson L, Fuchs M, Will LL, Rohlman, DS, Learning and Recall of Worker 

5268 Protection Standard (WPS) Training in Vineyard Workers, Journal of Agromedicine, 

5269 14:336–344, 2009. 

5270 American Association of Poison Control Centers. 2000 – 2013. Annual Reports from 1999 – 

5271 2012, available here: http://www.aapcc.org/annual-reports/ 

5272 Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health 

5273 Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.

5274 Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness 

5275 surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting.American Journal of Public 

5276 Health, 92: 1421–1429. 

5277 Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in 

5278 the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health 

5279 Policy, Summer:9(2). 

5280 Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of 

5281 pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11. 

5282 Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential 

5283 Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Time Series." Environmental 

5284 International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209. 

5285 Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al. 2005. 

5286 Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study 

5287 cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 

5288 Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. 

5289 Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Annals of epidemiology, 

5290 15(4), 279-285. 

5291 Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural 

5292 Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125–131. 

5293 Bildfell RJ, Rumbeiha WK, Schuler KL, Meteyer CU, Wolff PL, and Gillin CM. A review of 

5294 episodes of zinc phosphide toxicosis in wild geese (Branta spp.) in Oregon (2004-2011). 

5295 Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 2013 25: 162. 

5296 Blondel, Jerome and Monica Spann. Review of the methyl parathion incident reports DP 

5297 Barcode D242333, Chemical #053501, Reregistration Case #0153. 

5298 http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-053501_5-Feb5299 98_039.pdf 

5300 BLS. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age, including median age. 

5301 Demographics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013). 

5302 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor. 

5303 http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm, accessed June 2014 

5304 BLS. 2014b. OES Research Estimates by State and Industry, various Sectors, May 2013. Bureau 

5305 of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

5306 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes_research_estimates_2012.htm, accessed June 2014

5307 BLS. 2014c. Occupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry-Specific 

5308 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 999200 - State Government, 

5309 excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

5310 Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm

5311 BLS. 2014d. Occupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry-Specific 

5312 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Sector 11 - Agriculture, Forestry, 

5313 Fishing and Hunting. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

5314 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_11.htm 

5315 BLS. 2013b. Economic News Release: Table 2. Civilian workers, by occupational and industry 

5316 group. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

5317 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm

5318 BLS. 2013d. Current Population Survey: Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural 

5319 industries by hours of work. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

5320 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf

5321 BLS. 2013e. American Time Use Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 

5322 Labor. June 18, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf 

5323 BLS. 2013f. Current Population Survey: Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary 

5324 workers by detailed occupation and sex. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 

5325 Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

5326 Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attention5327 deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. 

5328 Pediatrics. Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 

5329 Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, 

5330 Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and 

5331 IQ in 7-year-old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95. 

5332 Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analyses: A Case Study 

5333 Involving Endangered Species. Water Resources Research 23(5): 943-950. 

5334 Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta, D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S 

5335 Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G 

5336 Logroscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B 

5337 Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 

5338 2009. Meeting report: consensus statement-Parkinson's disease and the environment: 

5339 collaborative on health and the environment and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE 

5340 PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect. 117, 117–121 

5341 Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum, C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M 

5342 Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pesticide-related illnesses among working youths, 

5343 1988-1999. Am J Public Health, 93:605-610. 

5344 Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L 

5345 Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga-McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide 

5346 poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. American 

5347 Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(12): 883-898. 

5348 Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 

5349 Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983): 

5350 396-400. 

5351 Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non-Hodgkin's 

5352 lymphoma. JAgromedicine. 2009;14(2):250-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285; 

5353 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329 

5354 Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, 

5355 and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male 

5356 participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives, 

5357 118(1):92-6. 

5358 CPARD. 2014. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National 

5359 Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State 

5360 University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/. 

5361 Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja. 

5362 2005. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes, .J Occup Environ Hyg. 

5363 2(7):357-67, July. 

5364 Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and 

5365 MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non5366 farmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315 

CTAG. 1999. Pesticide Safety in the 21st 5367 Century: The Findings and Proposals of the 

5368 Certification & Training Assessment Group. January 1999. 

5369 http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag/pdf/1999_21stCentRpt.pdf 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 

5370 Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among 

5371 migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303-312. 

5372 Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain 

5373 development, risk-taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology-Paris 

5374 Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279-286. 

5375 DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and 

5376 Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9, Office of the 

5377 Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 

5378 March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

5379 Dun and Bradstreet. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and 

5380 Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

5381 Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS 

5382 Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and 

5383 performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic 

5384 pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 165(12):1397-404. 

5385 Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to 

5386 organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ 

5387 Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8. 

5388 EPA. 2014a. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Agricultural Worker Standard Revisions. 

5389 Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA. 

5390 Available at regulations.gov, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184. 

5391 EPA. 2014b. Personal communication with North Carolina, California, Indiana, Wyoming and 

5392 Florida on the subject of communication between certified applicators and noncertified 

5393 applicators under their direct supervision. 

5394 EPA. 2014c. National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program. Web page: 

5395 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm

5396 EPA. 2014d. Proprietary data on pesticide use. 

5397 EPA. 2012. Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting 

5398 held April 10 – 12, 2012 on Chlorpyrifos Health Effects. Memorandum, July 11, 2012. 

5399 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2012/april/041012minutes.pdf 

5400 EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) 

5401 Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. 

5402 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf 

5403 EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection 

5404 Agency. 

5405 http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

5406 EPA. 2008a. EIIS Incident Report: I018678-001. Report on fish kill from acrolein on the Cub 

5407 River, Idaho, updated March 5, 2008. 

5408 EPA. 2008b. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. September 2008. 

5409 http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=484738 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 

5410 EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

5411 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: 

5412 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf. 

5413 EPA. 2006. EPA Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s 

5414 Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (40 CFR Part 171). July 2006. 

5415 Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 

5416 non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 

5417 123(7):1657-63 Oct 1. 

5418 ERS. 2000. Farm Resource Regions. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 

5419 Agriculture. September. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/926929/aib5420 760_002.pdf. 

5421 Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 

5422 2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in 

5423 young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect. 115:792–798. 

5424 Fortenberry GZ and Calvert GM, Identifying contributing factors associated with restricted use 

5425 pesticides (RUPs), unpublished document, April 22, 2014. 

5426 Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and 

5427 Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 

5428 Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives, 

5429 Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362. 

5430 Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic 

5431 exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet 

5432 Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April. 

5433 Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin 

5434 Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?" 

5435 Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706. 

5436 Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP 

5437 Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the 

5438 Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At 

5439 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376. 

5440 Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al. 2007. 

5441 Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am 

5442 J Ind Med 50:969–979. 

5443 Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli-Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of 

5444 illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 20(11):1449-54, Nov. At 

5445 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641. 

5446 Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers. At 

5447 http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html, accessed February, 24, 

5448 2011. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

5449 Johnston, R. Ranson, M.Besedin, E.Helm, E. “What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A 

5450 Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Values” Marine Resource Economics Vol 21:1-

5451 32, 2006 

5452 Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M 

5453 Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self-reported 

5454 Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol, 165:364-74. 

5455 Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report No. 

5456 60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June. 

5457 Karpf, Elissa. Results of Assessments of Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl 

5458 Parathion Sites, Report No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069. September 23, 1997. 

5459 http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/900K1G00.PDF?Dockey=900K1G00.PDF 

5460 Kotchen, Matthew J. and Reiling, Stephen D., Environmental attitudes, motivations, and 

5461 contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species, 

5462 Ecological Economics 32(1): 93-107. 

5463 Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE 

5464 Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. 

5465 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098-105. 

5466 Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K 

5467 Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010b. Pesticide use 

5468 modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate 

5469 cancer. Cancer Res, 70(22):9224-33. 

5470 Koutros, S, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, 

5471 JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and 

5472 Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American 

5473 Journal of Epidemiology, 177(1):59-74. Epub 2012 Nov 21, 

5474 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882. 

5475 Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors 

5476 of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ 

5477 Health. 22(1):14-26, Feb. 

5478 Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs 

5479 associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years 

5480 of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544. 

5481 Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the 

5482 Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural 

5483 Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov. 

5484 Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al. 2004. Cancer incidence 

5485 among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J 

5486 Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791. 

5487 Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M 

5488 Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Baldi, MA Dalvie, G 

5489 Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 

5490 Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair. 

5491 2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public 

5492 Health. 2011 May;8(5):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29. 

5493 Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, 

5494 Rundle A. Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as 

5495 determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment Am J Public Health. 2011 

5496 Jan;101(1):63-70 

5497 Madrigal, J.L., Glen C. Pixton, Bruce J. Collings, Gary M. Booth, and H. Duane Smith (1996). 

5498 A comparison of two methods of estimating bird mortalities from field-applied pesticides. 

5499 Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15(6): 878 – 885. 

5500 Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. 

5501 Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health 

5502 Perspect, 114:1838-42 

5503 Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl 

5504 exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 

5505 15;121(8):1799-805. 

5506 Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 

5507 2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American 

5508 children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect. 118(12):1768-74, Dec. 

5509 NASS. 2014a. Crop Production: 2013 Summary. January, 2014. 

5510 http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-10-2014.pdf 

5511 NASS. 2014b. Crop Values: 2013 Summary. February, 2014. 

5512 http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-14-2014.pdf 

5513 NASS. 2014c. 2012 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

5514 Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

5515 NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey data for number of farms and workers. 

5516 http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed July 2013. 

5517 NASS. 2012. Indiana Special Agriculture Report, 32:1, April 2, 2012. 

5518 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Indiana/Publications/Ag_Report/2012/agrS

5519 pecCrop.pdf 

5520 NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

5521 States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008. 

5522 http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. 

5523 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012a. National 

5524 Pesticide Applicator Certification Core 

5525 Manual. http://nasda.org/9381/Foundation/11379/11383/6684.aspx 

5526 

5527 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012b. 

5528 Framework for the National Soil Fumigation Manual and Exam Item 

5529 Bank. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=4185 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 

5530 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2011a. Aerial 

5531 Applicator's Manual. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3786

5532 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research 

5533 Foundation. 2011b. National Right-of-Way Herbicide Applicator Test Plan and 

5534 Training Syllabus. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3941

5535 National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, 

5536 Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011. 

5537 National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NIH 

5538 publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/non5539 hodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

5540 NIOSH. 2001. Severity Index for Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-Related 

5541 Illness and Injury. Web page revised 11/27/01. 

5542 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sevindexv6.pdf 

5543 Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure 

5544 in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work 

5545 Environ Health. 31(2):89-96, April. 

5546 OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. 

5547 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4. 

5548 Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2013. Bumblebee incidents result in pesticide violations, 

5549 Press Release, December 19, 2013. 

5550 http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/131219bees_pesticides.aspx 

5551 Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms 

5552 Accessed August 4, 2011. 

5553 Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang, 

5554 and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment 

5555 in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845-e1859 

5556 Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven-Year 

5557 Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common 

5558 Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201. 

5559 Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use 

5560 and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of 

5561 Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314–320. 

5562 Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Sixth Edition, 

5563 available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/recognition-and5564 management-pesticide-poisonings

5565 Richardson, Leslie and John Loomis. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered 

5566 and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548. 

5567 Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral 

5568 Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, 

5569 Neurotoxicology. 2011 March; 32(2): 268–276. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

5570 Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards 

5571 and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural 

5572 Safety and Health. Special Issue (1):159-169. 

5573 Rucker, Randal R. and Thurman, Walter N. Colony Collapse disorder: The Market Response to 

5574 Bee Disease, PERC Policy Series No. 50, 2012. 

5575 http://perc.org/sites/default/files/ps50.pdf 

5576 Rucker, Randal R., Thurman, Walter N., and Michael Burgett. “Honey Bee Pollination Markets 

5577 and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benefits,” Am. J. Agr. Econ. (2012) 94 (4): 956-977 

5578 Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and 

5579 Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32. 

5580 Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu-Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and 

5581 Children's Health Study, Early-life environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from 

5582 the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760–765. 

5583 Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory 

5584 symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J. 22(3):507-12, Sept. At 

5585 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143. 

5586 Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Bassil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non-cancer health 

5587 effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam 

5588 Physician 53(10): 1712-20. 

5589 SBA. 2014. Table of Small Business Size Standards. U.S. Small Business Administration. At 

5590 http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. July 14. Accessed 

5591 August 2014. 

5592 Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning, 

5593 University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97-2505-A. 

5594 Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive 

5595 Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69-74, Feb. 

5596 Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors 

5597 in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249-

5598 272. 

5599 Stevens, T.H.; J. Echeverria; R.J. Glass; T. Hager; and T.A. More. 1991. Measuring the 

5600 Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show? Land Economics 

5601 67(4): 390-400. 

5602 Stroud, Richard K., and Frank Kuncir (2005). Investigating wildlife poisoning cases. 

5603 International Game Warden, Winter 2005: 8 – 13. 

5604 Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok 

5605 GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez 

5606 HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and 

5607 Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 

5608 Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is April 18, Five Days Later Than Last Year. 

5609 April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-freedom-day-2013-april-18-five-days5610 later-last-year 

5611 Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a 

5612 systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41. 

5613 U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries 

5614 and Illnesses. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government 

5615 Van Maele-Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Lison. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides 

5616 and childhood leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment 

5617 International. 37(1):280-91, Jan. 

5618 Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data 

5619 Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology: 389-97. 

5620 Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricultural 

5621 Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99. 

5622 Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Farm Worker Health and Safety in 

5623 Washington State: A Look at Workers' Compensation Data. Olympia, WA: Safety and 

5624 Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24-2-1991, 1991. 

5625 Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 

5626 childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health 

5627 Perspectives 117:1505-1513. 

5628 Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in 

5629 human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 11(3-4):242-59, Mar. 

5630 Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555 

5631 Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody, 

5632 and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer 

5633 Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21. 

5634 WHO IARC. 1999. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer 

5635 (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 

5636 Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides: 

5637 Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation. Available here: 

5638 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf 

5639 Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking 

5640 Carbofuran Tolerances. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide 

5641 Programs, U.S. EPA. 

5642 Vyas, Nimish (1999). Factors influencing estimation of pesticide-related wildlife mortality. 

5643 Toxicology and Industrial Health, 15: 186 – 191. 

5644 Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center 

5645 Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of 

5646 Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92. 
 *** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 

5647 Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE 

5648 Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate 

5649 pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209 

5650 Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes 

5651 and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33. 

5652 Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 

5653 Suppl 3:893-908, June.