*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

DRAFT EO12866_Rin2070-AJ20_PesticideCer tApp_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Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***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 B ACKGROUND

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

1.2 P ROBLEM S TATEMENT

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

1.3 O VERVIEW OF P ROPOSED R EGULATION

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

1.4 A FFECTED E NTITIES

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

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

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

2.1 N ON

‐ REGULATORY A PPROACHES TO I MPROVE P ESTICIDE S AFETY

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

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

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

2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards

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

2.2.2 Establish Application Method

‐ Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

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

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

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

2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators

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

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

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

2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators

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

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

Commercial and Private Applicators

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

2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3. COST ASSESSMENT, REGULATORY OPTIONS

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

3.1 O VERVIEW

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

3.2 M ETHODOLOGY

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

3.2.1 General Methodology

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

3.2.2 Example Methodology

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

3.3 C OST A NALYSIS D ATA

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

3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators

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

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

.. 16

3.3.3 Private certified applicators

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

3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified applicators

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

3.3.5 Wage Rates

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

3.4 R ESULTS OF THE C OST A NALYSIS

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

3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards

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

3.4.2 Application Method

‐ Specific Categories

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators

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

3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration

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

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

CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

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

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

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

4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards

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

4.1.2 Establish Application Method

‐ Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators

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

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

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

4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators

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

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

Commercial and Private Applicators

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

4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators

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

4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators

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

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

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

CHAPTER 5. COST OF PROPOSED RULE

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

5.1 O VERVIEW

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

5.2 M ETHODOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.6 I MPACT ON E MPLOYMENT

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

5.7 P OTENTIAL I MPACTS ON S MALL B USINESSES

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

5.7.1 Methodology

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

5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments

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

5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments

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

5.7.3 Conclusion

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

CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED RULE

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

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

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

6.2. W HO IS AT R ISK ?

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

6.2.1. Occupational Exposure

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

6.2.2. Children and families

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

6.3. W HAT ARE THE R ISKS ?

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

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects

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

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

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

6.4. N ON

‐ Q UANTIFIED B ENEFITS OF A VOIDING RUP I NCIDENTS

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

6.4.1. Non

‐ Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents

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

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

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

6.5.1. Methodology and Data

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

6.5.2. Underreporting of RUP Incidents

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

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

.................................................................................................................. 24

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

................................................................................................................... 27

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

................................................................................... 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 

## Executive Summary 1

2 This document provides an analys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes in the 3 regulations governing the Certific ation of Pesticide Applicators to meet the requirements of 4 Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as 5 amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory En forcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded 6
Mandates Reform Act. The Certification of Pest icide Applicators rule establishes requirements 7 for applicators of restricted use pesticides. Pest icides that EPA has classified as restricted use 8 may pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment without strict 9 adherence to precise and often co mplex labeling provisions. To insure these labeling provisions 10 are followed, EPA requires that restricted use pest icides be applied only by applicators who have 11 demonstrated a sufficient level of competency or by individuals under their direct supervision. 12

EPA is proposing changes to the rule that would improve the competency of certified applicators 13 of restricted use pesticides by: establishing new standards for cer tification, such as minimum age 14 and examination standards for commercial app licators and more specific requirements for 15 establishing competency of private applicators; establishing a uniform national certification 16 period for private and commercial applicators and minimum requirements for recertification 17 programs; and establishing new certification categor ies to address specific high-risk uses and 18 application methods. EPA is also proposing cha nges to the rule that would result in improved 19 competency of noncertified applicators who appl y restricted use pestic ides under the direct 20 supervision of a certified applicator by: requiring pesticide safety training, establishing 21 standards for supervision, and establishing a mi nimum age requirement for such noncertified 22 applicators. In keeping with the Agency’s commitment to work more closely with tribal 23 governments to strengthen environmental protecti on in Indian Country, EPA is also proposing 24 changes that would provide more practical opt ions for establishing certification programs in 25 Indian Country. Lastly, EPA is proposing seve ral revisions to improve overall clarity and 26 organization of the rule, and to improve progr am operation, efficiency and administration by 27 addressing longstanding policy issues raised by EPA’s state regulator y partners and other 28 stakeholders regarding rule implementation a nd requirements for state certification plans. 29

EPA estimates that affected industries woul d face incremental costs of about $46.9 million 30 annually from proposed revisions, including costs of $19.5 million to priv ate applicators (about 31 41% of the total cost of proposed revisions ) and $27.4 million to commercial applicators. 32 Revisions to state plans and cer tification programs, including de velopment of new application 33 method-specific categories, are likely to cost a bout $2.2 million over the first two years after the 34
rule is finalized. The administration of ex ams or trainings for the new certification and 35 recertification requirements would be ongoing and would co st $107 annually. These two 36 components together, annualized over a 10-ye ar time horizon, would cost $359,000 annually. 37 The total annualized cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $47.2 million. Many of the 38 firms in the affected sectors are small businesses, particularly in the agricultural sector. The 39 average cost per private applicator, typically a fa rm owner or operator is estimated to be $40 per 40 year. The estimated average cost per commercial applicator would be about $66 per year. Thus, 41 the impact to the average small farm is anticipa ted to be less than one percent of annual sales 42 while the impacts to small commercial pest control services are e xpected to be around 0.1 43 percent of annual gross revenue. Th erefore, EPA concludes that th ere would not be a significant 44*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Given these modest incr eases in per-applicator 45 costs, EPA also concludes that the proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on 46 employment. 47
48 In estimating costs of the proposed rule revision s, EPA took a conservative approach – such as 49 using conservative estimate for the number of noncertified applicators – when faced with 50 uncertainty, and therefore, the cost estimates presented in this economic analysis represent 51
overestimates of the actual costs of the proposed rule changes. 52
53 Table 1 summarizes the results of the cost analysis. 54

55
Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Re quirements for Certification of Pesticide 56 Applicators 57 Private Applicators Commercial Applicators States and Other
Jurisdictions Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63 Annualized Cost $ 19.5 million $27.4 million $359,000 Per-Applicator Average: $40 Range: $0 - $201 Average: $66 Range: $1 - $212 n/a

Small Business Impacts No significant impact on a substa ntial number of small entities.

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

although about half are unlikely to apply restricted use pesticides.

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

entity.

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

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

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

the cost of a part-time employee.

58 The rule changes proposed by EP A would improve the pesticide applicator certification and 59 training program substantially. Trained and compet ent applicators would be more likely to apply 60 pesticide products without unreasonable adverse effects and use them properly to achieve the 61 intended results than applicators th at have not received training or been cer tified. In addition to 62 core pesticide safety a nd practical use concepts, certificati on and training ensures that certified 63 applicators possess critical information on a wi de range of environmental issues such as 64 endangered species, water quality, worker protec tion and protecting non-target organisms such 65 as pollinators. Pesticide safety education he lps applicators improve their abilities to avoid 66 pesticide misuse, spills and ha rm to non-target organisms. 67

It is difficult to quantify a speci fic level of risk and project the human health risk reduction that 68 would result from this rule, because people are po tentially exposed to such a wide variety of 69 pesticides, and few of these incidents are reported. The proposed changes, however, are 70 designed to reduce human health and environmental e xposure to restricted us e pesticides; there is 71 sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed litera ture to suggest reduci ng such exposure would 72 result in a benefit to public health thr ough reduced acute and chronic illness. 73
74*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Certified applicators, and the noncertified applicators they supervise, would be the primary 75
beneficiaries of the rule. Othe r beneficiaries would include th e public, who can be exposed to 76 RUPs, and the environment, including plants a nd animals that are not the intended target of 77 RUPs. Although EPA cannot provide quantitative estimates for all benefits of the rule, we do 78
estimate the benefit of reduced acu te illness from RUP exposure. We estimate that this rule will 79 result in quantifiable annual benefits of between $20.1 and $20.5 million dollars through reduced 80 acute illnesses from RUPs. Over a ten year ho rizon, the present value of these estimates is 81 between $171.6 and $174.5 million with a 3% di scount rate, and $141.3 and $143.7 million with 82 a 7% discount rate. However, these estimat es are biased downward by an unknown degree. 83 Pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may 84 not seek medical care, cases ma y not be correctly diagnosed, a nd correctly diagnosed cases may 85 not be filed to the central reporti ng database. The effect of under-r eporting can be si gnificant. If 86 only 25% of poisonings are repor ted (within the range of esti mates in the literature), the 87 quantified estimated benefits of the rule would be about $80.5 million annually. Moreover, the 88 approach here only measures avoided medical cost s and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to 89 avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide exposur e, which could be substantially higher. 90
91 In the past, misapplication and misuse of RUPs have resulted in a rang e of damages to human 92 health, up to and including death. The proposed changes to the rule would result in an estimated 93 reduction of 638 to 762 acute poisonings per year. In addition, we expect there would be 94 benefits for which quantifiable benefits cannot be estimated. These be nefits would include 95 reduced chronic illness to app licators from repeated RUP expos ure and benefits to the public 96 from better protections from RUP exposure when occupying treated buildings or outdoor spaces, 97 consuming treated food products, and when near areas where RUPs have been applied. The 98 environment would also be better protected fr om misapplication, which will reduce the impact 99 on water and non-target plants and animals. 100

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

1 

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

CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

Chapter 1. Introduction 101

102 EPA is proposing modifications to 40 CFR part 171 governing the certifica tion of applicators of 103 restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Broadly speak ing, the modifications are meant to ensure that 104 RUPs are used in accordance with the label to pr otect the health and safety of applicators, 105 workers, the general public a nd the environment. 106
107 This document provides an analys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the 108 rule. This chapter provides a brief background to the requirements, describes the reasons for 109 EPA’s proposal and the statutory authority, and identifie s entities that may be affected by the 110 rule. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in develo ping this proposal and 111 discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different opti ons. It qualitatively describes 112 the benefits of different require ment options in terms of traini ng content, frequency of training 113 and the supervision of noncertified applicators. Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the 114 regulatory options, which mainly fall on self-emp loyed certified applicators and employers of 115 certified applicators. Chapter 4 discusses th e relative costs and be nefits of alternative 116 requirements and presents the rational for c hoosing which options to propose. Chapter 5 117 estimates the cost of the proposed rule. It al so estimates the impact of the proposed changes on 118 employment and small business. The benefits of the rule, which would accrue primarily to 119 certified applicators and noncer tified applicators under the di rect supervision of certified 120 applicators, as well as their fam ilies, the public and the environment, are described in Chapter 6. 121
122 This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory 123 Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibil ity Act as amended by the Small Business 124 Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The remaining 125 regulatory requirements are addressed in the Preamble for this rule. This document also serves 126 as input in preparing any analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 127 3501-21). 128
129
130 

### 1.1 Background 131

132 The pesticide worker safety program at EPA incl udes two primary regulations, the Certification 133 of Pesticide Applicators and the Worker Protec tion Standard. The Certification of Pesticide 134 Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Pa rt 171, establishes national standa rds for the certification of 135 applicators of RUPs and the re quirements for submission and a pproval of state plans for the 136 certification of applicators. Programs for th e certification of applicators of RUPs are 137 implemented by all 50 states, four territories (the District of Columbia , the Commonwealth of 138 Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Tr ust Territory of the Paci fic Islands), and four 139*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 tribes in accordance with their state or tribal certification plans. Additionally, there are five 140 federal agency certification programs for the De partments of Agriculture (with two programs), 141 Defense, Energy and the Interior. All plans ar e approved by the Administ rator of the EPA and 142 are on file with the Agency. This economic anal ysis focuses on the proposed revisions to the 143 rules regarding the certificati on of pesticide applicators. 144
145 The Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170, protects employ ees of agricultural 146 establishments and commercial pesticide applicati on establishments from exposure to pesticides 147 on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. These two regulations, along with the other 148 components of the Agency’s pesticide worker sa fety program, are intende d to reduce and prevent 149 potential exposures to pesticid es among pesticide applicators, employees, the general public, 150 including vulnerable popul ations such as children, and to the environment. Proposed revisions to 151 the Worker Protection Standard are the subj ect of a separate rulemaking (EPA, 2014a). 152
153 The certification regulation or ru le is a means to ensure the competency of people who apply 154 RUPs. EPA classifies certain products as RUPs b ecause of their toxicity characteristics and/or 155 their potential to cause unreasonable adverse eff ects to human health or the environment without 156 strict adherence to often comple x label restrictions. The designation of products as RUP restricts 157 their use to certified applicators or pers ons working under their direct supervision. 158 Approximately ten percent of all registered act ive ingredients are clas sified as RUPs. The 159 designation, however, is product speci fic; thus, some active ingredients may also be formulated 160 in products that are not RUPs. Most of the de signated products are appl ied in agricultural and 161 industrial settings although some are used in urban, recreatio nal, and residential areas by 162 certified commercial applicators. Applicator certification enables the registration of pesticides 163 that otherwise would not meet EPA safety standards under widespread and commonly 164 recognized practice [FIFRA 3(5)], allowing the use of RUPs for pe st management in agricultural 165 production, building and other stru ctural pest management, turf and landscape management, 166 forestry, public health, aquatic systems, food processing, stor ed grain, and other areas. 167
168 Changes to the certification regulation will largely impact certified applicators, both commercial 169 applicators (who apply RUPs for hire) and privat e applicators. Certif ied private applicators 170 apply RUPs for purposes of producing an agricult ural commodity on property owned or rented 171 by themselves or their employers or on the prope rty of another without compensation (trading of 172 personal services is permitted). Certain propos ed revisions may also affect commercial 173 agricultural services, incl uding pesticide dealers, certifying agenci es, such as states or tribes, and 174 noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of ce rtified applicators. 175
176
177


### 1.2 Problem Statement 178
179 Pesticides, although useful to control pests, can present health risks to people and harm the 180
environment. Pesticides that EPA has classifi ed as restricted use may pose unreasonable adverse 181
effects to human health or the environment withou t strict adherence to precise and often complex 182 mitigation measures specified on the pesticide la beling. To ensure these measures are followed, 183 EPA requires that these pestic ides be applied only by appl icators who are certified, or by 184 applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applic ator. Certification serves to 185*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 ensure competency and, therefore, to protect the applicator, persons working under the direct 186 supervision of the applicator , the general public, and the en vironment through proper use of 187

RUPs. 188
189 Since the last major revision of the certification re gulation in 1978, poisonings involving RUPs 190 indicate that the requirements are not adequate . In one of the most significant cases from the 191 mid-1990s, there was widespread misuse of the re stricted use pesticide methyl parathion, an 192 insecticide used primarily on cotton and other outdoor agricultural crops (Blondell and Spann, 193 1998). The improper use of methyl parathion pr oduct by a number of applicators across several 194 states led to the widespread contamination of hundreds of homes, significant pesticide exposures 195
and human health effects for hundreds of home owners and children, and a clean-up cost of 196 millions of dollars (Karpf, 1997). The incident resulted in one of th e most significant and 197 widespread pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s history, and highlighted the potential problems 198
that can result from the misuse of RUPs. 199
200 Many states have taken significan t steps to improve regulatory c ontrols of RUPs and changed 201 their enforcement authorities to address the pr oblems identified by the incident. EPA’s own 202 certification standards, however, have not been substantially amended to address the evolving 203 risk concerns. Because no major revision has been made to the federal regulation in almost 40 204 years, many state programs have taken the lead in revising and updating standards for 205
certification and recertification. As a result, the state requirements for certification of applicators 206 are highly varied, and most stat es go beyond federal requirements for applicator certification. 207 However, some states support only the federal mi nimum for applicator certification. This has 208 created an uneven regulatory landscape, so that people face different risks based on where they 209 live, as well as problems in program consistency. 210
211 Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to improper use of RUPs and undesirable effects on 212 humans and the environment: incomplete informati on and externalities. The former implies that 213 full information about proper use and the consequen ces of pesticide use is not available to the 214 people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall 215 on the person making use decisions and that, th erefore, RUPs may be used in a socially 216 undesirable way. 217
218 Applicators may not have full information about th e negative consequences of pesticides or the 219 possible measures that can be ta ken to avoid such negative outcom es. This may be particularly 220 true when the adverse effects are not readily obs ervable, but occur due to chronic exposure. 221 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning may be c onfused with general fatigue, heat stress, or 222 other factors. Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide exposure do not manifest themselves 223 immediately and applicators may not be fu lly aware the risks they face. 224
225
Another factor that contributes to pesticide exposure is that the party making the application 226 decision may not incur the negative effects of an incorrect pesticide application. When someone 227 other than an applicator or deci sion maker is potentially affected by the use of an RUP, a classic 228 externality can result in a divergence between the social and private costs in the use of a 229 pesticide. An externality of this type means that applications of RUPs ma y pose greater risk than 230 is socially desirable. In this case, the greater than optimal risk would not typically be faced by an 231*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 applicator deciding to apply, but could be faced by those they supervise, the general public, and 232 the environment that can be affected by the RU P application. Although EPA addresses negative 233 externalities from pesticide use when it makes registration decisions a nd label restrictions, 234 pesticides designated as RUPs gene rally pose higher risks than ordinary pesticides. The result of 235 improper use can be more severe, as well, in terms of acute and chronic illness and damage to 236 terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are not th e target of the applicat ion. The higher risk 237 requires additional safeguards to ensure safe applications to protect both human health and the 238 environment and these additional measures require a higher level of skill than is otherwise 239 required of a pesticide applicator making applications of non-RUPs. 240
241
242 

### 1.3 Overview of Proposed Regulation 243

244 Most of the changes EPA is proposing are desi gned to improve the competence of certified 245 applicators. The proposals jointly address the issues of inadequate information and externalities. 246 The proposals address the problem of inadequa te information by defining new certification 247 categories and subcategories that include traini ng or testing on the hazards specific to some 248 application methods. To make sure the inform ation used by applicator s to make application 249 decisions is current and complete, EPA is pr oposing more rigorous certification standards and 250 more frequent recertification. EPA is also pr oposing to raise the minimum age for applicators. 251 Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescent s, who may be more su sceptible to pesticide 252 effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge th e potential risks of exposure, especially the 253 long-term effects, and take grea ter risks, which may result in excess exposure to themselves and 254 others. More detail on the proposed changes are available in Chapter 2, or in the preamble. 255
256
257


### 1.4 Affected Entities 258
259 The entities that would be affected by the pr oposed changes include commercial and private 260 certified applicators, people who wish to become certified, noncertified ap plicators, i.e., persons 261 that work under the direct superv ision of certified applicators, a nd states and other entities that 262 certify pesticide applicators. Manufacturers of pe sticides and pesticide de alers of RUPs may also 263
be affected. 264
265 Based on the Certification and Training Plan and Annual Reporting Database (CPARD, 2014), 266 there are nearly one million pesticide applicat ors certified to apply RUPs. About 489,000 are 267 private applicators, who apply RUPs for purpos es of producing an agricultural commodity on 268 property owned or rented by him/her or hi s/her employer, and about 414,000 commercial 269 pesticide applicators, who apply RUPs for hire. 270
271 States would be affected by the proposed chan ges if they become final regulations. FIFRA 272 requires that states submit plan s for the certification of commerc ial and private applicators of 273 RUPs to EPA for approval The changes being proposed, if adopted, would necessitate changes 274 to state plans. 275
276*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 The affected entities are part of a wide range of industries. Beca use agriculture is a heavy user 277 of pesticides, several subsect ors under NAICS code 110000 (agric ulture) are likely to be 278 affected. These include oilseed, soybean a nd grain farming (NAICS 111100), nut, fruit and 279 vegetable farming (NAICS 111210 and 111300) greenhouses and nurseries (NAICS 1111400), 280 and other crops (NAICS 111900), which includes crops like cotton and tobacco. Animal 281 production firms will also be affected, which includes cattle producti on (NAICS 112100), pig 282 and hog production (NAICS 112200), poultry and egg production (NAICS 112300) and 283 aquaculture (NAICS 112400). Other industries classified under agri culture include forestry pest 284 control (NAICS 115000 and 113300), agricultural pe st control for plants (NAICS 115100) and 285 animals (NAICS 115200), demonstration and research pest control (NAICS 115100 and 286 611300), soil preparation planting and cultivat ing (NAICS 115112), and support activities for 287 animal production (NAICS 115210). 288
289 Utilities may employ certified applicators for pe st management and weed control. These 290 industries include NAICS codes 221121 (electric tr ansmission and control), 221210 (natural gas 291 distribution), and 221300 (water supp ly, irrigation systems and sewa ge treatment facilities). 292
293 Firms in the manufacturing and service sectors will also be affected by various provisions of the 294 proposed changes. These include firms providing pest control services, such as exterminating 295 and pest control services (NAICS 561710), industrial, institutional, structural and health related 296 pest control (also NAICS 561710), and landscaping serv ices and ornamental and turf pest control 297 (both NAICS 561730). Firms that sell RUPs to applicators will also be affected (NAICS 298 424910, farm supplies merchant wholesalers). Among the manufacturing sectors, impacts are 299 expected in industries that manufacture pe sticides, like NAICS 325320 (pesticide and other 300 agricultural chemical manuf acturing), NAICS 3339900 (seed treatment), and NAICS 321114 301 (wood preservation). 302*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the Rules Governing 303 

## Certified Pesticide Applicators 304

305 EPA is proposing modifications to the standards fo r certification of applic ators of RUPs. RUPs 306 are typically higher toxicity pes ticides that pose higher environmental or health risks than other 307 pesticides. Only certified a pplicators or noncertified applic ators working under the direct 308 supervision of a certified applicat or can legally apply RUPs. App licator certification enables the 309 registration of pesticides that would not otherwise meet EPA’ s safety standards, because such 310 pesticides would, without spec ific and often complex use restrictions, cause unreasonable 311
adverse effects on human health or the environmen t. Certified applicators have demonstrated a 312 specific level of competency to ensure th at a RUP can be used without causing these 313
unreasonable adverse effects. 314
315 This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the certific ation requirements and 316 describes how they will increase pesticide safe ty by certified applicators and noncertified 317 applicators working under their direct supervisio n. This chapter also discusses alternative 318 options considered by EPA. 319
320 The proposed rule changes are designed to ensure the improved competence of certified 321 applicators through a minimum age requirement, a dding categories for certification of specific 322 high-risk application types, and imposing more rigorous recertification standards. Under the 323 proposed rule, noncertified applicators working under the direct supe rvision of certified 324 applicators would be provided a dditional training and protecti ons that should increase their 325 competence and safety and the safety of those ar ound them. In addition, there are administrative 326 changes proposed that are necessary to support the goals of the revised regulation, such as 327 requirements to proctor certification exams a nd establish the identity of test-takers, 328 recordkeeping, updates to st ate regulatory programs , and other tasks. 329
330 The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non-regulatory programs that have been 331 established to improve safety in the use of RU Ps. In Section 2.2, the in dividual line items that 332 make up the regulatory options are de scribed, as well as other alternat ives that were considered. 333
334 Please refer to the preamble for th e Certification of Pesticide A pplicators Rule Revisions for a 335 complete discussion of the regulatory options c onsidered under this ru lemaking proposal and the 336 rationale for the Agency’s select ion of the final proposed options. 337
338
339 

### 2.1 Non-regulatory Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 340

341 In addition to the regulatory changes EPA is proposing, the Agency has and continues to pursue 342 non-regulatory approaches to improve the compet ency of persons certified to use RUPs and 343 those noncertified applicators wo rking under their direct superv ision, thereby protecting the 344 applicators, the public, and the environment from pesticide expos ure. Since the mid-1990s, EPA 345 has continually engaged stakeholde rs to evaluate the effectiveness of the rule and to determine 346*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 what improvements, if any, are necessary to mainta in an effective program that ensure RUPs are 347 used safely. 348
349 EPA partners with stakeholders to pursue wa ys to improve certification programs across the 350
United States. The Certification and Trai ning Assessment Group (CTAG), composed of 351 representatives from state lead agencies, EPA, USDA, and coope rative extension services, was 352 formed in 1996. The purpose of CTAG is to evalua te the current state of the certification 353 programs across states, tribes, and federal agenci es, and proposes improvements at both the state 354 and federal level. In 1999, CTAG issued a comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety in the 21 st 355 Century (CTAG, 1999), which recommended improveme nts for state and federal pesticide 356 applicator certification programs, including specific proposals on how to strengthen the 357 certification regulation. EPA has worked with CTAG and other program stakeholders 358 continually since issuance of the 1999 CTAG report to implemen t many of the non-regulatory 359 measures identified in the report to improve th e applicator certificat ion program. EPA has 360 undertaken several non-regulatory efforts su ch as supporting national workshops and 361 professional development programs for state and tribal personnel invo lved in carrying out 362 certification programs, supporting development of national training manuals and exams, and 363 developing key guidance documents for certifying agencies. These non-regulatory activities are 364
discussed in more detail below. 365
366 In addition to CTAG, EPA has met with groups incl uding, state regulators, professional pesticide 367 applicator organizations, pesticide manufacturer s, farmers, and orga nizations representing 368 commodity producers to discuss potential improvements to the rule. Through public meetings 369 and federal advisory committees, and as indivi duals and small groups, a broad spectrum of 370 stakeholders provided recommendations to EPA. Some of the recommendations were not related 371 to the regulation, for example, de veloping national training materi als for pesticide applicators, 372 promoting better cooperation betwee n trainers and state regulatory agencies, and re-evaluating 373 the formula used by EPA to distribute funds to ag encies certifying pesticide applicators. Other 374 recommendations, such as strengthening the ini tial certification require ments, establishing a 375 recertification period and sta ndards, and improving protections for persons working under the 376 direct supervision of a certified applicator , could only be accomplished by changing the 377 regulation. From these inputs, EPA prepared a report (EPA, 2014c), the National Assessment of 378 the Pesticide Worker Safety Program, in which EPA identified activities that it could take to 379 improve applicator competency and to better pr otect human health and the environment from 380 exposure to RUPs. 381
382 As noted above, EPA has undertak en several non-regulatory effort s to improve the program and 383 applicator competency including a variety of outreach activities designed to strengthen state 384 applicator certification and r ecertification programs. EPA wo rks with stakeholders and under 385 cooperative agreements to devel op best practices and model progr ams for state regulatory and 386 training organizations such as criteria for s ecure exam administration, standards for online 387
recertification traini ng programs, and how to audit applicator tr aining programs for effectiveness. 388
389 EPA developed the Interim National Program Guidan ce for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s 390 Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (EPA, 2006) to clarify provisi ons in the current rule. 391 The guidance covers administrative requirements for written examinations, legal authorities for 392*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 certification plans, how modifications to certif ication plans are to be made and reviewed, 393 requirements for state-tribal agreements for certifi cation, and issues related to tribal certification 394 plans and federal plans for certification of applic ators in Indian Country. While this document 395 does clarify EPA’s interpretation of the regulati on, it is solely guidan ce and does not carry the 396 weight of regulation. 397
398 EPA also developed an online tool, the Certif ication Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 399 (http://cpard.wsu.edu/), which allo ws states, tribes, and federal ag encies to efficiently maintain 400 their certification plans electronically. The CP ARD system also provides an easy web-based 401 reporting system to submit required annual progra m certification and recert ification reports to 402 EPA electronically, thereby reducing administrative bu rden and paperwork. 403
404 EPA has taken a number of other non-regulatory step s to improve coordination with stakeholders 405 in the program, including meeting regularly w ith stakeholders to review progress on key 406 projects, supporting a biennial national meeting of regulatory pr ogram managers and pesticide 407 safety educators, meeting biannually with CTAG, and providing updates to the Pesticide 408 Program Dialogue Committee 1 (PPDC) on pesticide applicator certification and training issues. 409 The National Assessment process de veloped a network of interest ed and engaged stakeholders 410 that has strengthened the program and pr oduced new opportunities for collaboration. 411
412 In cooperation with stakeholders, EPA supported the development of a national core manual and 413 exam for pesticide applicator certification (National Associat ion of State Departments of 414 Agriculture Research Foundation, 2012a). This core manual and exam cover the general 415 competencies a commercial applicator must posse ss in order to use RUPs safely and to protect 416 himself, the public, and the environment from exposure to RUPs. In addition, EPA has 417 collaborated with states, applicators, and i ndustry to develop and ma ke available national 418 training materials and exams for aerial (Nati onal Association of State Departments of 419 Agriculture Research Foundation, 2011a), righ ts-of-way ((National Association of State 420 Departments of Agriculture Research F oundation, 2011b), and soil fumigation (National 421 Association of State Departments of Agri culture Research Founda tion, 2012a) pesticide 422 applications. The regulatory changes that EPA is proposing are designed to complement these 423 activities to improve national cons istency in pesticide applicator certification and to raise the 424 level of RUP applicator competency to better protect the public and the environment. In many 425 cases, the individual changes that EPA is consider ing came out of the pro cess of consulting with 426 stakeholders and industry participants. 427
428 Despite this constant activity by EPA and industry stakeholders, the need for revised regulatory 429
standards remains. Even with the support these non-regulatory act ivities provide, there continue 430
to be serious incidents of misa pplication of RUPs and other pr oducts by certified applicators, 431 resulting in effects on human health and the environment 2 . Certain protective changes essential 432 to reducing incidents and improving the safe use of RUPs, such as a minimum age for 433

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

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

4 applicators, certification in sp ecific use categories, and esta blishing training requirements for 434 noncertified applicators applying RU Ps under the direct supervision of a certified applicator can 435 only be brought about at a nationa l level by regulation change. 436
437
438 

### 2.2 Proposed Changes and Other Opti ons for Revising the Certification 439 

### Standards 440

441 This section provides a discussion and a genera l overview of current st andards and potential 442 changes to the certification rules. For each of the possible modificati ons, an identifier is 443 provided (such as Admin-04). The proposed regulato ry text or the Code of Federal Regulations 444 provide the actual regulatory language. Provisions in the ru le where there are no changes 445 considered are not discussed. The preamble to th e proposed rule presents additional detail on the 446 rationale for the proposed changes. 447
448
449


### 2.2.1 Enhancement of Pri vate Applicator General Competency Standards 450

451 EPA is proposing changes to the standards for in itial certification for private applicators of 452

RUPs. 453

Initial Certification fo r Private Applicators 454
455 The changes to the standards for initial certific ation are designed to more clearly reflect the 456 knowledge and skills needed by private applicat ors to apply RUPs safely. These proposed 457 changes are summarized in Table 2.2-1. 458

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Private Applicators

Initial certification Exam and/or Training options;

varies by state Initial Certification through exam or

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

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

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

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

459

The current regulation contains five topics for private applicators to be covered in training: 1) 460 recognize common pests to be controlled and da mage caused by them, 2) read and understand 461*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 the label and labeling information, 3) apply pestic ides in accordance with label instructions and 462 warnings, 4) recognize local environmental situati ons that must be considered during application 463 to avoid contamination, and 5) recognize poisoni ng symptoms and procedures to follow in case 464 of a pesticide accident. In contrast, the core standards of competency for commercial 465 certification have nine major areas of focus with more specific sub-points listed under each. 466
467 Both the proposed and alternative private applicat or general competency st andards (Private Cert468 02, Private Cert-01 and Private Ce rt-03) would cover the following topics 1) label and labeling 469 comprehension, 2) safety, 3) environment, 4) pest s, 5) pesticides, 6) equipment, 7) application 470 methods, 8) laws and regulations, 9) responsibilities for supervisor s of noncertified applicators, 471 10) professionalism, and 11) agricultural pest cont rol. These competency standards substantially 472 parallel the core standards for commercial applic ators. Private and commercial applicators have 473 access to the same set of RUPs, and these proposal s would ensure a similar level of competency 474 between private and commercial applicators. The Agency plans to maintain the distinction 475 between private and commercial applicator genera l or “core” competency standards by requiring 476 private applicator general certific ation to cover topics related to agricultural pe st control and 477 agriculture-specific regulations, such as the Work er Protection Standard. These topics are not 478 covered in the commercial core competency st andards. In addition, EP A is not proposing to 479 require that private applicators obtain an additional category cer tification in addition to a core 480 certification in order to apply RUPs using routine application methods. 481
482 The proposal would clarify and expand the requir ements for initial cert ification for private 483 applicators. The current rule a llows private applicators to be cer tified through a “written or oral 484 testing procedure, or such other equivalent system as may be appr oved as part of a State plan.” 485 The proposed option (Private Cert-02) would en hance the competency standards for private 486 applicators by specifying minimum st andards for an alternate system equivalent to a written or 487 oral testing procedure. The pr oposal would require private applic ators either to pass a written 488 exam or to complete training that covers the pr ivate applicator general standards described in 489 Unit VII.A of the preamble. EPA estimates this results in approximate ly 12 hours of training 490 content. These more rigorous standards would ensure sufficient training on all of the required 491 competency standards in order to prevent unreaso nable adverse effects to human health and the 492 environment. The alternatives would require an exam or training on reduced content (Private 493 Cert-01) of an estimated 8 hours, or an exam or training on expa nded content (Private Cert-03) 494 of an estimated 16 hours for private applicator cert ification. The first al ternative would be less 495 burdensome on applicants who do not take a wr itten exam, but limited content means that 496 important topics would not be covered as fully during training. The second alternative would 497 impose a higher burden on applicants who do not ta ke a written exam, but the proposed material 498 could be covered more in depth. This more subs tantial training requirement would provide more 499 education contact time, therefore more assurance that private applicators would be competent to 500 use RUPs appropriately. 501
502 A separate proposal (Private Ce rt-13) would eliminat e certification for priv ate applicators who 503 cannot read. Currently, non-reader s can receive certification as pr ivate applicators for specific 504 products using tests designed for non-readers. Th e proposal would eliminate this possibility. 505 This is important because critical information on pesticide safety is transmitted through the 506 pesticide labeling, which non-read ers would be unable to obtain from the label. Labeling 507*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 changes frequently and non-read ers may not be able to underst and important changes to the 508 labeling for the product(s) they are certified to us e, putting the applicators, the environment, and 509 public health at risk. As an alternative (Priva te Cert-14), the Agency considered retaining non510 reader certification, but limiting it to a single product for a single s eason. Under the alternative, 511 non-readers would be required to undergo certification for each pr oduct they intend to use every 512 year. The alternative would retain the flexibi lity to certify people who cannot read the labeling, 513 but establishes tighter re strictions on the certification to ensure competence and safe application. 514
515
516 

### 2.2.2 Establish Application Method-Sp ecific Categories for Commercial and 517 

### Private Applicators 518

519 For commercial applicators to be certified, the ru le currently requires them to pass at least two 520 written exams – a core exam, which ensures genera l knowledge of pesticide safety, as well as an 521 exam in at least one category of RUP use, such as agricultural pest control or ornamental and turf 522 pest control. The existing rule does not es tablish categories of certification for private 523 applicators. Pesticide application and agricu lture both are becoming increasingly specialized. 524 Improper application may lead to increased risks to the health of the a pplicator, workers, the 525 environment, and the public. Certain categorie s of pesticides and methods of application, 526 including fumigants and aerial application, pose an i nherently higher risk of acute injury or death 527 if the applicator does not unders tand and follow the labeling and apply the pesticide properly. 528 These increased risks can be mitigated by requiring applicators to demonstrate a specific set of 529 competencies related to the type of pe sticide and application method being used. 530

Some states have addressed thes e elevated risks related to app licators by requiring applicators to 531 be certified in specialized categories related to specific application methods. EPA is proposing 3 532 new federal categories of certification for commer cial and private applicators specific to the 533 method of application used: aerial, soil fumi gation, and non-soil fumigation. EPA considered, 534 but is not proposing, a category th at would have covered applica tions via chemigation. These 535 potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit VIII.A of the preamble. The proposed 536 concurrent categories are shown in Table 2.2-2. 537

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

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

 Soil fumigation

 Non-soil fumigation (Comm Cert-04)

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Private Applicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*(1) Agricultural pest control (plant or animal), (2) Forest pest control, (3) Ornamental & turf pest control, (4) Seed treatment, (5) Aquatic pest control, (6) Right-of-Way pe st control, (7) Industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control, (8) Public health pest control, (9) Regulatory pest control, (10) Demonstration and research pest control
538 Soil fumigation uses a pesticide to control pests or plant pathogens in th e soil using a pesticide 539 that either is or becomes a gas. Non-soil fumi gation uses similar pesticides, but for control of 540 pests in other places, such as structural treatment to buildings or to stored commodities. EPA is 541 proposing to create application method-specifi c categories for soil and non-soil fumigation 542 (Comm Cert-04), under which commercial appli cators would be certifie d by passing a written 543 exam administered by the states. Private app licators would demonstrate competency in these 544 categories by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) 545 administered by the states or completing a 4 hou r training program developed and administered 546 by the states (Private Cert-10). 547

EPA considered an alternative that creates onl y one application method-specific category for 548 general fumigation, which would c over both soil and non-soil pest cont rol. Under this alternative 549 category, commercial applicators would be certif ied by passing a written exam developed and 550 administered by the states (Comm Cert-03). Pr ivate applicators would demonstrate competency 551 in the general fumigation category by either passing a written exam or completing a 4 hour 552 training program developed and ad ministered by the State (Private Cert-08). EPA considered a 553 second alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate 554 competency by passing a written exam or comple ting an 8 hour training program developed and 555 administered by the states (Private Cert-09). Th is alternative, the general fumigation category, 556 would be a more general category and might not adequately provide applicators with the specific 557 knowledge and skills necessary to carry out fumiga tion in different situat ions. Soil and non-soil 558 fumigation activities are quite di fferent, and competence in one does not guarantee competence 559 in the other. For this reason, the proposal would create both categor ies for fumigation. The 560 general fumigation category would also necessarily minimize the detail of the training content, as 561*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 knowledge of more tasks would be covered. Fi nally, a general fumigation category would not 562 match the labeling requirements for currently registered soil fumigants. The proposed soil 563 fumigation category would ensure th at certification in the category met all existing soil fumigant 564 labeling requirements for applicators to have specific training. A ge neral fumigation category 565 would not be able to cover the soil fumigant requirements in enough detail to meet those label 566 requirements without being too l ong when combined with the othe r required material applicable 567 to structural, grain storage, a nd commodity fumigation. For these reasons, it is more practical 568 and would result in better safety to establish separate categories for soil and non-soil fumigation. 569

Aerial application refers to a pplying pesticides by aircraft. EPA is proposing to create an 570 application method-specific category for aerial ap plication, under which commercial applicators 571 would be certified by passing a written exam ad ministered by the stat es (Comm Cert-01). 572 Private applicators would be cer tified by either passing a written exam (similar to that for 573 commercial applicators) administered by the st ates or completing a training program of 574 approximately 4 hours developed and administer ed by the states (Pri vate Cert-04). EPA 575 considered an alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would 576 demonstrate competency by passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) 577 administered by the states or by completi ng an 8 hour training program developed and 578 administered by the states (Private Cert-05). Ae rial certification would ensure that applicators 579 applying pesticides by aircraft are able to apply products safely and in a manner to manage drift 580 and potential exposure to adjacent areas a nd bystanders. EPA has already developed a 581
certification manual and exam for aerial application that covers the standards being proposed. 582
These materials are available to states. 583

Chemigation means applying pesticides through irri gation equipment along with irrigation water. 584 Chemigation has a relatively high potential for environmental contaminat ion if not conducted 585 properly. Due to the nature of the equipmen t, chemigation poses additional risks to the 586 applicator or those working under his direct s upervision, and to the e nvironment through water 587 contamination. Chemigation can contaminate gr ound and drinking water supplies if there is a 588 backflow in the system, mechanical failure allows pesticide-treated water to flow directly into a 589 water supply, uncalibrated equipment causes ov er-application, or improperly maintained 590 equipment may leak treated water from the chemig ation system. Several states have developed 591 competency requirements for this kind of application for both commercial and private 592 applicators. Under this alternative categor y, commercial applicators would be certified by 593 passing a written exam developed and administer ed by the states (Comm Cert-02). Private 594 applicators would demonstrate competency in the chemigation category by either passing a 595 written exam (similar to that for commercial ap plicators) administered by the states or 596 completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered by the stat e (Private Cert-06). 597 EPA considered a second alternative to this pr oposal for private applicators under which they 598 would demonstrate competency by passing a writ ten exam (similar to that for commercial 599 applicators) administered by the states or completing an 8 hour training program developed and 600 administered by the states (Priva te Cert-07). However, most in cidents relating to chemigation 601 pertain to chemicals that would be covered unde r the soil fumigation category, such as metam 602 sodium and dichloropropene. Thus, it is unclear that the creation of an additional certification 603 category for chemigation would provide additional benefits. 604
605
606*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 

### 2.2.3 Establish Predator Control Cat egories for Commercial and Private 607 

### Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements 608

609 In addition to the application method-specific cate gories, the Agency is proposing to add specific 610 categories for the use of the predacides Co mpound 1080 (sodium fluoro acetate) and sodium 611 cyanide dispensed through an M-44 device. The proposed categories for both commercial 612 (Comm Cert-05) and private app licators (Private Cert-12), woul d cover the use of these two 613 specific pesticides which target predators of liv estock and are highly dangerous to humans and 614 non-target species. States and federal agencies th at allow the use of thes e products already have 615 a certification program in place for applicators using the products. The pesticide labeling for 616 each of these products imposes sp ecific requirements for the cer tification of applicators by any 617 state or federal agency that allows their use. Thus, this proposal simply codifies the existing 618 labeling requirements. These potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit IX of the 619 preamble. 620
621
622 

### 2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Comme rcial and Private 623 

### Applicators 624

625 Under the current federal requirements, person s seeking to become certified as commercial 626 applicators must demonstrate their competen ce by passing a written exam. Persons seeking 627 certification as private applicators may pass a written exam or by completing an equivalent 628 program administered by the state. Recertifi cation requirements may include options for exams 629 or training. The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and 630 conducting training. These provision s are summarized in Table 2.2-4, and discussed in detail in 631 Unit X of the preamble. 632

633
Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed , and Alternative Requirements for Ad ministering Exams and Training
Courses

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

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

exams Some states require
identification and

others do not.

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

closed book  Identity verification required for

exams

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

Private Applicators

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

others do not.  Identity verification required for

exams

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

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

training, and proctor

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

some are not 634

EPA is proposing that any person seeking certif ication or recertifica tion as a private or 635 commercial applicator, whether by training or exam, would be requi red to provide proof of their 636 identity. EPA is also proposing to codify EP A’s existing guidance that exams must be written, 637 proctored, and closed book. 638
639 The value of setting federal standards for examina tion practices is that states, employers, and the 640 public could be confident that all certified applicators will have me t a consistent standard without 641 having to verify the examination practices of eac h state. Confirming the identity of the test 642 takers would ensure that applicants satisfy th e proposed minimum age requirements. It would 643 also help prevent persons from taking a cer tification exam or training or attending a 644 recertification training session in the place of the actual candidate , thereby limiting certification 645 to the candidates who are qualified. 646

In addition to verifying the identity of test ta kers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing 647 policy related to the security of the exam proce ss. These standards woul d include requiring that 648 the exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed-book exams to ensure that no 649
outside materials would be used in the exam. These changes would also ensure that only 650 competent applicators become certified. The states would have to ensure that these standards are 651

met. 652

653 

### 2.2.5 Standards for Supervis ion of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for 654 

### Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training 655

656 Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator 657 currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, they also have a 658 high potential for exposure and, if restricted use pesticides are mi sapplied, they may pose a risk 659 to the public health and the environment. To address these risks, the Agency has proposed 660 changes in the training of the noncertified person, clarification on who can provide that training, 661
and clarification on what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 662 These proposals are summarized in Table 2.2-5, and discussed in more detail in Units XI and XII 663 of the preamble. 664*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Comm ercial Applicator

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

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

their families from pesticide

exposure Competency could be demonstrated one of three ways:

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

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

o Training on protecting the family

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

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

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

core exam (Comm Sup-02)

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

years (Comm Sup-07)

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

applicator guidance on

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

 Provide the pesticide labeling for each application

 Provide instructions related to each application

 Explain all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03)

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators

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

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

their families from pesticide

exposure Competency could be demonstrated one of three ways:

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

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

o Training on protecting the family

 complete WPS handler training (repeat annually)

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

ways:

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

o Training on pesticide

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

o Training on protecting

the family

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

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

applicator
instruction on

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

 Provide the pesticide labeling for each application

 Provide instructions related to each application

 Explain all labeling restrictions (Private Sup-03)

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

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

665

Existing regulations require that a noncertifi ed applicator using RUPs under the direct 666 supervision of a certified applicat or must be competent, but the rule does not specify how to 667 determine the competency of the noncertified app licator. Currently the ru le does not require any 668*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 training or exam to gauge noncer tified applicator competency or ensure an initial level of 669 training/competency. The current rule also does not specify any interval for retraining or 670 instruction for ensuring the ongoing compet ency of noncertified applicators. 671

Competence of Noncertified Applicators Workin g Under the Direct Superv ision of a Commercial 672 Applicator 673

The Agency is proposing to clarify the ways that noncertified applic ators working under the 674 direct supervision of commercial applicators wo uld be able to demonstrate competence in the 675 absence of certification. They would be able to demonstrate competence by one of three ways 676 (Comm Sup-01). First, they would be able to complete proposed training for noncertified 677 applicators, which would include a range of information about the hazards of pesticides, what to 678 do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety re quirements, proper application techniques, how to 679 protect oneself and one’s family from pesticide e xposure, and other topics related to the safe use 680 of RUPs. Second, they could complete the W PS handler training (speci fied under 40 CFR 170). 681 Third, they could pass the cer tified applicator core exam 3 . The proposed training requirements 682 would be repeated annually; th e proposed option to pass the commercial core exam would be 683 repeated every 3 years. Commer cial applicators supervising non certified applicators would be 684 required to maintain records of the training or completion of the core exam for 2 years (Comm 685 Sup-06). An alternative approach, not proposed by EPA, would be to requ ire the training records 686 to be kept for five years (Comm Sup-07). 687

An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators 688 would be to limit noncertified applicators to only those who have passed the commercial 689 applicator core exam (Comm Sup-02). This alte rnative would limit the flexibility of commercial 690 applicators and noncertified applic ators working under their direct supervision to decide how to 691 meet the qualifications. In addition, it may be difficult for noncertified applicators to pass a 692 written exam, even though they may be compet ent, leading to fewer available qualified 693 noncertified applicators and increasing the demand for certified applicators to conduct 694 applications. 695

Competence of Noncertified Applicators Work ing Under the Direct Supe rvision of a Private 696 Applicator 697

The Agency is proposing to clarify the ways that noncertified applic ators working under the 698 direct supervision of private applicators can de monstrate competence. They could demonstrate 699 competence in one of three ways (Private Sup-02). First, they could complete proposed training 700 for noncertified applicators, wh ich would include a range of in formation about the hazards of 701 pesticides, what to do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety requirem ents, proper application 702 techniques, how to protect oneself and one’s fami ly from pesticide exposure, and other topics 703 related to the safe use of RUPs. Second, th ey could complete the WPS handler training 704 (specified under 40 CFR 170). Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam, which 705 would make them certified applicators. The proposed training requirements would be repeated 706 annually; the proposed option to pass the commer cial core exam would be repeated every 3 707

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

14 years. EPA cannot require privat e applicators to keep records due to constraints in FIFRA, so 708 EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified 709 applicators working under their direct s upervision have qualified under the proposed 710 requirements. 711

An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators 712 working under the direct superv ision of private applicators would be to limit noncertified 713 applicators to only those who have completed th e training proposed under the rule or who have 714 completed the WPS handler training (Private Sup-01). This altern ative would limit the flexibility 715 of private applicators and noncer tified applicators working unde r their direct supervision to 716 decide how to meet the qualifications. 717

Guidance Given To Noncertified Applicato rs Working under the Di rect Supervision of 718 Commercial and Private Applicators 719

In addition to the general requirement to demonstrate competence through training or 720 examination, the Agency is proposing to add to the instructions that must be given to 721 noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of co mmercial and private 722 applicators. Currently the supe rvising commercial or private a pplicator must provide guidance 723 on the labeling requirements and application restri ctions and information on how to contact the 724 supervisor. The proposal would require that , in addition to the above, the supervising 725 commercial or private applicator provide a copy of all applicable labeling to each noncertified 726 applicator for each supervised application; pr ovide specific instructi ons related to each 727 application, including the site-specific precautio ns and how to use the equipment; and explain 728 and comply with all labeli ng restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03). 729

Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified 730 Applicator 731

EPA is proposing to replace the current requirem ent for the supervising commercial or private 732 applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor 733 (such as directions to a pay phone and a phone nu mber), with a requirement for the supervising 734 commercial or private applicator to ensure th e noncertified applicat or has the ability to 735 communicate immediately with th e supervising applicator (C omm Sup-05) for commercial 736 applicators, Private Sup-05 fo r private applicators). Imme diate communication between the 737 supervising commercial and private applicator s and the noncertified a pplicators working under 738 their direct supervision may be important if the noncertified app licator has questions about the 739 pesticide application or encounters an emerge ncy situation. This immediate communication 740 standard could be satisfied by, for example, cell phones or two-way radios. EPA also considered 741 a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator maintain the noncertified 742 applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (C omm Sup-04 and Private Sup-04). 743 Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in hilly, forested, or obstructed 744 view areas, it is essentially a requirement for all persons using RUPs to be certified, which limits 745 flexibility for certified applicators and increase s the number of certified applicators needed to 746 complete certain applications. 747
748
749*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 

### 2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators 750

751 A summary of the age restricti ons considered by EPA is shown in Table 2.2-6. These potential 752 changes are a result of the need to protect adolescents from RU P exposure and to ensure that 753 RUPS are applied by competent adults. EPA also considered other age restrictions, outlined 754
below and discussed in more detail in Unit XIII of the preamble. 755

756

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Commercial Applicators

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

(Comm Age-01)

Private Applicators

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

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

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

old for family members on family
farms (Private Age-03)
757

There is currently no minimum age for certified app licators, so it is possi ble for adolescents to 758 handle some of the highest risk pe sticides and to superv ise noncertified applicators using RUPs. 759 Adolescents may not possess the judgment and maturity necessary to ensure they apply 760 pesticides properly. The hei ghtened potential for immature decision making places the 761 applicator and others at significant risk if the pesticides are mishandled. The Agency is 762 proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become certified as a commercial 763 (Comm Age-02) or private (Priva te Age-02) applicator. EPA al so considered establishing a 764 minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either commercial or private applicators 765 (Comm Age-01 and Private Age-01). EPA c onsidered an additional option for private 766 applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 years ol d, with a minimum age of 16 only 767 for private applicators who are family member s on family farms (Private Age-03). These 768 changes would increase the protections to child a nd adolescent applicators. It should be noted 769 that currently certified applicators would be able to maintain their certif ication, but those who do 770 not meet the minimum age would not be allowed to obtain a certification. 771
772
773*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 

### 2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertifie d Applicators Applying RUPs under the 774 

### Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 775

776 To protect noncertified applicators working unde r the direct supervision of commercial and 777 private applicators as well as to protect the h ealth of others and th e environment, EPA is 778 proposing to establish a minimum age for non certified applicators. The proposals and 779 alternatives for age requirements for noncertified applicators under the di rect supervision of 780 commercial and private applicat ors are shown in Table 2.2-7. 781

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

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators

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

under the direct supervision of

commercial applicators must be at least 18 years old

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

Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators

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

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

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

under the direct supervision of private applicators
must be at least 18 years old, or at least 16 years old if under
the direct supervision of an immediate family
member (Private Age-06)
782

The proposed minimum age for persons to apply RUPs under the direct s upervision of private 783 and commercial applicators is 18 (Comm Age-04 and Private Age- 05). The alternatives are a 784 minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicator s working under the direct supervision of both 785 commercial (Comm Age-03) and priv ate (Private Age-04) applicator s. An additional alternative 786 (Private Age-06) would require noncertified appl icators to be 18, but with an exception for 787 noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of an imme diate family member, who must 788 be at least 16 years old in this alternative. 789
790
791*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 

### 2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators 792

793
The current recertificatio n standards only require states to have “provisions to ensure that 794 certified applicators continue to meet the requ irements of changing technology and to assure a 795 continuing level of competency a nd ability to apply pesticides sa fely and properly” as part of 796 their state plans (40 CFR 171.8(a)(2)). Currentl y, the rule specifies no requirements for the 797 timing, content, or manner to evaluate ongoing competency, undermining the integrity of the 798 applicator certification program. The lack of a nationa l standard has resulted in the development 799 of varying state programs that hinder state-to-state reciprocity and do not uniformly ensure that 800 applicators have maintained their competency in core functions and the changing technology of 801 pesticide application. The pr oposed recertificatio n requirements would establish a maximum 802 duration for certifications, set minimum standard s for continuing education programs, and would 803 require positive identification of candidates for recertification. Th e specific proposals are 804 summarized in Table 2.2-8, with a more comp lete discussion availa ble in Unit XV of the 805 preamble. 806

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

The primary change proposed by EPA would be to establish a maximum ce rtification period of 808 three years. In addition to the fixed time fram e, the proposals would esta blish requirements for 809 recertification, either by passing exams relevant to existing certifications or by completing a 810 specific number of continuing education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency. EPA 811 proposes to define a CEU as 50 minutes of educational contact time. For commercial 812 applicators, the proposed recer tification training requirements would be six CEUs for core 813 certification and six CEUs per category of certif ication (Comm Recert-01), with recertification 814 administered by the states. For private applicat ors, the recertificati on training requirements 815 proposed would be six CEUs for general private applicator certificati on and three CEUs per 816 application method-specific certif ication (Private Recert-01) w ith materials developed and 817 administered by the states. Periodic requireme nts for retraining would ensure that certified 818 applicators maintain knowledge of current inform ation about pesticide a pplication practices. 819 EPA has considered several other options to ensu re that certified applic ators are aware of the 820 most recent information about pesticide safety. 821

For both private (Private Recert-04) and commerci al (Comm Recert-04) applicators, the Agency 822 considered the same recertification requirements at fi ve year intervals rather than three years. 823

For private applicators, EPA considered alterna tives that require an exam or 8 hour training 824 program for general private applicator recertification and an additional 4 hours of training per 825 application method-specific category, where training materials or exams would be the 826 responsibility of the states. Unde r these alternatives, re certification would ta ke place every three 827 years (Private Recert-02) or every five years (Private Recert-05). Although extended training 828 programs would be a larger time commitment for applicators, states a nd other certifying bodies 829 could substitute an exam for the training requirements. 830

For commercial applicators only, another alternative would be r ecertification at three year 831 intervals but requiring recertificat ion only by passing an exam (C omm Recert-02) with states 832 developing unique examinations for both core certif ication and category certification, rather than 833 offering the option to complete CE Us or pass core and category exams. EPA also considered an 834 alternative with the same require ments, but with rece rtification at five year intervals (Comm 835 Recert-05) 836

The advantage of the proposal is that it woul d ensure a continuing level of competency among 837 certified applicators, which will help to reduce th e risk of RUPs. The alternatives would provide 838 a lower level of confidence in the competence of applicators that have no t been recently certified, 839 but impose less burden. 840*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 841


### 2.2.9 General Administrativ e Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and 842 

### Federal Agencies 843

844 There are several proposed requirements that ar e administrative in nature: new recordkeeping 845 requirements for industry and requirements for states to implement the changes in the rule. The 846 Agency is proposing new recordkeeping requireme nts for dealers of RUPs, shown in Table 2.2- 847
9. A more detailed discussion is availa ble in Unit XVI of the preamble. 848
849 Table 2.2-9. Current, Proposed, and Alternat ives to Recordkeeping for RUP Dealers

Regulatory Element Current Regulatory
Status Proposed Option Alternative Options

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

 product purchased

 who purchased

 date of purchase

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

850 Under the proposal (Admin-01), all dealers of RUPS to both private and commercial applicators 851 would be required by the states to keep records of RUP sales, including information on what 852 RUP was purchased, the date of purchase, the id entity of the purchaser, as well as information 853 verifying the applicator’s certification is appropriate to purchase the RUP. 854
855 The rule would also require the applicable Stat es, Tribes, Territories and Federal agencies to 856 engage in several activities to comply with change s elsewhere in the rule. The cost estimates for 857 these administrative burdens are provided Ch apter 3. These would include the certifying 858 agencies revising regulations a nd making any required enabling le gislative changes that would 859 be necessary to bring their certification program s into compliance with proposed requirements as 860 a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-02). They would also include the process of updating 861 their required certification plans that must be revised and submitted to the EPA (Admin-03) as a 862 consequence of the rule changes. The Federal agencies and EPA would need to revise their 863 plans and programs as a consequence of the rule changes (Admin-04). EPA would also need to 864 review and approve all of the revised certificati on plans that would be submitted to the Agency 865 as a result of the proposed rule changes (Adm in-06). More information on all of these 866 administrative requirements that would be n ecessary can be found in the preamble to the 867 proposed rule (Units XVI, XVII, and XIX, respectively). 868
869
There are other administrative requirements that would be im posed by the proposed rule that 870 would be required to implement th e rule changes that will not be discussed in detail here. These 871 include definitional changes that would clarify terms used in the regulation, and revisions that 872 would clarify requirements for the content, su bmission and approval of certification plans by 873*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 states, tribes, and federal agencies. Informati on on these proposed requirements can also be 874 found in the preamble to the proposed rule (Units XX, XVI, and XVII, respectively). 875*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 3. Cost Assessment, Regulatory Options 876

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the co st of changes to Certification of Pesticide 877 Applicators rule (C&T) requirements in 40 CFR 171. We estimate the comp liance cost of each 878 potential certification and traini ng requirement considered by EPA and compare it to the cost of 879 the current requirements. The difference between the two sets of costs is the incremental cost 880 attributable to the individual requirement. 881



### 3.1 Overview 882

Individual requirements and the proposed suite of requirements could impose costs on certified 883 applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators, 884 pesticide dealers, and pesticid e manufacturers. States would also be impacted by individual 885 requirements and the proposed suite of requireme nts, as they employ certified applicators and 886 would be required to incorporat e any new requirements into state law and carry out the proposed 887 certification and training re quirements of the rule. 888

The requirements EPA evaluate d would require employers of certified applicators and 889 individuals certified as applicat ors to devote time and resources to the certification and training 890 of using restricted use pestic ides (RUPs), as well as time a nd resources to the training of 891 noncertified applicators applying RU Ps under their direct supervisi on. In analyzing the cost of 892 these potential requirements, EPA values the time sp ent in required activities at the wage rate of 893 the individual(s) involved in the task because the requirements implicitly take time from the 894 productive activities of the operation or indivi dual. Some requirements would also require 895 expenditures on travel and materials. 896

Section 3.2 describes the general methodology of co st estimation. In section 3.3, the state- or 897 jurisdiction-level data are presen ted. Section 3.4 presents the re sults of cost analysis. The 898 section is further divided into subsections, in which costs of different groups of proposed and 899 alternative requirements are assessed: 3.4.1 private applicator general competency requirements; 900 3.4.2 addition of application method-specific cate gories for commercial and private applicators; 901 3.4.3 exam or training requirements; 3.4.4 stan dard for the supervision of noncertified 902 applicators; 3.4.5 minimum age requirements for certified applicat ors and noncertified 903 applicators under the direct supe rvision of certified applicators; 3.4.6 recertification requirements 904 for certified applicators; and 3.4.7 gene ral administration requirements. 905



### 3.2 Methodology 906

This section of the cost analys is evaluates the expected impact s of the proposed new certification 907 and training requirements at the actor level (typica lly a certified applicator, a noncertified 908 applicator working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator , or a state government 909 employee) and extrapolates to the jurisdiction (s tate, tribe, or territory) and national levels. 910 Ideally, the cost analysis would be conducted wi th the unit of analysis, or actor, being the 911*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 establishments (farm, pest control firm, etc.) th at either employ or are owned by the applicators 912 and bear the cost of the potenti al rule changes. However, th e data on individual applicators 913 cannot be readily associated with particular establishments. For th is reason, in this section of the 914 cost assessment, we use applicators as the unit of analysis. Note th at this unit of analysis is not 915 equivalent to who bears the burden of the cost. In particular, a certified applicator may be an 916 employer, an employee, or self-employed. 917



### 3.2.1 General Methodology 918 EPA’s approach consists of six steps. The first two steps calculate the baseline cost by 919 jurisdiction and the associated cost per actor or ‘unit co st’ of each potential requirement. These 920 costs are estimated by actor, where actors are typi cally certified applicators either commercial or 921 private, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervis ion of a certified applicator, 922 and state governments, depending on who would be implicated by a requirement or aspect of a 923 requirement. These costs are a function of the la bor costs to conduct an activity and any required 924 material costs. As noted above, costs are genera lly a function of the time necessary to meet the 925 requirement and the frequency at which it occurs. 926

The third step multiplies the uni t costs by the number of actors in each jurisdiction, and sums 927 across the categories of actors to arrive at the jurisdiction-level co st of each potential requirement 928 and the associated baseline regul atory costs. In steps four an d five, we calculate the present 929
value and then determine the incremental cost of the regulatory changes by taking the difference 930 between the costs for the potential requirements a nd the baselines at the jurisdiction level. In 931 step six we then sum across jurisdictions to obtain an estimate of the national costs and 932
determine the annualized value. 933

To better compare the impacts across the various pot ential requirements and the flow of expected 934 benefits, in step 4, EPA calculates the present va lue (PV) of jurisdiction and national costs over a 935 ten-year time horizon. The timing of the requiremen ts depends on the activity that has to occur. 936 For example, the implementation of requirements would require the states to review, revise 937 current regulations and implement the proposed re gulations. For some requirements such as age 938 restrictions, there is a three y ear phase-in period where applicat ors who are currently 16 years of 939 age would be allowed to continue working throu gh the system as applicators and therefore could 940
seek certifications in new cat egories before they turn 18. The time horizon is of limited 941 importance as most of the costs will occur annuall y. Ten years was chosen because it is a typical 942 time frame over which an agricultural esta blishment might financially amortize such 943 expenditures. We use a discount rate of three pe rcent, to represent the social discount rate, and 944 seven percent (see Appendix B) to represent the pr ivate discount rate as suggested by the Office 945 of Management and Budget (OMB, 2003). 946

The rest of this section presents the methodology in greater detail, including an example of the 947 methodology applied to a potential requirement that would re quire certified commercial 948 applicators who intend to apply RU Ps aerially to be certified in a commercial aerial certification 949 category. Data that are commonly used throughout the estimation are discussed in Section 3.3.2. 950 Data that are specific to individual requirement s are included in the discussion of the specific 951 requirement. 952*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Step 1. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of the Jurisd iction Baselines. For the purposes of cost 953 analysis, the U.S. is divided into 52 “jurisdic tions,” consisting of 50 states, Puerto Rico, and 954 “Other.” The jurisdiction “Other” includes all te rritories and tribes, except Puerto Rico. This 955 “jurisdiction” level approach is needed because different jurisdictions currently have different 956 requirements (baselines) for certifying their applicat ors. We calculate the associated jurisdiction 957 baseline cost of the existing regulatory re quirement for each actor in each jurisdiction: 958

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௥,௜,a,௝ ஻

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝ 959

where cost r,i, a B t

is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r , in jurisdiction i , for an 960 actor, a, in time t ; H r,i, a ,j

B t

is the time required for activity j in time t under the current 961 requirement; w a is the wage rate for the actor doing the activity; and Prob t ( j | i ) is the probability 962 or frequency of activity j in time t given the jurisdiction. The actor is generally the applicator, 963 who is either obtaining or renewi ng certification and th e activity may be preparing for an exam 964 or taking a training. The probabili ty or frequency is determined by the situation. All first-time 965 applicators must obtain initial certification (Prob = 1), while recertificat ion requirements may be 966 spread over a period of time, e.g. , a three-year cycle implies that one-third of the applicators seek 967 recertification every ye ar and/or applicators take about one-third of required continuing 968 education units (CEUs) every year (Prob = 0.333). 969

Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Cost s of Potential Requirement. The expected cost of a potential 970 requirements is calculated as: 971

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a ∙ ܪ ௥,a,௝ ௉

௧ ∙ Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ 972

where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 973 simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or regio n. Since our goal is to 974 determine the increased costs caused by any pot ential regulatory requirement, we typically 975
restrict H B r, j|i,a ≤ H P r ,j|a , that is, jurisdictions are not anticipa ted to relax standards if the proposed 976 federal requirement is less stringent. 977

Step 3. Calculate Jurisdiction Costs of Potential Requirement and Jurisdiction Baseline. To 978 estimate total compliance costs for the potential requirements and compliance costs for the 979 current jurisdiction baseline, we multiply the per-actor unit costs by the number of affected 980 actors of each type (e.g., first-time certified priv ate applicators and existing certified private 981 applicators) in the jurisdiction and su m across all types of affected actors: 982
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 RC r,i

X

denotes the cost of potential requirement r to jurisdiction i of potential regulations 986

X , for X = B and P ; and N i,a is the number of affected actors in a jurisdiction. 987

Step 4. Calculate Jurisdiction Increm ental Costs. As part of th is step, we calculate the present 988 value (PV) for both RC B and RC P . Generally, per-actor costs are constant, but implementation of 989 the regulations will occur only after states and jurisdictions have revised their programs and 990 developed any new training or examination materi als. EPA considered whether the number of 991 applicators is changing over time, but the data ge nerally indicate little or no changes. See 992 Section 3.3 below. The present va lue of costs is calculated as 993

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ௑ ෍൯ൌ ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 994

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. We use a time 995 horizon of ten years, but this is not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, 996 especially baseline costs, will occur annuall y. Given constant annual costs, the PV of 997 jurisdiction costs for the baseline simplifies to 998

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ஻ ൯ ൌ ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 999

and, assuming a two-year implementation period, th e PV of jurisdiction costs for the potential 1000 requirements can be calculated as 1001
1002

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ௉ ൯ ൌ ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ 1൅ߩ ሻ ௧ିଵ ଶ

௧ୀଵ ܥܴ ൅ ௜,௥ ௉

௧ୀଵ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ 1൅ߩ ሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ 1003

We estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement to each jurisdiction by subtracting 1004 the PV of the jurisdiction baseline cost from the PV of the jurisdicti on cost of the potential 1005 requirement: 1006

ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ ௥,௜ ൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻ ൯ 1007

where PV(RIC r,i

) is the present value of the stream of incremental cost of the potential 1008 requirement over the regiona l baseline in jurisdiction i

. 1009

Step 5. Calculate National Costs of the Pote ntial Requirement, Juri sdiction Baseline, and 1010 Incremental Costs. We sum incremental costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance 1011 costs for each potential requirement ( NC P

r ), the jurisdiction baseline requirements ( NC B

r ), and 1012 the national incremental cost ( NIC r ) where 1013

ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௑ ൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ
௥,௜ ௑ ൯

௜ 1014*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 and 1015

ܸܲ ሺ ܰܥܫ ௥ ሻ ൌ 	ܸܲ൫ܰܥ

௥ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܰܥ

௥ ஻ ൯ 1016 1017

Step 6. Annualize the NPV for RCB, RCP and RIC. The final step is to annualize the NPV for 1018 the jurisdiction baseline, propos ed and incremental costs over 10 years at the appropriate 1019
discount rate. This annualized cost is the estimated per year cost of the requirement. 1020

ܥܫܣ ௥ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ
௥ ሻ ൈ ߩ ∙ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ଵ଴
ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ଵ଴ െ 1 1021



### 3.2.2 Example Methodology 1022 In the following example we apply the general 6-step methodology to the potential requirement 1023 of initial certification for a commercial applicat or (Comm Cert-01) which would require certified 1024 commercial applicators who intend to apply RUPs aerially to be certified in a commercial aerial 1025 certification category. In this example we are evaluating the costs imposed on commercial 1026 applicators, but there are also costs to jurisd ictions of developing a nd administering aerial 1027 applicator exams. The costs to jurisdicti ons are calculated using the same method. 1028

Step 1. Calculate the Baseline Unit Costs (Per-Actor Costs). 1029

Based on data from the Certification Plan and Reporting Database 4 (CPARD), 18 stat es (listed in 1030 Table 3.2-2), Puerto Rico, and Other currently do not require an aerial category certification 1031 (CPARD, 2014). Existing and first-time aerial co mmercial applicators in these jurisdictions 1032 would bear the full impact of the potential requ irement (Comm Cert-01). The other 32 states 1033 have an aerial category requiring an exam and are in full compliance with the potential 1034 requirement. Thus, these 32 states are taken out of the cost analysis. Table 3.2-1 presents the 1035 unit costs, that is, per-actor costs for the base line and potential requ irement (Comm Cert-01). 1036

Step 2. Calculate the Per-Actor Un it Costs of Potential Requirement. 1037

The actors are the existing and first-time commerci al certified applicator s who intend to apply 1038 RUPs aerially. Under the new requirement, existing aerial applicators would be required to take 1039 an aerial category exam that requires a total of 6 hours (the preparation time and exam taking 1040 time), while first-time aerial applicators would take an aerial category exam that requires a total 1041 of 8 hours (the preparation time and exam taking tim e). These commercial applicators must also 1042
be certified in relevant current certification categories to qualify for the aerial category. The 1043 wage rate for existing and first-time aerial app licators is $21.49 per hour. To calculate the unit 1044 cost for existing and first-time aerial applicators, we multiply the wage rate times the number of 1045 hours required of them to comp lete the certification exam. Th e unit cost for existing aerial 1046 applicators is $129 and $172 for fi rst-time aerial applicators. 1047

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

6 Table 3.2-1: Unit Cost for Certification of First-Time Aerial Commercial Applicators 1048 Activity Wage Rate Time Frequency Cost Existing Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 6 hours 1 $129 First-Time Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 8 hours 1 $172 Source: Based on wage rate information from "Ma y 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational 1049 Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 1050 Employment Statistics (U.S. Depa rtment of Labor 2013a). 1051

Step 3. Calculate the Jurisdiction-level Costs of the Potential Requirement and Baseline. 1052

Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 present regional costs in y ear three for the regional baseline and cost of 1053 the potential requirement, respectiv ely. Regional costs are calculat ed as unit costs for existing 1054 and first-time applicators multiplied by the num ber of actors and summe d across regions (see 1055 Appendix A). 1056

Table 3.2-2: Jurisdiction-Level Baseline Costs in Year 1 1057

Jurisdiction Existing Aerial Commercial Applicators First-time Aerial Commercial Applicators

Jurisdictionlevel Cost of

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

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

Jurisdiction (N i,a )

Alabama $0.00 20 $0.00 2 $0.00

Arizona $0.00 71 $0.00 8 $0.00

Arkansas $0.00 264 $0.00 32 $0.00

Colorado $0.00 199 $0.00 24 $0.00

Delaware $0.00 41 $0.00 5 $0.00

Idaho $0.00 216 $0.00 26 $0.00

Kansas $0.00 337 $0.00 40 $0.00

Missouri $0.00 237 $0.00 28 $0.00

Nevada $0.00 80 $0.00 10 $0.00

New Mexico $0.00 6 $0.00 1 $0.00

North Carolina $0.00 170 $0.00 20 $0.00

Oklahoma $0.00 408 $0.00 49 $0.00

Oregon $0.00 210 $0.00 25 $0.00

Rhode Island $0.00 15 $0.00 2 $0.00

South Dakota $0.00 389 $0.00 47 $0.00

Tennessee $0.00 86 $0.00 10 $0.00

Washington State $0.00 459 $0.00 55 $0.00

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

7 Puerto Rico $0.00 46 $0.00 6 $0.00

Other $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. Wage rate calculations 1058 based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 1059 Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labo r Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. 1060 Department of Labor 2013a). 1061

Table 3.2-3: Jurisdiction-Level Costs of Pr oposed Regulation Comm Cert-01 in Year 1 1062

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

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

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

Jurisdiction (N i,a )

Alabama $129 20 $172 2 2,992

Arizona $129 71 $172 8 10,589

Arkansas $129 264 $172 32 39,552

Colorado $129 199 $172 24 29,736

Delaware $129 41 $172 5 6,136

Idaho $129 216 $172 26 32,313

Kansas $129 337 $172 40 50,429

Missouri $129 237 $172 28 35,447

Nevada $129 80 $172 10 11,931

New Mexico $129 6 $172 1 891

North Carolina $129 170 $172 20 25,361

Oklahoma $129 408 $172 49 61,018

Oregon $129 210 $172 25 31,381

Rhode Island $129 15 $172 2 2,203

South Dakota $129 389 $172 47 58,155

Tennessee $129 86 $172 10 12,865

Washington State $129 459 $172 55 68,705

West Virginia $129 31 $172 4 4,654

Puerto Rico $129 46 $172 6 6,907

Other $129 0 $172 0 0 Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 1063 Wage rate calculations based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific 1064 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 1065 Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a). 1066

Steps 4 and 5. Calculate the Jurisdiction-level Incremental Costs and the Present Value. 1067

Baseline unit costs are assumed to continue unc hanged through the ten year time horizon. The 1068 number of applicators is also anticipated to remain constant over the time horizon. Under the 1069 potential regulation, baseline unit co sts would be incurred for the fi rst two years of the horizon at 1070*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 which point applicators would face the costs of the potential requirement. Given those 1071 conditions, we calculate the presen t value of the cost streams, shown in Table 3.2-4. We then 1072 subtract the jurisdiction-level cost of the baseline from the jurisdiction-level cost of the potential 1073 regulatory requirement in year th ree to get the jurisdiction-level incremental costs (Table 3.2-4). 1074

Step 6. Annualize the National Costs of the Potential Requirement, National Baseline, and 1075
National Incremental Costs. 1076

Finally, we sum costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance cost for the potential 1077 regulatory requirement, the nati onal baseline cost, and the na tional proposal cost. These 1078 national-level costs are presented in Table 3.2-4. The costs are pr esented as present value over a 1079 ten year time period with costs starting in year three given a 3% discount rate. 1080

Table 3.2-4: Annualized Present Value of Na tional-Level Costs of Commercial Aerial 1081 Applicator Certification (Comm Cert-01) 1 1082

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

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

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1083



### 3.3 Cost Analysis Data 1084

In this section, we present the major data elements required for the analysis. Data elements 1085
include the number of certifi ed applicators by jurisdiction and age cohort, the number of 1086 applicators who would be likely to obtain certification in the proposed new federal categories, 1087 the number of a noncertified applicators worki ng under the direct superv ision of a certified 1088 applicator by jurisdiction and age, a nd wage rates for the various actors. 1089
1090 

### 3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators 1091

1092 States and other certifying ju risdictions (e.g., Puerto Rico, th e District of Columbia, other 1093 territories and several tribes) report the number of certifications issued and maintained to the 1094 Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). EPA used data reported from 2008 to 1095 2013 to determine the number of certified applicat ors that would be aff ected by changes to the 1096 certification program s (CPARD, 2014). 1097
1098 Table 3.3-1 presents the number of commercial applicators used in the analysis, including first1099 time applicators (those obtaining an initial certif ication), existing applic ators (those who would 1100 recertify), and the average numbe r of certifications held by exis ting applicators. Commercial 1101 applicators must be certified in a core set of requirements and obtain at least one category, based 1102 on area of specialization, such as agriculture, forestry, and turf. Over time, many commercial 1103 applicators become certified in multiple categories. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the average 1104*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 number of category certificati ons ranges from nearly one in Tennessee to a high of 3.6 1105 certifications per applicator in Wyoming. Any ch anges in recertification requirements will affect 1106 all the category certifica tions an applicator hol ds. EPA uses a simple average over the 2008 to 1107 2013 period to estimate the number of commer cial applicators impacted by the rule. 1108
1109 With the limited series of data available, trends are difficult to determine. We regressed the 1110 logarithm of the number of commercial applicator s in the U.S. against a time trend. For first1111 time applicators, the coefficient on time implie d a two percent annual ra te of growth, but the 1112 estimate was not statistically significant. For ex isting applicators, the coefficient on time was 1113 also around a two percent annual gr owth rate and the estimate was statistically significant. We 1114 decided to use the simple average for both groups, implying no growth, due to the limited 1115 number of observations and some problems with the data. Several states did not begin reporting 1116 to CPARD until 2010 and others initially reported only certifications issue d, not the number of 1117 applicators. 1118
1119 Table 3.3-1: Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction 1120

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

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

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

Source: Certification Plan a nd Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 1121

Data on the age distribution of certi fied applicators is not availabl e. Because it is important to 1122 know the number of certified applicators that may be subject to an age restriction, EPA estimates 1123 the number of commercial applicators. Due to re strictions on adolescent s regarding driving, and 1124 the availability to work due to education requireme nts, as well as general li ability concerns, it is 1125 unlikely that there are commercial applicators under the age of 16. For those that are 16-17 years 1126 old, EPA assumes that 0.2 percent of new comm ercial applicators ar e 16 years old and 0.3 1127 percent are 17 years old. This assumption follows the analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the 1128 Worker Protection Standard (EPA, 2014a). Data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey 1129 (DoL, 2005) indicated that just over two percent of on-farm pest icide handlers were under 18 1130 years of age. EPA assumed that commercial pe sticide handling establishments would be less 1131 likely to employ adolescents in such a capacity and estimated that about one percent of 1132 commercial handlers would be under 18. Here, we a ssume it is even less likely that commercial 1133 establishments would hire adolescents to apply RU Ps. Further, 33 states prohibit certification for 1134
those under 18. The estimated number of commercia l certified adolescents in shown in Table 1135 3.3-2. EPA assumes that 90 percen t of certified 16 year olds retu rn to work as 17 year olds. 1136*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

. 1137

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

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

Iowa 0 0 0

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

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

12 Tennessee 0 0 0

Texas 3.4 3.1 5.1
Utah 1.9 1.7 2.8

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

U.S. 49 45 74

Source: EPA estimation. Zeros indicate states that have imposed a minimum age requirement. 1138

EPA also estimates the number of commercial applicators that will obtain and retain certification 1139 in potential new, applica tion-specific categories. Table 3.3-3 presents th e expected number of 1140 applicators in the aerial and ch emigation categories. Many stat es already have developed an 1141 aerial category and seven states have a chemigat ion category. For those states, EPA uses the 1142 average number of applicators, as reported to CPARD between 2008 and 2013. 1143

In order to estimate the number of existing aerial applicators in states w ithout an aerial category, 1144 we regressed the number of aerial applicators in states for which we had data against the number 1145 of certifications issued in agri cultural plant prot ection, forestry, and turf categories, the number 1146 of acres of agricultural crops treat ed by air, and several dummy vari able for different parts of the 1147 country. Data on acres treated by air comes from an annual market survey (proprietary) of 1148 pesticide use. Observations were for each state and year. The estimated coefficients were used 1149 to predict the number of existing applicators in the re st of the states. For the states with an aerial 1150 category, first time aerial applicators averaged 12 percent of existing appli cators and that average 1151 value was used to predict the number of firs t time aerial applicators in the other states. 1152

Similarly, we estimated the number of commercial applicators who would obtain certification in 1153 chemigation based on a regression of observed cer tifications against the number of agricultural 1154 plant protection certifications, crop acres treated by commercial applicators with chemicals often 1155 applied via chemigation, and dummy variables to account for different ag ricultural practices, 1156 notably intensive production wh ere chemigation might be thr ough drip irrigation and more 1157 extensive systems of flood or sprink ler systems. Given that only seven states have a chemigation 1158 category, the results are not robust, but for lack of better information were used to predict 1159 commercial chemigation certifications that might be obtained. On average, the observed number 1160 of new chemigation certifications was about seve n percent of existing certifications and that 1161 value was used to predict the number of fi rst-time certifications in other states. 1162
1163*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 Table 3.3-3. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation 1164 Categories. 1165

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

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

Iowa 2 90 749 1 19

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

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

14 South Dakota 1 2 47 389 1 13

Tennessee 1 2 10 86 2 24

Texas 64 533 2 28
Utah 2 6 48 1 12

Vermont 2 1 8 0 0 Virginia 10 84 3 37 Washington 1 2 55 459 5 71 West Virginia 1 2 4 31 1 9
Wisconsin 8 68 0 4 Wyoming 5 43 2 30
Puerto Rico 1 2 6 46 0 5
Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 1,074 8,950 57 817
Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1166

1 No commercial aerial category; estimated number of applicators. 1167

2 No commercial chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. 1168

Table 3.3-4 presents the expected number of co mmercial applicators w ho have or would obtain 1169
certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Seventeen states ha ve a soil fumigation category 1170 from which we can extrapolate to other states. As with aerial applica tion and chemigation, we 1171 estimate a regression model where the number of a pplicators with a soil fumigation certification 1172 is hypothesized to be a function of the number of applicators in agricu ltural plant protection, 1173 forestry, and turf, as well as the crop acres tr eated commercial with fumi gants. Data on crop 1174 treatments come from a proprieta ry market survey conducted annua lly. Initial certifications in 1175 soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications. 1176

Most states have a category for non-soil fumigati on; some even have separate categories for 1177 fumigation of structures and fumigation of commodities. The regression model for non-soil 1178 fumigation included the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection and in the 1179 industrial, institutional, and structural category. The latter is quite broad and we included a 1180 dummy variable for states issuing more than 3,0 00 certifications in that category as many states 1181 subdivide it into more specialized areas. We also included a variable for acres of grain 1182 harvested, as an indicator of commodity fumi gation, but the estimated coefficient was not 1183 significant. Initial certifications in non-soil fumigation average eight percent of the existing 1184
certifications. 1185

Table 3.3-4. Expected Number of Commerc ial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil 1186 Fumigation Categories. 1187

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

Non-Soil Fumigation Existing Applicators,

Non-Soil Fumigation

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

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

Iowa 1 53 478 48 602

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

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

Tennessee 1 2 1 5 24 298

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

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

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

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

S ource: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1188

1 No commercial soil fumigation categor y; estimated number of applicators. 1189

2 No commercial non-soil fu migation category; estimated number of applicators. 1190

EPA considered a general fumigation categor y that would cover both soil and non-soil 1191 fumigation. No state currently has such a categor y on which to base estimates of the number of 1192 applicators implicated. Considering how differe nt the methods and purposes of soil and non-soil 1193 fumigation are, EPA assumes that there would be no overlap in the number of applicators 1194 seeking certifications between the categories. Thus, the expected number of applicators that 1195
would seek a certification in a general fumigation category is si mply the sum of the number of 1196 applicators in the soil and non-soil categories. 1197



### 3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working unde r the direct supervision of commercial 1198 

### certified applicators 1199

Data on the number of noncerti fied applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 1200 certified applicators (UTS applicators) are not available. Howeve r, based on the state 1201 regulations, it appears th at four states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) do 1202 not allow noncertified applicators to apply RUPs. The number of UT S applicators in those states 1203
is set to zero. Data are availa ble, by state, on employment in occ upations related to pest control 1204 (BLS, 2014b). EPA took the total number of peopl e employed as pest control workers in the 1205 Agricultural Support Sector, the Structures and Buildings and Turf Sector, the Construction 1206 Sector, and in Federal, State, and Local Governments, averaged over 2012 and 2013, and 1207 subtracted the number of certified applicators in the state to estimate the number of UTS 1208 applicators. This approach some times resulted in negative numbers. For example, in the case of 1209 Kentucky, BLS reports an average of 8,720 people employed in non-agricultural pest control. 1210 However, Kentucky reports an average of 13,973 cer tified commercial applicators over the same 1211 period. As an alternative, EPA calculated the number of UTS applicators assuming three UTS 1212 applicators for every existing commercial applic ator. In the case of Kentucky, the six-year 1213 average number of certified commercial applic ators is 10,022, resulting in an estimate of 30,066 1214 UTS applicators. As a refinement, we made a calculation where different categories of 1215 applicators would have different numbers of UTS applicators. For example, there may be three 1216 UTS applicators for every applicator in the turf category (e.g., a golf course or landscaping 1217 enterprise) but public health app licators would not have UTS applic ators. This approach resulted 1218 in an estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators in Ke ntucky. If the estimated number of UTS 1219 applicators in a state using the BLS data was less than half that calculated from the simple three 1220 UTS applicator per certified applicator, which occu rred in 29 states, we used the lower of the two 1221 numbers calculated by assumption. For Kentucky, we used the estimate of 27,907 UTS 1222 applicators. In 15 of the 29 states for which th e BLS data appeared to undercount the number of 1223 UTS applicators, we used the simple assumpti on of three UTS applicators for each certified 1224 commercial applicator. Estimated numbers of non certified applicators are presented in Table 1225*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 3.3-5. The total number of noncertified applicator s in the U.S. is estimated at nearly 950,000 1226 people. 1227

The number of noncertified adolesce nts applying RUPs under the dir ect supervision of a certified 1228 applicator is also of interest , given that EPA is proposing a mi nimum age. According to the 1229 Current Population Survey (BLS, 2014a), in 201 3, about 77,000 people were employed in pest 1230 control occupations within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance, of 1231 which 1,000 were aged 16 to 19, or 1.3 percent of the workforce. This category is representative 1232
of the turf and ornamental and the industrial, institu tional, and structural category which houses 1233 the majority of certified applicators. We theref ore apply this percentage across all states to 1234
estimate the number of noncertified 16 and 17 year olds applying RU Ps under the direct 1235 supervision of a commercial appl icator. Since the BLS data incl udes 18 and 19 year olds, we are 1236 likely overestimating the number of adolescents applying RUPs. Several states have set a 1237 minimum age of 18 for applying RUPs, as shown by the estimated zero adolescents in the state. 1238

Table 3.3-5: Estimated Number of Noncertifie d Applicators Applying RUPs under Direct 1239 Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction 1240

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

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

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

S ource: EPA estimation based on BLS (2014a and 2014b). 1241



### 3.3.3 Private certified applicators 1242

The number of private certified a pplicators is also reported to CPARD by the states. The total 1243 number of private certified applicators in th e U.S. from 2008 to 2013 was regressed against a 1244
time variable. The estimated coefficient on time for the number of initial certifications was 1245 negative, while that for existing applicators was po sitive, but neither was statistically significant. 1246 Given the limited time series and conflicting re sults, EPA estimates the number of private 1247 applicators affected by changes to the Certification regulations as the simple average over the 1248 2008 to 2013 period, i.e. , no trend over time for either first- time or existing private applicators. 1249 Table 3.3-6 presents the number s for certified private applicators in each jurisdiction. 1250

Table 3.3-6: Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction 1251 Jurisdiction First-Time Applicators Existing Applicators Alabama 561 5,402*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

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

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

Source: Certification Plan a nd Reporting Database (CPARD) 2014. 1252

As with commercial applicators, CPARD does not provide information on the age of private 1253 applicators. Since private appl icators are often the owner or op erator of a farm, EPA bases its 1254 estimates of adolescent applicators on the numbe r of principal operators under the age of 25, as 1255 reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2014c). We assume a nearly normal 1256 distribution, where 0.5 percent of principal operators under the age of 25 are 14 and obtain initial 1257 certification as a private applicator, 0.75 per cent are 15 and 16 and will be certified, and one 1258 percent are 17 years old with certif ication. This would be an overe stimate of principal operators, 1259 as the distribution is probably heavily skewed to ward operators in their early 20s rather than 1260 mid- to late-teens. Further, not all principal ope rators will be certified applicators since not all 1261 farms use pesticides, much less RUPs. However, there are other situations where an adolescent 1262 may be a certified operator. Many states have ag e restrictions, however, t ypically either 16 or 18 1263 years of age and we adjust our estimates accordingly. Where th e minimum age is 16, we assume 1264
that all adolescents who would otherwise have obtained certification by that age will do so. 1265 Table 3.3-7 presents the estimated adolescent private ap plicators. Included is an estimate of 1266 adolescents hired as a private a pplicator. The above approach applies to family members only. 1267 Hired adolescents on farms is likely very rare. According to the Nationa l Agricultural Worker 1268 Survey (DoL, 2005), only about 2.3 percent of t hose handling any kind of pesticide were under 1269
18 and fewer would handle RUPs. We assume th at hired 17 year-olds ma y obtain certification, 1270 at a rate of 25 percent of the number of fam ily members obtaining certification at that age. 1271

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

. 1272

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

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

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

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

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Tennessee 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2

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

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

U.S. 34.6 58.4 18.8 83.0 7.1

S ource: EPA estimation. 1273*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 EPA also estimates the number of private applicat ors that will obtain and retain certification in 1274 potential new, application-speci fic categories. Table 3.3-8 pres ents the expected number of 1275 applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Wiscons in is the only state that has 1276 established a private aerial category and they have not reported any certifications. Hawaii, 1277 Idaho, Nevada, and Wisconsin require certificati on in chemigation for private applicators and 1278 Wyoming has recently imposed a similar requirement. 1279

Private aerial application is likely very rare. EP A simply assumes that there will be one private 1280 aerial applicator in a state for every 100 co mmercial applicators. As with commercial 1281 applicators, we assume that ne w certifications will be 12 percent of existing certifications based 1282
on the observed ratio between new and existing certifications nationally. 1283

We also estimated the number of private ap plicators who would obtain certification in 1284 chemigation in relationship to th e number of commercial applicat ors certified in chemigation. 1285 We constructed a state-specific ratio by compari ng crop acres treated with chemicals used in 1286 chemigation by commercial applicator s to that treated by the farmer . This ratio ranged from a 1287 low of 1.5 (50 percent more acres treated by farmers than by comme rcial applicators) in Illinois 1288 to a high of 47.6 in Georgia. Data on acres treated are from an annual proprietary market survey 1289 of pesticide users. Where data from the su rvey were missing (Alaska, Hawaii, and the New 1290 England states), we used the estimated coefficient on agricultural plant certifications from the 1291 commercial applicator equation to calculate ch emigation certification as a proportion of all 1292 private certifications (0.9 pe rcent). As with commercial chemigation certifications, new 1293
certifications are calculated as seve n percent of exis ting certifications. 1294

Table 3.3-8. Expected Number of Private Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation 1295 Categories. 1296

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

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

Iowa 1 2 1 7 2 31

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

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

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

Tennessee 1 2 0 0 23 323

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

Vermont 1 2 0 0 1 13 Virginia 1 2 0 0 11 155 Washington 1 2 0 4 24 340 West Virginia 1 2 0 0 2 23
Wisconsin 0 0 6 79 Wyoming 1 2 0 0 4 57
Puerto Rico 1 2 0 0 2 34
Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 8 65 519 7,415 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1297

1 No private aerial category; es timated number of applicators. 1298

2 No private chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. 1299

Table 3.3-9 presents the expected number of private applicators who have or would obtain 1300 certification in soil and non-soil fumigation. Five states (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, 1301 Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have a private soil fumigation category. For the remaining states, 1302 we estimate existing applicators using the estimat ed coefficients from the regression model for 1303 commercial applicators, where the number of applicators with a so il fumigation certification is a 1304*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 function of the number of private applicators in the state and the crop acres treated with 1305 fumigants by the farmer. Data on crop treatmen ts come from a proprietary market survey 1306 conducted annually. Initial certif ications in soil fumigation ar e 11 percent of the existing 1307 certifications, as with commercial soil fumigation. 1308

Seven states (Arizona, Iowa, Mi nnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Pe nnsylvania, and Utah) have a 1309 category for non-soil fumigation. As these stat es also have a commercial non-soil fumigation 1310 category, EPA calculated the ratio of private to commercial certifications. The ratio varies from 1311 about 0.1 to almost 2.0, with an average of 0.6. The number of private certifications in states 1312 without the category was estimated as the numbe r of commercial certif ication multiplied by the 1313 average ratio or the ratio of a state with sim ilar agronomic characteristics, following the Farm 1314 Resource Regions defined by the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture (ERS, 2000). Initial 1315 certifications in soil fumigation average 11 per cent of the existing certifications, as with 1316 commercial certifications in this category. 1317

Table 3.3-9. Expected Number of Commerc ial Applicators in Soil and Non-Soil 1318 Fumigation Categories. 1319

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

Non-Soil Fumigation Existing Applicators,

Non-Soil Fumigation

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

Iowa 1 81 734 4 53

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

25 Missouri 1 2 73 666 3 38

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

Tennessee 1 2 37 340 2 26

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

Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0 Virginia 1 2 19 175 9 113 Washington 1 2 70 636 7 92 West Virginia 1 2 2 19 2 24
Wisconsin 2 5 42 2 23 Wyoming 1 2 14 125 0 5
Puerto Rico 1 2 58 524 0 0
Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 1,619 14,716 325 4,061
Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1320

1 No private soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 1321

2 No private non-soil fumigation categor y; estimated number of applicators. 1322



### 3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified 1323 

### applicators 1324

The number of noncertified applicat ors applying RUPs on farms is lik ely to be a function of farm 1325 size, where farm size is measured by value of sa les. Most smaller farms would not need more 1326 than one applicator, in general, and even la rger farms would probabl y not have a large enough 1327 demand for RUPs that they would need to rely on a certified applicator. We assume that one of 1328 every two private applicators on a farm with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year will 1329 have an applicator under his or her supervision to apply RUPs, wh ile private applicators on farms 1330 with more than $1 million per year in sales will, on average, have one noncertified applicator 1331 under his or her supervision. We obtain the numbe r of farms, by sales, in each state from the 1332 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). From a special tabulation of data from the 2007 1333*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008), we have a national estimate of th e proportion of farms in 1334 each sales class that utilize pesticides. Using th is national figure, we estimate the number of 1335 farms in each state that use pesticides. For ex ample, nearly 80 percent of farms with sales 1336 between $100,000 and $1 million per year used pestic ides in 2007. We therefore estimate that 1337 nearly 80 percent of farms in that sales class in every state used pesticides in 2012. In the case of 1338 Alabama, this means that we estimate that , out of 3,445 farms with sales between $100,000 and 1339 $1 million, 2,753 will use pesticides. Following this procedure with other size classes of farms 1340 gives us an estimated 16,630 farms using pesticides. Those in the $100,000 and $1 million sales 1341 class account for 16.6 percent of those farms and, we estimate, 16.6 percent of certified 1342 applicators. By our previous assumption of half those applicators have someone under their 1343 supervision, 8.3 percent of Al abama private applicators will have someone under their 1344 supervision. Another 7.0 percent of Alabama private applicat ors are estimated to be on farms 1345 with more than $1 million in sales and will have someone applying RUPs under their 1346 supervision. Therefore, we estimate that the number of noncertified appl icators in Alabama is 1347 15.3 percent of the 5,402 certified private applicator s, or 827 noncertified applicators. Table 3.3- 1348 10 presents estimates for all the states and jurisdictions. 1349

Finally, we estimate the number of noncertified adolescents that may apply RUPs under the 1350 direct supervision of a private applicator. 1351

To estimate the number of noncertified adolesce nt family members who might apply RUPs 1352 under the direct supervision of a certified private applicators, we follow a procedure similar to 1353 that of estimating adolescent certif ied private applicators. In this case, we base the estimates on 1354 the number of second and third farm operators under the age of 25, as reported in the 2012 1355 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We agai n assume a nearly normal distribution, where 0.5 1356 percent of second and third operators under the age of 25 are 14, 0.75 pe rcent are 15 and 16, and 1357 one percent are 17 years old. 1358

To estimate the number of noncertified non-family adolescents applying RUPs under the direct 1359 supervision of a certified private applicators, we rely on data from the National Agricultural 1360 Worker Survey (DoL, 2005). According to the survey, 0.4 percent of pesticide handlers were 1361 under 16 and 1.9 percent 16 and 17 year old. We multiply these percentages by the total number 1362 of applicators UTS in each state to obta in the estimates shown in Table 3.3-10. 1363

Finally, some states have age restrictions precl uding adolescents from applying RUPs. This is 1364
shown in Table 3.3-10 where there are zero adoles cent noncertified applicator s. The exception is 1365 Alaska, which does not have a restriction but wher e our procedure above resulted in an estimated 1366 zero applicators younger than 16 years of age. 1367

Table 3.3-10: Estimated Number of Noncertifie d Applicators Applying RUPs under Direct 1368 Supervision of Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction 1369

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S ource: EPA estimation. 1370



### 3.3.5 Wage Rates 1371

Wage rates are used to estimate unit costs for the baseline and potenti al requirements. The 1372 Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (B LS) Occupational Employment Stat istics (OES) data series for 1373 national industry-specific occupational employme nt and wage estimates are used to determine 1374 hourly wage rates of affected actors. Wages vary by jurisdiction, but EPA used the national 1375 average wage rates. This would result in th e over (under)-estimation of impacts for the low 1376 (high) wage jurisdictions. However, the differe nces in wages across juri sdictions should largely 1377
cancel out at the national level. Costs of obtaining data for all categories of wages by 1378 jurisdiction and incorporating them into the impact analysis w ould have been extremely high. 1379 Finally, it would not have been consistent with how the paperwork burden is calculated for the 1380 ICRs, which is done at a national level. 1381

Wage rates of commercial applicators 1382

For commercial applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unloaded mean wage rate ($14.82) for 1383 Pesticide Handlers & Applicators (Standard Occupational Code 37-3012) from the U.S. 1384 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2013a). Commercial applicators are paid 1385
benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the 1386 unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. We assume that commercial 1387 applicators aged 16 or 17 years are paid the loaded wage rate that is 75% of the loaded wage rate 1388 for commercial applicators 18 year s and over. That is, the loaded wage rate for commercial 1389 applicators aged 16 or 17 is $16.12. 1390

Wage rates of private applicators 1391

The unloaded hourly wage rate for private appl icators is from the BLS employment category 11- 1392 9013 (Farmers and Ranchers), which has a wage rate of $35.83. Private applicators are paid 1393
benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the 1394 unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $51.96. 1395

In addition to the age groups used for commercial applicators, we incl ude a third age group of 1396 private applicators — those who are under the age of 16. We assu me that all operators are over 1397 the age of 18, while hired applicat ors can be in any of the three ag e groups. We also assume that 1398 underage private applicators under 16 years old are paid a wage that is 50% of the operator wage 1399*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 rate, and that private applicator s aged 16 or 17 years old are pa id a wage 60% of the operator 1400 wage rate. Thus, private appl icators under 16 years old are paid the loaded wage rate of $25.98 1401 and private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid the load ed wage rate of $31.18. 1402

Wage rates of noncertified commerc ial applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision 1403 of certified applicators 1404

The loaded wage rate for all noncertified commerc ial applicators applying RUPs under the direct 1405 supervision of certified applicat ors is based on the national mean unloaded hourly wage rate of 1406 $12.65 for the employment category 37-3011 (La ndscaping and Groundskeeping Workers), as 1407 reported in the OES data series for May 2013. Commercial noncertified applicators are paid 1408
benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS, 2013b), which is added to the 1409 unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $18.34. We assume that there are no 1410 noncertified applicators applyi ng RUPs under the direct superv ision of certified applicators 1411 under age 16. Noncertified commercial applicator s applying RUPs under th e direct supervision 1412 of certified applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are assumed to earn 75% of the adult wage rate or 1413 $13.76. 1414

Wage rates of noncertified private applicators th at apply RUPs under the direct supervision of 1415 certified applicators 1416

For noncertified private applicat ors applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of certified 1417 applicators, we have identified the same three age groups as thos e for private applicators. For 1418 noncertified private applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unl oaded mean wage rate ($14.82) 1419 for Pesticide Handlers & Applicators (Standard Occupational Code 37-3012) from the U.S. 1420 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis tics (BLS, 2014d), to which is added 45% in 1421 benefits to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. EPA assumes that wage rates for private 1422 applicators under age 16 and 16-17 years-old ar e, respectively, 50% and 60% of the average 1423 wage rate for a noncertified private applicator applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 1424 certified applicator. Assuming th at private applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of 1425 the total remuneration, we calculate average loaded wage rate for noncertified private applicators 1426 under age 16 to be $10.75 and for those aged 16 or 17 to be $12.89. 1427

The loaded average overall wage rates for each age group and labor category appear in Table 1428
3.3-11. 1429*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 Table 3.3-11: Applicator Loaded Average Hourly Wage Rates, by Age Group 1430

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

Commercial applicators

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

Noncertified applying RUPs under the direct supervision $13.76 $18.34

Private applicators

Certified $25.98 $31.18 $51.96

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

Source: Based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational 1431 Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by th e Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 1432 Employment Statistics (BLS 2014d). 1433

Wage rates for state costs 1434

Wage rates for state implementation costs are organized into three gr oups: Senior Technical, 1435 Junior Technical, and Clerical. Unloaded wage rates for these three groups are obtained from 1436 BLS (BLS, 2014c) for 11-0000, Management Occupa tions; 19-0000, Life, Phys ical, and Social 1437 Science Occupations; and 43-0000, Office a nd Administrative Support Occupations, 1438 respectively. We then load th e unloaded wage rates with benef it rate of 45% to obtain loaded 1439 wages. Table 3.3-12 presents the wage rates for each group of state costs. 1440

Table 3.3-12: Wage Rates for State Costs 1441

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

Benefits Factor 1.45 1.45 1.45 Loaded Wage Rates ($/hr) 57.69 39.44 27.21 Source: Unloaded wage rates and benefits factors are obtained from BLS Employer Costs for Employee 1442 Compensation - May 2013 (BLS, 2014c)). 1443

1444 

### 3.4 Results of the Cost Analysis 1445

This section provides EPA’s cost estimate for each potential requirement that was considered for 1446 inclusion in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Pa rt 171. The estimated cost of each potential 1447 requirement is provided at the national level. The annualized costs of St ep 6 (see the 6-step 1448 methodology above) are presented in this section. Additional details on the calculation method, 1449 data, and cost results are provided in Appendix A. 1450

In the information given below, and in Appendix A, EPA gives cost estimates by affected group. 1451 These groups include pesticide applicators who ar e certified and private, commercial, and state 1452 employees who do not have certification. Thes e applicators are either employed by, or the 1453 owners of farms, commercial pest control firms, railroads, state governments, and a plethora of 1454 other private, commercial, and publ ic entities that apply restrict ed use pesticides. Pesticide 1455*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 dealers and registrants are also impacted by th e potential requirements . State governments are 1456 required by many of the potential requirements to implement the cha nges by changing state 1457 regulations and state plans and to carry out many of the activities under the potential 1458 requirements including training, administeri ng exams, and development of training and 1459
examination materials. 1460

A summary, including cost, of each potential requirement is given by category below. We 1461 provide a brief summary of the cost of each pot ential requirement in tabular form by affected 1462 entity. The data presented in these tables are th e present value of the cost over the ten-year time 1463 horizon and provide national level costs c onsidering the jurisd iction baselines (NC B ) and national 1464 level costs for the potential requirements (NC P ). This is followed by the national level 1465 incremental costs (NIC) from the national level cost for the potent ial requirement to the current 1466 national level cost of the jurisdiction baseline. Tables are followed by a br ief description of the 1467 costs of the potential requiremen ts. A description of estimation method and data are also given 1468 when the presentation of this information is helpfu l for the reader to underst and the cost results. 1469

Industry and state cost are presen ted together for each potential re quirement. Cost results follow 1470 a similar grouping as they do in the preamble of the rule. The sections are enhancement of 1471 private applicator competency standards and addi tion of private applicator categories, additional 1472 concurrent certification categories for commercia l applicators, predator control category for 1473 commercial and private applicator certificati on, examination and altern ate certification method 1474 security standards for commercial and private applicators, standard s for supervision of 1475 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervis ion of certified applicators, 1476 levels of supervision, and provisions for commer cial applicator recor dkeeping of applicator 1477 training for noncertified applic ators applying RUPs under the di rect supervision of certified 1478 applicators, age requirements for certified appl icators and noncertified applicators applying 1479 RUPs under the direct supervisi on of certified applicators, st andards for rece rtification of 1480 certified applicators, requirements for s ubmission, approval and maintenance of state 1481 certification plans, and federal ag ency certification plans; trib al certification plans; and EPA1482 administered federal certification plans. 1483

Affected entities will have two years to b ecome compliant with th e potential regulatory 1484 requirements. As a result, most costs for the cu rrent and potential regulatory requirements start 1485 in Year 3 of the analysis. Costs incurred before Year 3 include state cost s to rewrite regulations 1486 and develop training programs a nd examination materials. 1487

Some potential regulatory requi rements provide options for compliance to the implementing 1488 jurisdiction. For instance , a potential requirement may call for first-time private applicators to 1489 pass a written exam or complete a 12-hour traini ng course for initial cer tification. To estimate 1490 the unit cost of the potential regula tory requirement, we calculate the cost for an actor to comply 1491 with the more expensive option (e.g., a 12-hour training course is more costly than a written 1492 exam). However, EPA assumes that some re gions will choose the less expensive option under 1493 the potential regulatory requirement. For example, we assume that regions currently offering an 1494
exam for initial certification of private applicators will continue to offer an exam. Hence, we 1495 calculate these regions’ unit costs of the regional baseline in the context of their compliance with 1496 the less expensive option. 1497*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 

### 3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicat or General Competency Standards 1498

The potential requirements in this category woul d enhance private applicator core competency 1499 standards and certification requirements to more clearly reflect the knowledge and skills needed 1500 by private applicators to apply re stricted use pesticides safely and effectively. However, EPA 1501 believes the current requirements for commercial applicator general competency are adequate 1502 and thus they are not revised. 1503

Table 3.4-1 below presents national-level Baseli ne, Total, and Incremental industry costs for 1504 each potential requirement. The table is follo wed by a brief descripti on of the costs of the 1505 potential requirements. 1506

Table 3.4-1: Annualized Costs of Enhancing Private Applicator General Competency 1507
Standards 1 1508

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Costs are presented in terms of present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1509

Certification of Private Applicato rs (Private Cert-01, -02, and -03) 1510
1511 The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 1512 seeking initial certification as private applicators. 1513

The EPA’s proposal, Private Cert-02, would requ ire a written exam or completion of a 12 hour 1514 training course. Industry incremental costs are $3.7 million for the 12 hour training. 1515*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 The potential requirement Private Cert-01 would require a written exam or completion of an 8 1516 hour training course for initial private certific ation. The national incr emental cost for the 1517 industry is $2.0 million annually. 1518

The potential requirement Private Cert-03 would require a written exam or completion of a 16 1519 hour training course, with industry incremental costs of $9.0 million. 1520

These are high cost requirements, but many stat es have similar requirements and are in 1521 compliance as high baseline costs indicate. 1522

For the EPA’s proposal (Private Cert-02), state costs are $4 thousand for developing the exam or 1523 the trainings and $61 thousand to administer the exam or 12-hour training. For Private Cert-01, 1524 state costs are $3 thousand for developing the exam or the tr ainings and $35 thousand to 1525 administer the exam or 8-hour training. For Private Cert-03, state co sts are $20 thousand for 1526 developing the exam or the tr ainings and $86 thousand to admi nister the exam or 16-hour 1527 training. States can choose between requiring cer tification training for th e specified time period 1528
or a written certification exam for each of the potential requirements. 1529



### 3.4.2 Application Method-Specific Categories 1530

3.4.2.1 Establish Additional Concurrent C ertification Categor ies for Commercial 1531 Applicators 1532

The potential requirements would establish addi tional, concurrent cert ification categories for 1533 commercial applicators using rest ricted use pesticides in fumigation (incl uding soil and non-soil 1534 fumigation), chemigation, aerial application, and de monstration and research such as university 1535 projects. Potential requirements address the elev ated risks associated with certain application 1536 methods and promote consistency in protections across jurisdictions. 1537

The potential requirements propose the following commercial certificati on categories: aerial, 1538 chemigation, fumigation, and predator control. Table 3.4-3 presents the number of commercial 1539 applicators in each of these gr oups within the proposed certifica tion categories at the national 1540 level. See Chapter 3.3.1, Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 for state-level estimates. 1541*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 Table 3.4-3: Commercial Applicator Numbers by Potential Category 1542

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

Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Chemigation Category 57 817 875

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

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

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

Source: CPARD 2014 and EPA estimations. 1543

The establishment of additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators 1544 would impose costs on individua ls or employers of individua ls who apply restricted use 1545 pesticides using methods included in the new concurrent certifica tion categories. Jurisdictions 1546 administering certification programs are also aff ected by these potential requirements. The cost 1547 of establishing additional concurre nt certification categories for co mmercial applicators would be 1548 significant for both applicator s and jurisdictions. 1549

Table 3.4-4 below presents national- level baseline, total, and incr emental industry costs for each 1550 potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 1551 requirements. 1552

Table 3.4-4: Annualized Costs for Establishi ng Additional Concurrent Certification 1553 Categories for Commercial Applicators 1 1554

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

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

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-01) 9 0 9

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

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

State costs: develop

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

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

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-03) 53 0 53

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

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

State costs: develop

exam (Comm Cert-04) 7 0 7

1 Costs are presented in terms of present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1555

Establishing Additional Concu rrent Certification Categorie s for Commercial Applicators 1556 (Comm Cert-01, -02, -03, and -04) 1557

Potential requirements would require that comm ercial applicators who intend to apply aerially, 1558 by chemigation, or through fumigation must be certified in a specifi c commercial category by 1559 passing a written exam. Potential requirements would also include commercial soil and non-soil 1560 fumigation categories. 1561

Commercial applicators who want to certify in the aerial category w ould also need to be certified 1562 in either agricultural plant pest control; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; 1563 aquatic pest control; righ t-of-way pest control; industrial, in stitutional, structural and health 1564 related pest control; or public he alth pest control. Under this potential requirement, existing 1565 aerial applicators would be requi red to take a 30-minute aerial category exam, while first-time 1566 aerial applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. 1567 The Annual National Incremental Costs (ANIC) for commercial applic ators obtaining aerial 1568 certification are estimated to be $97 thousand (Co mm Cert-01), while state costs to develop the 1569 exams are estimated at $8 thousand (Table 3.4-4). 1570

Commercial applicators who want to certify in the chemigation cat egory would also have to be 1571 certified in either agricultural plant pest control; or ornamental and turf pest control categories to 1572 qualify for the chemigation category. Under th e potential requirement, existing chemigation 1573 applicators would be required to take a 30-minute chemigation category exam. First-time 1574 chemigation applicators would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category 1575 exams. The ANIC for commercial applicators obta ining chemigation certification are estimated 1576 to be $16 thousand (Comm Cert-02), while state co sts to develop the exam s are estimated at $43 1577
thousand. 1578

Commercial applicators in the fumigation category would also have to be certified in either 1579 agricultural plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; industrial, institutional, 1580 structural and health related pe st control; regulatory pest contro l; or demonstration and research 1581 pest control categories. Under this potential requirement, existing fumigation applicators would 1582*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 be required to take a 30-minute fumigation catego ry exam while first-time fumigation applicators 1583
would take a one-hour core exam as well as two 30-minute category exams. Commercial 1584 applicators in the soil fumigation category would al so have to be certified in either agricultural 1585 plant pest control; ornamental a nd turf pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and 1586 research pest control categories to qualify. Howe ver, as the soil fumigators must comply with 1587 the label requirements now and under the potentia l requirement, the incremental cost for this 1588 potential requirement is zero, and not listed in the tabl e. Commercial applicators in the non-soil 1589 fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; 1590 industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or 1591 demonstration and research pest control to qua lify. Under the potential regulatory requirements, 1592
affected actors would obtain ce rtification in soil fumigati on, non-soil fumigation, or general 1593 fumigation. 1594
1595 Commercial applicator incremen tal costs of obtaining non-soil fu migation certifications (Comm 1596 Cert-04) are estimated to be $131 thousand for commercial applicators employed by industry. 1597 State incremental costs to develop non-soil fumi gation certification exams are estimated at $7 1598
thousand. 1599
1600 Finally, commercial applicator incremental cost s of obtaining general fumigation certifications 1601 (Comm Cert-03) are esti mated to be $659 thousand, which is th e largest of all new certification 1602 categories. This is because all jurisdictions, except three states, do not currently have the 1603 category, and thus would be fully impacted by the proposal if it b ecomes regulation. 1604

In addition to the costs described above, these po tential requirements would also entail relatively 1605 small state costs of administering certification exams (Table 3.4-4). 1606

3.4.2.2 New Certification Categor ies for Private Applicator 1607

To address the elevated risks associated with certain application methods and to promote 1608 consistency in protections across states, the potential requirements would establish certification 1609 categories for private applicators using rest ricted use pesticides by aerial application, 1610 chemigation, or fumigation (including soil and non-soil fumigation). Potential requirements 1611 would no longer allow for the certificati on of applicators wh o are non-readers. 1612

For the newly proposed certificat ion categories (aerial, chemiga tion, soil, non-soil, and general 1613 fumigation), EPA developed estimates of th e number of applicators by new category as 1614 presented in Table 3.4-5 below. 1615*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 Table 3.4-5: Private Applicator Numbers by Potential Category 1616

Region First-time

Certifications Existing

Certifications Total

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CPARD 2014 and EPA estimations. 1617
1618
1619 Table 3.4-6 below presents nationa l-level annualized costs of poten tial requirements, baselines, 1620 and incremental costs for the affected parties. The table is followed by a brief description of the 1621 costs of the potential requirements. 1622

Table 3.4-6: Annualized Costs of New Certif ication Categories for Private Applicators 1 1623

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in te rms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1624

Category Certification of Private Applicators (Private Cert-04 to -11) 1625

Potential requirements would require that priv ate applicators who inte nd to apply aerially, by 1626 chemigation, or through fumigation would be cer tified in a specific private category by passing a 1627 written exam or completing a training course. Potential requirements also include private soil 1628 and non-soil fumigation categories. Training requirements of 4 and 8 hours would be included 1629 for each category. Of the categor y certifications, the incrementa l costs associated with the 1630 general fumigation category certification would be the highest (between $621 thousand and $1.2 1631 million for 4 and 8 hours of training, respectively) as a result of the large number of applicators 1632 who would pursue certification. Th e aerial category is relatively lo w cost as a result of the small 1633 number of aerial applicators who would pursue cert ification. (See Table 3.4- 6) States would be 1634*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 able to choose between training for the specified time period or a writte n exam for each of the 1635 potential requirements. 1636

3.4.3 Examination and Alternat e Certification Method Securi ty Standards for Commercial 1637 and Private Applicators 1638

Examination and alternate certific ation method security standard s for commercial and private 1639 applicators aim to improve the quality and administ ration of pesticide applicator certification. 1640 The potential requirements would add require ments for those seeking certification or 1641 recertification to present identi fication at the time of the session and for examination sessions to 1642 be proctored. Identification checks would take a few seconds of applicators’ and proctor’s time 1643 and is considered as a part of the proctoring cost because the proctor would check applicators’ 1644 identification (e.g., driver’s license) as th ey enter the exam or training room. 1645

Administration requirements would primarily im pose costs on individuals or employers of 1646 individuals seeking to become certif ied or recertified private or co mmercial pesticide applicators, 1647
as well as states administeri ng certification programs. Admini stration requirements would have 1648 a minimal industry impact on a per applicator ba sis but, nonetheless, individuals and employers 1649 affected by these requirements would pay an oppor tunity cost for their time or their workers’ 1650 time while fulfilling the requirements. 1651

Costs of these potential requirements are presen ted together with the costs of the potential 1652 requirements that entail them. For example, in Table 3.4-6 above, jurisdictions’ costs of 1653 proctoring application method-specific category ex ams for private applicat or certification are 1654 presented together with th e industry costs. 1655



### 3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of A pplicators that Apply RUPs under the 1656 

### Supervision of Certified Applicators, Leve ls of Supervision, and Provisions for 1657 

### Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of A pplicator Training for Applicators that 1658 

### are not Certified 1659

Noncertified applicators using rest ricted use pesticides under the di rect supervision of a certified 1660 applicator currently have minimal requirements fo r training or competency. They also have a 1661 high potential for exposure and may pose a risk to public health and the environment, if 1662 pesticides are misapplied. EPA evaluated severa l potential requirements that would change the 1663 training of the noncertified applicator that appl ies RUPs under the dire ct supervision of a 1664 certified applicator, clarify who can provide training to noncertified applicators that apply RUPs 1665 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and clarify what it means to be under the 1666 direct supervision of a certified applicator. 1667

The potential requirements would impact certif ied applicators employing noncertified applicators 1668 that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of cer tified applicators, pest icide registrants, and 1669 states that implement the requirements and em ploy noncertified applicators that apply RUPs 1670 under the direct supervision of certified applicators. 1671*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

40 Table 3.4-7 below presents national- level baseline, total, and incr emental industry costs for each 1672 potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 1673 requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation 1674 of this information is helpful for the reader to un derstand the cost results. Costs of the potential 1675 requirements are significant, le d by requirements related to di rect line of sight and core 1676 competency training requirements. 1677

3.4.4.1 Commercial Applicators 1678

Table 3.4-7: Costs of Standards for Supervisio n of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 1679 Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision 1 1680

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

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Competency Qualifications for No ncertified Commercial Applicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1681

Competency Qualifications for Applicators A pplying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified 1682 Commercial Applicators (Comm Sup-01, -02, -04, -06, and -07) 1683

There are four potential requirements EPA evaluate d to ensure the competency qualifications for 1684 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under th e direct supervision of certified commercial 1685 applicators. 1686

The EPA’s proposal, Comm Sup-06, would require co mmercial applicators to keep records of 1687 the competency qualifications of the people work ing under their direct supervision and to keep 1688 the records for two years. The incremental co st of the requirements is estimated to be $324 1689
thousand. 1690

The potential requirement Comm Sup-07 would re quire commercial applicators to keep records 1691 of the competency qualifications of the people wo rking under their direct s upervision and to keep 1692 the records for five years. The incremental co st of the requirements is estimated to be $591 1693
thousand. 1694

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Sup-01) related to competency qualifications for noncertified 1695 applicators who apply RUPs unde r the direct supervision of commercial applicators would 1696 require the individuals working under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator to 1697 establish competency by completing training as proposed in the rule, having a current 1698 designation as a handler under the Worker Prot ection Standard (WPS), or by passing the core 1699 exam. EPA assumes that noncertified applicator s would choose to comply with the proposal by 1700 obtaining WPS handler training, which would be provided by the potential employer (a 1701 commercial or private applicator). EPA estimat es the cost of the proposal at $6.6 million. 1702

The potential requirement Comm Sup-02 would requi re that individuals wo rking under the direct 1703 supervision of a certified commercial applicator establish competency by passing the core exam. 1704 EPA estimates the cost of this provision to be $31.8 million. The high cost of this potential 1705 requirement is due to a large number of noncertif ied applicators that would have to pass the 1706
commercial core exam. 1707

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicat ors Applying RUPs under the Supervision of 1708 Certified Applicators (Comm Sup-03) 1709

The potential requirement would clarify the c ontent of the guidance provided by commercial 1710 applicators to the noncertified applicators applying RUPs unde r their direct supervision 1711 regarding the pesticide application they are c onducting. This would be, however, a no cost 1712 requirement as all certified appli cators are already in compliance. 1713*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

42 Communication between Certified Commercial App licator and Applicator Applying RUPs under 1714 their Supervision (Comm Sup-04 and -05) 1715

There are two potential requirements related to the communication be tween certified and 1716 noncertified applicators. 1717

The EPA proposal, Comm Sup-05, would require commercial applicators and individuals 1718 working under their direct supervision to ha ve a method for immedi ate communication during 1719 use of an RUP by a noncertified applicator under th e direct supervision of a certified applicator. 1720 Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states , EPA assumes that in all jurisdictions most 1721 supervisors and noncertified applicators appl ying RUPs under their supervision own and 1722 communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the potential requirement to 1723 industry would be negligible or zero. 1724

The potential requirement Comm Sup-04 would re quire certified commercial applicators and 1725 individuals working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. 1726 EPA estimates industry costs of this potential re quirement at $15 billion. Under this potential 1727 requirement, EPA assumed commercial applic ators would generally prefer to replace 1728 noncertified applicators in thei r employment with certified ap plicators to comply with the 1729 potential requirement, and the wage difference between certified and nonc ertified applicators 1730 would represent the cost of this potential requ irement. EPA assumed that the industry would 1731 replace one-third of noncertified applicators in their employment with certified applicators under 1732 this potential requirement. This potential requir ement is costly, due to the large number of full 1733 time noncertified applicators that need to be repl aced with certified app licators, as only three 1734 states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement. 1735

3.4.4.2 Private Applicators 1736

Table 3.4-8: Costs of Standards for Supervisio n of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the 1737 Supervision of Certified Private Applicator s and Establishing Levels of Supervision 1 1738

Potential Regulation Type of

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

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

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

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

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

core exam Industry

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

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Pr ivate Applicators

Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators applying RUPs Industry

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

43 Potential Regulation Type of

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

Incremental Cost (NIC)

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

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

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1739

Competency Qualifications for Applicators A pplying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified 1740 Private Applicator (Private Sup-01and -02) 1741

There are two potential competency qualifica tion requirements for noncertified applicators 1742 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicator. 1743

The EPA’s proposal, Private Sup-02, would requi re the individuals working under the direct 1744 supervision of a private applicat or to establish competency by completing training specified in 1745 the rule, having a current designation as a handl er under the Worker Protection Standard, or by 1746 passing the core exam. EPA estimates that th is requirement would cost $639 thousand. 1747

The potential requirement Private Sup-01 would re quire the individuals wo rking under the direct 1748 supervision of a certified privat e applicator to establish competency by completing training 1749 specified in the rule or by ha ving a current designation as a ha ndler under the Worker Protection 1750 Standard. A cost estimate equal to the EPA pr oposal (Private Sup-02) would result from this 1751 potential requirement because EPA assumed that under the both potential requirements, 1752 noncertified applicators would choose to comply by taking whichever training was less costly, 1753
which in most cases would be to take the Work er Protection Standard ha ndler training, and EPA 1754
estimated that cost. 1755

Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicat ors Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a 1756 Certified Applicator (Private Sup-03) 1757

The potential requirement clarifies the content of the guidance provided by certified applicators 1758 to the noncertified applicators wi thout certification under their dire ct supervision regarding the 1759 pesticide application they are conducting. This is, however, a no co st requirement as all certified 1760 applicators are already in compliance as applicators are already doing this. 1761*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 Communication between Supervisor and Applicato rs Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a 1762 Private Applicator (Private Sup-04 and -05) 1763

There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified applicators 1764 and those working under their direct supervision. 1765

The EPA proposal Private Sup-05 would require certified applic ators and individuals working 1766 under their direct supervision to have a met hod for immediate communication during use of an 1767 RUP by the applicators. Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that 1768 in all jurisdictions most supervisors and noncer tified applicators appl ying RUPs under their 1769 supervision own and communicate vi a cell phone. Thus, EPA assume s that cost of the proposal 1770 to industry would be negligible or zero. 1771

The potential requirement Private Sup-04 would require certified applicators and individuals 1772 working under their direct supervision to be w ithin each other’s direct line of sight. EPA 1773 estimates the incremental cost of this potential requirement at $80 million. Under this potential 1774 requirement, EPA assumed privat e applicators would generally prefer to replace noncertified 1775 applicators in their employment with certifi ed applicators to comply with the potential 1776 requirement, and the wage difference between ce rtified and noncertifi ed applicators would 1777 represent the cost of this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly, due to the 1778 large number of noncertified applicat ors that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as 1779 only three states are currently in complianc e with this potential requirement. 1780



### 3.4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Appli cators and Applicators Applying RUPs 1781 

### under the Supervision of Certified Applicators 1782

Minimum age requirements for certified applicators aim to improve the safety of application of 1783 restricted use pesticides. There are currently no fe deral age requirements for certified applicators. 1784 This economic analysis evaluates two EPA propos als and two alternatives for commercial and 1785 private applicators: The EPA pr oposals would require commercial a nd private applicators to be 1786 18 years old and the alternatives would require co mmercial and private app licators to be 16 years 1787 old. EPA also considered a pot ential requirement that would requi re private applicators to be 18 1788 years old, but would allow for private applicator s 16 years and older to work on a farm owned by 1789 an immediate family member. 1790

The potential age requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct 1791 supervision of a certified applicat or are the same as those for cer tified applicators, a minimum 1792 age of 16 or 18 for noncertified applicators appl ying RUPs under the direct supervision of a 1793 certified applicator, and for the same reasons. EP A also considered a potential requirement that 1794 would require a minimum age of 18 years for non certified applicators that apply RUPs under the 1795 direct supervision of a certified applicator, but would allow for noncertified applicators 16 years 1796 and older to work on a farm owned by an immediate family member. 1797

The cost of the potential requirements may be significant and would be borne primarily by 1798 employers, who will have to pay higher wages to older employees and in some cases switch to 1799 employing a commercial applicator instead of a priv ate applicator to appl y RUPs. It should be 1800*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

45 noted that under EPA’s proposal currently certif ied applicators who are younger than 18 would 1801 be able to maintain their certification, but adolescents would not be allowed to obtain a 1802 certification unless they are of ag e. To the extent that adoles cents would be prevented from 1803 obtaining a certification, they may be paid for lower wage jobs, rather than applying RUPs. 1804 These costs would be hidden, because they are borne by adolescents who would have become 1805 certified, rather than those who are already certif ied. The potential requir ements would not allow 1806 for current noncertified applic ators applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of certified 1807 applicators under the age of 18 to continue to apply RUPs. 1808

Table 3.4-9 below presents nationa l-level baseline, total and incremental industry costs for each 1809 potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential 1810 requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation 1811 of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 1812

3.4.5.1 Commercial Applicators 1813

Table 3.4-9: Costs of Minimum Age Requiremen ts for Certified Commercial Applicators 1 1814

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1815

Minimum Age for Commercial Applicators (Comm Age-01and -02) 1816

There are two potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for commercial 1817 applicators: all commercial applic ators would either have to be at least 16 years old or 18 years 1818
old. 1819

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-02) would require all commercial applicators to be at least 18 1820 years old. EPA assumes that there are no commerci al applicators that ar e less than 16 years of 1821 age and that existing applicator s under 18 years of age would be “grandfathered in” and would 1822 not be affected by this requirement. Based on these assumptions, those affected by the minimum 1823 age requirement of 18 would be potential first time commercial applicat ors aged 16 or 17 years 1824 who would no longer be eligible to become certified. As a result, under the proposal, these 1825 underage applicators would be replaced with co mmercial applicators aged 18 years or older. 1826 EPA estimates that the loaded average wage rate for commercial applicator s aged 18 and older is 1827 $21.49 while the loaded wage rate for commerci al applicators aged 16 and 17 is $16.12. EPA 1828 further assumes that the average commercial a pplicator under the age of 18 years old works 16 1829 weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per year. This is based on the fact that the 1830 typical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 17 year old 1831 commercial applicators apply pest icides for the entire 640 hours and that they apply RUPs 70% 1832 (448 hours per year) of the time that they are applying pesticides (EPA. 2014d). EPA believes 1833*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

46 that the assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of the proposal. 1834 Based on the difference in employment costs of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under 1835 the direct supervision of certifi ed applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, 1836 EPA estimates industry costs of the proposal to be $294 thousand. 1837

EPA assumes that there are no commercial applicat ors under the age of 16 years, so the potential 1838 requirement (Comm Age-01) that imposes a mi nimum age requirement of 16 for commercial 1839 applicators would be a no cost requirement. 1840

3.4.5.2 Private Applicators 1841

Table 3.4-10: Costs of Minimu m Age Requirements for Cert ified Private Applicators 1 1842

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1843

Minimum Age for Private Applicators (Private Age-01, -02, and -03) 1844

There are three potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for private 1845 applicators: all private applicator s would have to be at least 16 years old (Private Age-01), all 1846 private applicators would have to be at least 18 years old (Private Ag e-02), or all private 1847 applicators would have to be at least 18 years old except pers ons working solely on a farm 1848 owned by a family member may be 16 or 17 years old (Private Age-03). EPA assumes that all 1849 private applicators under 18 are summer employ ees working 16 weeks per year at 40 hours per 1850
week for a total of 640 hours. EPA also assume s that private applicator s make 20 applications 1851 per year at 4 hours per applica tion (a total of 80 hours) and th at 70%, or 56 hours, are spent 1852 making applications of RUPs (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). 1853

The EPA’s proposal, Private Age-02, related to private applicator minimum age requirement 1854 would require that all private applicators to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private 1855 applicators can currently be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under age 18 1856 would be grandfathered in and ma y continue to work as certified applicators. Hence, under the 1857 potential regulatory requirement, first-time private applicators aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 years would 1858 be replaced with private applicat ors aged 18 years or older. The loaded average wage rate for 1859 private applicators over the age of 18 years is $51.96 per hour while the loaded average wage 1860 rate for private applicators under the age of 18 years is $25.98 to $31.18. Based on the 1861*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

47 difference in employment costs of private ap plicators younger than 18 a nd those who are 18 and 1862 older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $174 thousand. 1863

The potential requirement Private Age-01 related to private applicator age requirement would 1864 require that all private applicators be at least 16 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators 1865 can be as young as 14 years old. Existing privat e applicators under the ag e of 16 years would be 1866 “grandfathered in” and allowed to continue to work as private applicators. EPA further assumes 1867 that 16- and 17-year old private applicators would not available to replace the first-time 14- and 1868 15-year old private applicators. Hence, under the potential regulatory requirement, first-time 1869 private applicators aged 14 or 15 years would be replaced with hi red private applicators aged 18 1870 years or older. The loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators over the age of 1871 18 years is $51.96, while the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators under 1872 18 years is $25.98 for 14 and 15 year olds and $31.18 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the 1873 difference in employment costs of private ap plicators younger than 16 a nd those who are 16 and 1874 older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $61 thousand. 1875

The potential requirement Private Age-03 related to private applicator age requirement would 1876 require private applicators who are family member s to be at least 16 year s old and those who are 1877 not family members to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as 1878 young as 14 years old, and that existing private a pplicators under the age of 18 years would be 1879 grandfathered in and may continue to work as pr ivate applicators. Unde r the potential regulatory 1880 requirement, all first-time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years and first-time private 1881 applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are not fa mily members would be replaced with private 1882 applicators aged 18 years or older. First-time private applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are 1883 family members would continue to apply restricted -use pesticides. The loaded average wage rate 1884 for private applicators over th e age of 18 is $51.96 per hour, the ra te for those who are 16 or 17 1885 years old is $31.18 per hour, and th e rate for those who are 14 a nd 15 is $25.98 per hour. Based 1886 on the difference in employment costs of pr ivate applicators younger than 16, 16 and 17 years 1887 old, and 18, and applicators older than 18 years ol d, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential 1888 requirement would be $68 thousand. 1889

3.4.5.3 Under The Supervision Applicators 1890

a. Commercial under The Supervision Applicators 1891

Table 3.4-11: Costs of Minimu m Age Requirements for Noncert ified Applicators Applying 1892 RUPs under the Supervision of Commercial Applicators 1 1893

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1894*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

48 Minimum Age of Applicators Applying RUPs un der the Supervision of Certified Applicators 1895 (Comm Age-03 and -04) 1896

There are two potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for 1897 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervisi on of commercial applicators: 1898 all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct superv ision of commercial 1899 applicators must be at leas t 16 years old (Comm Age-03), an d all noncertified applicators 1900 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of comm ercial applicators must be at least 18 years 1901 old (Comm Age-04). 1902

The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age-04) would requir e all noncertified applicators applying RUPs 1903 under the direct supervision of commercial applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under the 1904 potential requirement, all noncer tified applicators (f irst-time and existing), who are under the 1905 direct supervision of a commer cial applicator and are under the age of 18 years would be 1906 replaced by first-time noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a commercial 1907 applicator aged 18 years or older. EPA further assumes that the average noncertified applicators 1908 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of co mmercial applicators under the age of 18 years 1909 old works 16 weeks and 40 hours per week for a to tal of 640 hours per year. This is based on the 1910 fact that the typical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 1911 17 year old noncertified applicat ors applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of commercial 1912 applicators apply pesticides for the entire 640 hours and, that they apply RUPs 50% (320 hours 1913 per year) of the time that they are applying pest icides (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). The loaded 1914 average wage rate for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 1915 commercial applicators over th e age of 18 years is $18.34 per hour and $13.76 per hour for 1916 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervis ion of commercial applicators 1917 under the age of 18. Based on the difference in employment costs of non certified applicators 1918 applying RUPs under the direct supervision of co mmercial applicators y ounger than 18 and those 1919 who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry co sts of the potential re quirement would be $12.8 1920 million. This is a large cost, due to several f actors; a sizeable differen ce between adolescent and 1921 adult noncertified wages, a considerable numbe r of applicators invol ved, and a substantial 1922 number of hours worked by adolescent noncertified applicators. EPA believes, however, that the 1923 assumptions made here are conservative a nd overestimate the impact of the proposal. 1924

EPA assumes that there are no noncertified ap plicators applying RUPs under the direct 1925 supervision of commercial appl icators under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement 1926 (Comm Age-03) that would impose a minimu m age requirement of 16 for noncertified 1927 applicators applying RUPs under the direct superv ision of commercial applicators would be a no 1928 cost requirement. 1929

b. Private Noncertified Appli cators under The Direct Supervis ion of Certified Applicators 1930*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

49 Table 3.4-12: Costs of Minimu m Age Requirements for Noncert ified Applicators Applying 1931 RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applicators 1 1932

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

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 1933

Minimum Age of Noncertified Applicators Appl ying RUPs under the Dir ect Supervision of 1934 Certified Applicators (Priva te Age-04, -05, and -06) 1935

There are three potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for 1936 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervis ion of private applicators. 1937

The EPA’s proposal (Private Age- 05) related to applicator age requirements would require all 1938 noncertified applicators applying RU Ps under the direct supervision of private applicators to be 1939 at least 18 years old. Under th is potential requirement, all non certified applicators applying 1940 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 18 (both first-time and 1941 existing) are replaced by noncerti fied applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of 1942 private applicators aged 18 years or older. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators applying 1943 RUPs under the direct supervisi on of private applicators under age apply RUPs for 56 hours per 1944 year (EPA, 2014a). The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertifie d applicators applying 1945 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over th e age of 18 years is $21.49 while 1946 the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired noncertified applicator s applying RUPs under the 1947 direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and 1948 $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the di fference in employment costs of private 1949 applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 a nd older, EPA estimates industry costs of the 1950 potential requirement would be $1.1 million. 1951

The potential requirement Private Age-04 would require all noncertified applicators applying 1952 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be at least 16 years old. Under this 1953 potential requirement, EPA assumes that all noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the 1954 direct supervision of private ap plicators under the age of 16 (both first-time and existing) would 1955 be replaced by noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct s upervision of private 1956 applicators aged 16 years or older. Noncerti fied applicators applyi ng RUPs under the direct 1957 supervision of private applicat ors under age 16 years are assume d to apply pesticides for 80 1958 hours per year (20 applications per year, 4 hours e ach on average), 70% of which is estimated to 1959 be spent applying RUPs for a total of 56 hour s (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). 1960 The loaded average hourly wage rate for noncertifi ed applicators applying RUPs under the direct 1961 supervision of private applicat ors over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average 1962*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

50 hourly wage rate for hired noncertified applicat ors applying RUPs under the direct supervision 1963 of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 1964 year olds. Based on the difference in employme nt costs of noncertifi ed applicators applying 1965 RUPs under the direct supervisi on of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 1966 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of th e potential requirement would be $83 thousand. 1967

The potential requirement Private Age-06 would require all noncertified applicators applying 1968 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators who are fa mily members to be at least 1969 16 years old and those who are not family member s to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes 1970 that noncertified applicators appl ying RUPs under the direct supe rvision of private applicators 1971 under age 18 apply pesticides for 80 hours per ye ar, 70% of which is estimated to be spent 1972 applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). Under this 1973 potential requirement, all 14 and 15 year-old fa mily member noncertifi ed applicators applying 1974 RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators would be replaced by hired noncertified 1975 applicators applying RUPs under the direct superv ision of private applicators aged 18 years or 1976 older. In addition, 16 or 17 y ear-old family member noncertifi ed applicators that apply on 1977 family farms would not be affected by Privat e Age-06; only the hired 16 or 17-year old 1978 noncertified applicators would be impacted by this alternative. EPA assumes that the latter 1979 would be replaced by noncertified applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average hourly 1980 wage rate for noncertified applic ators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private 1981 applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average h ourly wage rate for 1982 noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 1983 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the 1984 difference in employment costs of private ap plicators younger than 18 a nd those who are 18 and 1985 older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $634 thousand. 1986



### 3.4.6 Standards for Recertificati on of Certified Applicators 1987

Standards for recertification of private and commercial applicators assure that certified 1988 applicators maintain core competencies and ke ep pace with the changing technology of pesticide 1989 application. They also ensure that the gene ral public, the environm ent and applicators are 1990 protected from misapplication a nd misuse. Potential requirements include maximum time 1991 requirements for recertification in the basic (cor e) and category certifications. Recertification 1992 requirements include trainings, exams or a combin ation of both and are to be determined by the 1993

states. 1994

The potential requirements primarily impact indi viduals who are certifie d applicators and their 1995 employers. EPA considers state costs of administ ering recertification programs to be small as 1996 many applicators recertify via continuing education trainings , which already have been 1997 developed by states. Applicators obtain stat e-required continuing education units (CEUs) by 1998 completing training, and states curr ently verify that applicators ge t required number of CEUs. 1999

Recertification costs for commercial and private a pplicators will be presented in two parts: one; 2000 costs of potential requirements for recertificati on of general competency and two: costs of 2001 potential requirements for recertificat ion of new category certifications. 2002*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

51 3.4.6.1 Commercial Applicators 2003

a. Core Competency Recertification 2004

Table 3.4-13 below presents national-level base line, total, and incremental costs for each 2005 potential requirement for recertif ication of core competency of commercial applicators. The 2006 table is followed by a brief descri ption of the costs of the potentia l requirements. A description 2007 of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful 2008
for the reader to understand the cost results. 2009

Table 3.4-13: Cost of Establishing Standard s for Recertification of Commercial Certified 2010 Applicators – Core Competency 1 2011

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Commercial Applicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2012*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

52 Commercial Applicators – Core Competency Re certification (Comm Rece rt-01, -02, -04, and 05) 2013

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 2014 seeking recertification as commercial applicators. 2015

The EPA’s proposal, Comm Recert-01, would re quire recertification every 3 years by 2016 completing 6 hours of training for core competen cy and 6 hours of training per category, or by 2017 passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its in cremental cost is estimated at 2018 $6.5 million, which is much higher than the a lternatives Comm Recert-04 and -05, because 2019
recertification is on a fast er cycle (every 3 years). 2020

The potential requirement Comm Recert-02 w ould require recertification every 3 years by 2021 passing a written certificati on exam for core and all applicable cat egories. Its incremental cost is 2022 estimated at $6.5 million. 2023

The potential requirement Comm Recert-04 w ould require recertification every 5 years by 2024 completing 6 hours of training for core competen cy and 6 hours of training per category, or by 2025 passing a written exam for core and each applicable category. Its in cremental cost is estimated at 2026 $1.7 million. 2027

The potential requirement Comm Recert-05 w ould require recertification every 5 years by 2028 passing a written certificati on exam for core and all applicable cat egories. Its incremental cost is 2029 estimated at $1.7 million. 2030

The potential requirements Comm Recert-04 and -05 would cost the same because the only 2031
difference between them is that the latter does not have a training option and all have to take an 2032 exam, but EPA assumed that the exam would take applicators six hours on average (5 hours to 2033 prepare and 1 hour for exam taking time). Therefor e, it would take the sa me number of hours of 2034 applicators’ time whether recertification is completed by training or exam, thus the same 2035 incremental costs. Although cost s of these two potential require ments are high the baseline costs 2036 are also high – both due to a large number of applicators recertifying – resulting in relatively 2037 small incremental costs of $773 thousand. The sa me logic applies to the pair Comm Recert-01 2038
and -02. 2039

b. New Categories Recertification 2040

Table 3.4-14 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for 2041 each potential requirement for recertification of commercial applicators in the proposed 2042 application method-specific categories. The table is followed by a brief de scription of the costs 2043 of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when 2044 the presentation of this informa tion is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 2045

2046*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

53 Table 3.4-14: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial 2047 Applicators – New Categories 1 2048

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Commercial Applicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2049

Commercial Applicators – New Categories Recertification (Comm Cert-01 and -04) 2050

The potential requirements include different tr aining and examination options for commercial 2051 applicators seeking recer tification in application method-sp ecific categories. For each of 2052 application method-specific categories (aerial, chemigation, general fumigation, and non-soil 2053 fumigation), there are two options: the first optio n would require recertific ation every 3 years by 2054 completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam; and the second option would 2055 require recertification every 5 years by completing 6 hours of tr aining or by passing a written 2056
exam. The recertification costs for different cat egories for commercial applicator are estimated 2057 to range from $13 to $151 thousand. 2058

3.4.6.2 Private Applicators 2059

a. General Competency Recertification 2060

Table 3.4-15 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for 2061 each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed by a brief description of 2062 the costs of the potential requirements. A desc ription of estimation method and data are also 2063 given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost 2064
results. 2065*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

55 Table 3.4-15: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – 2066 General Competency 1 2067

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Private Applicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2068

Private Applicators – General Competency Rece rtification (Private Recert-01, -02, -04, and - 2069 05) 2070

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons 2071 seeking recertification as private applicators. 2072

The EPA’s proposal, Private Recert-01, would requi re recertification of general competency 2073 every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential 2074 requirement Private Recert-02 w ould require recertifica tion of general competency every 3 years 2075 by completing 8 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential requirement 2076 Private Recert-04 would require recertification of general competency every 5 years by 2077 completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam, and the potential requirement 2078 Private Recert-05 would require recertification of general competency every 5 years by 2079 completing 8 hours of training or by passing a writt en exam. Private applicator costs of the 2080 potential requirements would range from $3.5 to $22.4 million. Potential requirements for 2081 general competency recer tification of private applicators are generally costly due to substantial 2082*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

56 per-applicator costs (6 – 8 hours pe r applicator) and a la rge number of applicators that need to 2083 recertify. 2084

b. Application Method-Specific Categories Recertification 2085

Table 3.4-16 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for 2086 each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed by a brief description of 2087 the costs of the potential requirements. A desc ription of estimation method and data are also 2088 given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost 2089
results. 2090

Table 3.4-16: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators – 2091 Application Method-Specific Categories 1 2092

Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

Private Applicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

57 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)

recertification every three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

58 Potential Regulation Type of Cost National Cost of

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

Baseline

(NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2093

Private Applicators – Application Method-Speci fic Categories Recertification (Private Recert 2094 01, 02, 04, & 05) 2095

The potential requirements include different training and examination options for private 2096 applicators seeking recertification in a pplication method-specific categories. 2097

For aerial and non-soil categories, Private Recert -01 and -02 would require recertification every 2098 3 years, with Private Recert-01 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Priv ate Recert-02 requiring 2099 exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and- 05 would require recertif ication every 5 years, 2100 with Private Recert-04 requiring exam or 3-hour training and Pr ivate Recert-05 requiring exam 2101 or 4-hour training. 2102*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

59 For chemigation and general fumigation categories, Private Recert-02 would require 2103 recertification every 3 years by exam or 4-hour training. Private Recert-04 and-05 would require 2104 recertification every 5 years, with Private Recert-04 requi ring exam or 3-hour training and 2105 Private Recert-05 requiring ex am or 4-hour training. 2106

Private applicator costs of the potential requir ements would range from $1.5 thousand (aerial 2107 category) to $808 thousand (gener al fumigation category). Most private applicators are not 2108 expected to have aerial certifi cation whereas many private applic ators are estimated to certify 2109 and recertify in general fumigation category, whic h explains the wide range of recertification 2110

costs. 2111



### 3.4.7 Requirements for Ge neral Administration 2112

There are several proposed new requirements th at are administrative in nature, which would 2113 include recordkeeping requirements for indus try, and requirements for state and federal 2114 governments to implement the changes in the rule. 2115

3.4.7.1 Dealer Recordkeeping 2116

The Agency is proposing new recordkeeping re quirements for dealers of restricted use 2117 pesticides. Under the proposal, dealers selling RUPs to both pr ivate and commercial applicators 2118 would be required to keep r ecords of RUP sales, includi ng information on what RUP was 2119 purchased and the date, the iden tity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the 2120 applicator is certified. 2121

3.4.7.2 Jurisdiction Administration 2122

The costs of the potential requirements in this ca tegory are state costs, and capture the cost of 2123 changing jurisdiction requirements to reflect the rulemaking. 2124

3.4.7.3 Federal Administration 2125

This category includes the potenti al requirements for EPA for revi ewing the plans or programs of 2126 jurisdictions and federal agen cies, and for revising EPA-ad ministered tribal plans. 2127

Table 3.4-17 below presents national-level baseli ne, total, and incremental industry costs for 2128 each potential requirement. The table is follo wed by a brief descripti on of the costs of the 2129 potential requirements. A description of estima tion method and data are also given when the 2130 presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 2131

Table 3.4-17: Costs to Revise Requirements fo r Dealer Recordkeepi ng and the Submission, 2132 Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans 1 2133

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

Incremental Cost (NIC)

($000)*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

60 Dealers maintain
records of restricted use pesticide sales Industry costs (Admin-01) 749 749 0

Revise state regulations State costs: implementation (Admin-02) 119 0 119

Submit state plans and report certified applicator data State costs: implementation (Admin-03) 4 0 4

EPA review of jurisdiction and federal agency plans &

programs EPA costs: implementation (Admin-04) 41 0 41

Revise EPAadministered tribal plans EPA costs: implementation (Admin-06) 4 0 4

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2134

Dealers Maintain Records of Restrict ed Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01) 2135

The EPA proposal Admin-01 would re quire pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, 2136 including the pesticide(s) purchas ed, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the 2137 sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a 2138 zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisd ictions are already doi ng these activities. 2139

Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03) 2140

The EPA proposal Admin-02 would re quire all jurisdictions to rewr ite their laws and regulations, 2141 and to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. EPA 2142 assumes that all jurisdictions woul d need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total 2143 cost of $119 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction re gulations. Since the potential regulatory 2144 requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, regu lations, and plans, EPA 2145 assumes that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each of the two years. 2146

Another EPA proposal, Admin-03, would require ju risdictions to submit the revised plans to 2147
EPA. EPA estimates a total incr emental cost at $4 thousand. 2148

Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06) 2149

There are two EPA proposals being considered that relate to federal ce rtification and tribal 2150 certification plans. The first po tential requirement would be to update tribal certification plans 2151 (Admin-06). A total incremental cost is estimated at $4 thousand. One other potential 2152 requirement would be to codify existing policy re quiring federal agencies to conform to the same 2153 standards as jurisdictions for im plementing certification programs (Admin-04). EPA estimates a 2154 total incremental cost at $41 thousand. 2155*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Options for 2156 

## Amending the Rules Governing C ertified Pesticide Applicators 2157

EPA is proposing revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators ru le that would balance 2158 improvements in the protections to certified pesticide applicators, the environment, and the 2159 public against the additional cost s to applicators and employers of applicators. Out of the 2160 potential requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 2161 summarizes the requirements the Agency is proposing. 2162

Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements. 2163 Identifier Brief Description

Private Cert-02 Initial Certif ication of Privat e Applicators
Private Cert-13 Eliminate Non-reader Certification Comm Cert-01;
Private Cert-04 New Aerial Category (Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) Comm Cert-04;
Private Cert-10 New Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation (Exam or 4-hour training for private applicators) Comm Cert-05;
Private Cert-12 New Predator Control Category for Commercial and Private Certified Applicators Comm Cert-06; Comm Recert-03; Private Cert-15;
Private Recert-03 New Security Standards for Examinations or Training

Comm Sup-01 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator

Comm Sup-06 Retain Records of Competency Standards for Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervis ion of Commercial Applicators

Private Sup-02 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator Comm Sup-03; Private Sup-03 Instruction Given To Noncertifi ed Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commerc ial and Private Applicators Comm Sup-05; Private Sup-05 Communication between the Superv ising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator Comm Age-02; Private Age-02 Minimum Age of 18 for Commerci al and Private Applicators

Comm Age-04; Private Age-05 Minimum Age of 18 for Noncertifie d Applicators under the Direct Supervision of a Ce rtified Applicator

Comm Recert-01 Commercial Applicator Recertifica tion: Exam (Core and Appropriate Categories) or 6 CEUs for Core + 6 CEUs per Category Certification;
Three Year Recertification Interval

Private Recert-01 Private Applicator Recer tification: Exam or 6 CEUs + 3 CEUs per Category Certification; Three Year Recertification Interval Admin-01 Dealer Recordkeeping of RUP sales*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 Identifier Brief Description
Admin-02 and
Admin-03 Requirements to Update State Plans

Admin-04 and
Admin-05 Review of Federal Agency Plans an d Programs, Certification Program in Indian Country, and EPA Administered Plans
Admin-06 Revise EPA- Administered Plans

This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the 2164 proposed revisions to the Certific ation of Pesticide Applicators rule, and describes the reasons 2165 why EPA is proposing specific options. Chapter 2 qualitatively descri bed the benefits of 2166 different requirement options in terms of providi ng better information, greater protection, and/or 2167 more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the cost of each requirement, which is 2168 predominantly the opportunity cost of time. Th e emphasis of a cost-ben efit analysis is on 2169 efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of (1) providing improved protections to certified and 2170 noncertified applicators, the environment, and the public from use of RUPs and (2) minimizing 2171 the costs to agriculture, other pest control industries, states, and small businesses. Some of the 2172 proposed changes are not discussed here for two reasons. First, not all changes were subject to a 2173 rigorous cost/benefit analysis, e.g., administrative requirements for states to rewrite their 2174 guidance to come into compliance with the new regulations. Second, some proposals merely 2175 codify current practice or existing policy. 2176

In weighing the relative advant ages and disadvantages of the options, EPA considered the full 2177 range of information brought by various stak eholder groups involved in the regulatory 2178 development process ( e.g. , professional pesticide applic ator organizations, CTAG, state 2179 regulators, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing commodity 2180 producers). Only the information relevant to the costs and benefits of specific proposals is 2181 discussed in this chapter. This includes factors such as equi ty considerations ( e.g. , potential 2182 distribution of costs) and the f easibility of implementing a requi rement given state regulatory 2183 experiences. A discussion of all information provided through the re gulatory process is 2184 discussed in the NPRM for this proposed rule. 2185



### 4.1 Proposed and Alternative Options for Revising Initial Certification 2186 

### Standards 2187



### 4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicat or General Competency Standards 2188

The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule cu rrently requires applicants seeking certification 2189 as private applicators to demonstrate competency to use or supervise the use of RUPs either by 2190 completing an approved training program or thr ough an alternate mechanism, for example, by 2191 passing an exam. States may require private app licators to demonstrate competency by taking an 2192 exam or through another state-identified and EPA- approved mechanism, e.g., a training course. 2193

Private Cert-02: Exam or 12-hour Training for Initial Certification of Private Applicators 2194*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 The proposed and alternative private applicator competency standards (P rivate Cert-02, Private 2195 Cert-01 and Private Cert-03) would cover 11 esse ntial topics, including additional information 2196 about equipment, responsibilities for supervis ing noncertified applicators, and laws and 2197 regulations. The proposal and th e alternatives differ in the sp ecific minimum requirements for 2198 the content of and mechanisms to ensure priv ate applicator competen cy. For the purpose of 2199 estimating the cost of each alternative, we di fferentiate between the pr oposals by the expected 2200 amount of time that certified app licators would need to prepare fo r an exam or spend in training, 2201 although the proposal does not require a spec ific minimum number of hours for private 2202 applicator certification through training programs. The proposed option (Private Cert-02) has 2203 minimum standards that we estimate will require about 12 hours of preparation or training of a 2204 private applicator based on EPA’ s experience with training programs in territories where EPA 2205 administers the applicator certific ation program. EPA also consid ered a less stringent proposal. 2206 The less stringent standards means that important topics would not be explored as fully, although 2207 the time required would be less (a bout 8 hours). EPA also consid ered a more stringent proposal 2208 that would cover the necessary topics in more de tail (about 16 hours). Because most of the cost 2209 of these proposals is a result of the time of the prospective certified applicators, the most 2210 stringent proposal (Private Cert-03) would be the most expensive (about $9.0 million per year 2211 above current costs), and the least stringent (Pri vate Cert-01) is the le ast expensive (about $2.0 2212 million per year). The cost of the proposed opt ion is between the two, at about $3.7 million per 2213 year. EPA chose to propose the option it did b ecause the proposal balances the burden to the 2214 private applicator candidates with the need to ensure that private applicators have sufficient 2215 information, knowledge, and skills necessary in order to apply RUPs ef fectively and without 2216 unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed le vel of required detail better outlines the 2217 knowledge and skills EPA expects private applicators to have in order to apply RUPs effectively 2218
and without unreasonable a dverse effects. 2219



### 4.1.2 Establish Application Method-Sp ecific Categories for Commercial and 2220 

### Private Applicators 2221

EPA is proposing three new federal categories fo r commercial applicator certification: aerial 2222 application, soil fumigation, and non-soil fumigati on. Pesticide applicat ion and agricultural 2223 practices are increasingly speci alized. Improper use of appli cation equipment may lead to 2224 increased risks to the health of the applicat or, workers, the environment, and the public. 2225 Additionally, certain categories of pesticides (e.g., fumigants) and application methods (aerial 2226 application) pose an inherently hi gher risk of acute injury or d eath if the applicator does not 2227
understand and follow the label. These increased risks can be reduced by requiring applicators to 2228 demonstrate a specific set of competencies re lated to the application method being used. 2229

EPA is proposing to create similar categories fo r private applicators. Private applicators 2230 performing soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or aerial applicator w ould require category 2231
certification as well. Initial cert ification would require that privat e applicators pass an exam or 2232 complete training (about 4 hours). An option fo r each category would be for a more rigorous 2233 exam or completion of a more de tailed training (about 8 hours). 2234*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 States may also bear costs asso ciated with the development of new exams or training material 2235
and with the cost of administer ing new certification categories. 2236

Comm Cert-01: New Aerial Category 2237

EPA is proposing to create an application met hod-specific category for ae rial application (Comm 2238 Cert-01). Applying pesticides with a plane or helicopter poses a unique set of risks and 2239 challenges to the applicator, bystanders, and the e nvironment. There is heightened potential for 2240 spray drift and elevated potential for off-target applications and thus an increased need for 2241 specialized application equipment to be calibrated accurately; these risks are specific to aerial 2242 application. The annualized national incrementa l cost of adding this category is about $258,000 2243 per year, including $98,000 annually for in itial certification and $151,000 annually for 2244
recertification. This cost includes the time for applicators to prepare for an exam or attend a 2245 training program and for states to develop materials for the new category training (estimated at 2246 $9,000). EPA concluded that this additional cost, which amounts to about $29 per year per 2247 certified aerial applicator, was justified to ensure that applicators applying pesticides by aircraft 2248 are able to apply products safely and in a ma nner to manage drift and potential exposure to 2249 adjacent areas and bystanders. 2250

Private Cert-04: New Aerial Application Category, Exam or Four-Hour Training 2251

The proposal for a new private category certificati on in aerial application that would require an 2252 exam or training (four hours) (Private Cert-0 4) is expected to co st about $26,000 annually. 2253 There are expected to be only ar ound 70 private aerial applicators, resulting in an annual per2254 applicator cost of $371. The altern ative, an exam or training (ei ght hours) (Private Cert-05), is 2255 expected to cost $29,000 annually. EPA chose the proposed option because of the importance of 2256 ensuring that aerial applicators have the knowle dge and skills necessary to apply RUPs by 2257 aircraft without causing unreasona ble adverse effects. The proposed option is slightly less 2258 expensive, and it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without 2259 becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary information. 2260

Comm Cert-04: New Commercia l Applicator Categories for soil fumigation and non-soil 2261 fumigation 2262

Because of the specialized nature of fumiga tion applications, EPA decided that additional 2263 competence was necessary for applicators who use fumigants. EPA considered an alternative 2264 that creates only one applicati on method-specific category for general fumigation, which would 2265 cover both soil and non-soil pest control (Co mm Cert-03), but decide d to propose two new 2266 application method-specific categories; one for soil fumigation and one for non-soil fumigation 2267 (Comm Cert-04). EPA chose the proposed option because the two types of fumigant application 2268 differ significantly – by equipment, application site, bystander exposure, risks presented, and 2269 other specifics, including the chemicals used. In addition, many fumigators specialize in either 2270 soil or non-soil fumigation. Treat ing these two categories as sepa rate allows more detailed 2271 information about each topic in a given amount of time. In addition, the incremental costs are 2272 lower for the two categories than for a combined category. The national incremental costs for 2273 the two categories is about $415,000 annually (including $138,000 annually for initial 2274*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 certification, which includes the cost of th e state developing examination materials, and 2275 $277,000 annually for recertification. The cost of the joint category is about $992,000 annually, 2276 of which about $716,000 is for the initial certif ication and $277,000 is fo r recertification. 2277

The cost is lower for two categories, because pesticide label requirements on soil fumigants 2278 currently require training equiva lent to that which would be needed to become certified in the 2279 soil fumigant category or allow st ates to require certification in an EPA-approved soil fumigation 2280 category in lieu of the training. If applicat ors who currently perform soil fumigation were 2281 required to be certified in a general fumigati on category, they would face additional costs to 2282
become familiar with or trained in the non-soil uses. 2283

Private Cert-10: New Private Applicator Categories for Soil and Non-Soil Fumigation 2284

The incremental cost for establis hing separate soil and non-soil fumigation categories for private 2285 applicators is estimated to be about $122,000 a nnually. One alternative, a general fumigation 2286 category covering both soil and non -soil fumigation (Private Cert-08), would be more costly at 2287 $674,000 annually because, as with commercial a pplicators, private applicators making soil 2288 fumigations must already be tr ained under the pesticide label re quirements. An alternative 2289 requirement to pass an exam or complete a more detailed training for certification in the two 2290 categories (Private Cert-11) would cost about $218,000. EPA c hose the proposed option because 2291 it ensures that the training progr ams cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or 2292 incorporating unnecessary inform ation at additional cost. Despite being lower cost than 2293 alternative options, it will ensure that soil a nd non-soil fumigant applic ators have the knowledge 2294 and skills necessary to use fumigants w ithout causing unreasonable adverse effects. 2295

New Category for Chemigation – Not Proposed 2296

EPA considered adding both private applicator and commercial applicator categories for 2297 chemigation, the application of a pesticide through ir rigation equipment, the application of a 2298 pesticide through irrigation equipment. Chemig ation has a relatively high potential for 2299 environmental contamination if not conducted prope rly, and, due to the nature of the equipment, 2300 chemigation poses additional risks to the a pplicator or those working under his direct 2301 supervision. However, based on a review of in cidents, most of the chemigation risks are 2302 associated with chemicals that are covered by th e soil fumigation category. The incremental cost 2303 of adding this category for commercial applic ators is about $80,000 pe r year; about $59,000 for 2304 initial certification (which includes state costs for deve loping materials) and $21,000 for 2305
recertification. There ar e an estimate 875 commercial chemigat ors, so the cost per chemigator 2306 would be about $91. The cost of a private chemigation category is estimated to be $222,000 2307 with a four-hour training requirement (Private Cert-06) and $409,000 with an eight-hour training 2308 requirement (Private Cert-07). Despite the relatively low cost, EPA decided not to propose this 2309 new category: EPA does not have sufficient data, such as evidence of significant health or 2310 environmental impacts, to justify the creati on of an additional certi fication category for 2311 chemigation. The proposed fumigation categories are likely to address the major risks associated 2312 with chemigation. Additional benefits from a chemigation category are likely to be small in 2313 comparison to the costs. 2314*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 

### 4.1.3 Standards for Supervis ion of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for 2315 

### Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training 2316

Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator 2317 currently have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, these noncertified 2318 applicators also have a high poten tial for exposure and could pose a risk to public health and the 2319 environment if they misapply RUPs. The Agency is proposing changes to the training of the 2320 noncertified person and is clarifying the informa tion supervisors must provide and what it means 2321 to be under the direct supervis ion of a certified applicator. 2322

Comm Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncert ified Applicator Working under the Direct 2323 Supervision of a Commercia l Certified Applicator 2324

The Agency is proposing to establish the competen cy of a noncertified applicator working under 2325 the direct supervision of a commer cial certified applicator in one of three ways (Comm Sup-01). 2326 First, noncertified applicators can complete propos ed training outlined in the regulation. Second, 2327 noncertified applicators can complete the WPS handler training (speci fied under 40 CFR 170). 2328 Third, noncertified applicators may pass the commercial applicator core exam 5 . These proposals 2329 are expected to cost non certified applicators working under th e direct supervision of commercial 2330 applicators, their supervisi ng applicators or employers a bout $6.6 million per year. 2331

An alternative for commercial applications is to limit noncertified applicators to only those who 2332 have passed the commercial applicator core ex am (Comm Sup-02). This alternative would be 2333 substantially more expens ive than the proposed alternative. The estimated cost of Comm Sup-02 2334 is $31.8 million per year. While passing the co mmercial core exam may be a more reliable 2335 option for establishing competency, the additional benefits over an annual, focused training do 2336 not outweigh the additional cost. 2337

Private Sup-01: Competency Standards for a Noncer tified Applicator Working under the Direct 2338 Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator 2339

EPA is proposing the same three options for non certified applicators wo rking under the direct 2340 supervision of private applicator s. These proposals are expected to cost noncertified applicators 2341 working under the direct supervisi on of private applicat ors and their supervising applicators or 2342 employers $639,000 per year. 2343

EPA considered an alternative to the proposed option that would limit the ways of establishing 2344 the competency of noncertified applicators to co mpletion of the training proposed under the rule 2345 or completion of the WPS handler training (Priva te Sup-02). EPA did not choose this alternative 2346 because it was no less expensive than the propos ed option (both had an annual cost of $639,000), 2347

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

7 and provides less flexibility of private appli cators and noncertified applicators working under 2348 their direct supervision to decide how to meet th e qualifications. 2349

Comm Sup-06: Retain Records of Training for N oncertified Applicato rs Working under the 2350 Direct Supervision of Commercia l Applicators for Two Years 2351

EPA is also proposing that commer cial certified applic ators supervising non certified applicators 2352 retain records of the training for two years (Comm Sup-06). The estimated cost of this 2353 requirement is $324,000 per year. Keeping records of the training is important because to ensure 2354 the safety of the noncertified applicators wo rking under the supervis ion of the certified 2355 applicators. Requiring commercial applicators to maintain record s of noncertified applicators’ 2356 training would increase the likeli hood that the noncertified app licators will be trained in 2357 accordance with the proposed requirements. In addition, records can help ensure that 2358 noncertified applicators meet the proposed minimum age requirement. Records are a key 2359 component of an effective enfor cement program. EPA considered an alternative requirement to 2360 maintain records for five years (Comm Sup-07). Retention of records for five years has an 2361 annual cost of $591,000, or an additional cost of $267,000 over the proposal. The extra expense 2362 of the longer retention period is not justified becau se the current recordk eeping requirements for 2363 commercial applicators is two years and has prov en to be an adequate retention period to 2364 determine compliance. 2365

EPA is prohibited under FIFRA from requiring private applicators to keep records, so EPA is not 2366 proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified applicators 2367 working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed requirements. 2368

Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03: Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators Working 2369 under the Direct Supervision of Co mmercial and Private Applicators 2370

In addition to general training or knowledge, the Agency is proposing to clarify the instructions 2371 for each specific application that must be give n to noncertified applicators working under the 2372 direct supervision of commercial and private applicators. Curre ntly the supervising commercial 2373 or private applicator must provide guidance on performing the application and information on 2374 how to contact the supervisor. The proposal wo uld specify that the supervising commercial or 2375 private applicator must provide a copy of all app licable labeling to each noncertified applicator 2376 for each supervised application; provide specif ic instructions related to each application, 2377 including the site-specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain and describe 2378 how to comply with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup-03 and Private Sup-03). EPA did not 2379 consider alternative options becau se this proposal is a clarifica tion of the existing requirements 2380
and because the estimated incremental cost of these proposed options is zero. 2381

Comm Sup-05 and Private Sup-05: Communication between the Supervising Commercial or 2382 Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator 2383

EPA is proposing to replace the current requirem ent for the supervising commercial or private 2384 applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor 2385 (such as a cell phone number), w ith a requirement for the supe rvising commercial or private 2386*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 applicator to ensure the noncertified app licator can communicate immediately with the 2387 supervising applicator (Comm S up-05 for commercial applicator s, Private Sup-05 for private 2388 applicators). This immediate communication st andard could be satisfied by the supervising 2389 applicators ensuring that they and all noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct 2390 supervision have cell phones, two-way radios, or other forms of communication technology and 2391 contact information for the supervisors. Im mediate communication between the supervising 2392 applicator and the noncertified appli cator is critical if the noncer tified applicator has a question 2393 before application or encounters an emergency situation related to the misapplication. This was 2394 a low cost option (estimated to be zero) because most certified applicators and the noncertified 2395 applicators have cellular phone s which can be used for immediate communication, so EPA 2396
decided that the benefits of immediate communication outweigh the minimal cost. 2397

EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator 2398 maintain the noncertified applicat or in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm Sup2399 04 and Private Sup-04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in 2400 hilly, forested, or obstructed view areas, it woul d require commercial or private applicators to 2401 hire more certified applicators instead of noncertified applicat ors, thus incurring higher labor 2402 costs. As a result, it would be extremely expensive (about $80 million annually for private 2403 applicators and about $14.9 billi on annually for commercial applic ators). At the same time, it 2404 would not be substantially more protective than the option chosen; in some locations, being in 2405 sight would not necessarily mean being in immediate communication. 2406



### 4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators 2407

Comm Age-02 and Private Age-02: Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators 2408

The Agency is proposing to establish a minimum ag e of 18 for a person to become certified as a 2409 commercial (Comm Age-02) or private (Private Age-02) applicator. These proposals are 2410 expected to cost about $294,000 for commercia l applicators and a bout $174,000 for private 2411 applicators annually. It is unclear who would ultimately bear these costs, but it is likely that the 2412 impacts would fall primarily on the adolescent applicator who might find opportunities limited if 2413
he or she could not obtain certi fication. Employers of certified commercial applicators could 2414 bear some costs in that they are expected to pay higher wages, on aver age, to older, more 2415 experienced applicators. However, the costs are unlikely to reflect actual increases in labor costs 2416 since adolescents can still be employed to work with non-RUP pesticides. In those cases where 2417 an adolescent private applicator would have b een used, he or she would likely be a family 2418 member of the farm owner/operator. The farm would have to assign an adult family member, 2419 presumably at a higher opportunity cost, to ma ke the RUP application and in some situations 2420 farms would have to pay a commerci al applicator to apply RUPs. 2421

EPA decided that these costs are justified be cause there is current ly no minimum age for 2422 certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to hand le some of the highest risk 2423 pesticides. EPA estimates that there are a bout 200 adolescents who are certified private 2424 applicators and fewer than 200 adolescents who ar e certified commercial a pplicators. The cost 2425 per adolescent of this proposal is therefore about $1,500 per y ear per adolescent commercial 2426*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 applicator and $900 per year per ad olescent private applicator. As ide from avoiding the risks to 2427 the adolescents from pesticide exposures, discusse d in Chapter 6, adolescents generally lack the 2428 experience and judgment about consequences of inappropriate behavior. The heightened 2429 potential for immature decision making places the applicator, the public, and the environment at 2430 significant risk if pestic ides are mishandled. 2431

EPA also considered establishing a minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either 2432 commercial or private applicator s (Comm Age-01 and Private Age-01) . On the commercial side, 2433
we estimate the incremental costs and benefits to be zero since there are likely no certified 2434 commercial applicators under 16 year s of age due to various labor laws and business practices. 2435 The cost to private applicators is estimated to be about $61,000 annually. EPA estimates that 2436 there are 55 to 60 certified privat e applicators under 16 at any gi ven time, implying a cost per 2437 adolescent protected of about $1,100 per year. Thus, at approximately the same cost per 2438 adolescent, about 140 more adoles cents are protected under the proposal. EPA also considered 2439 an additional option for private app licators: a requirement for a pers on to be at least 18 years old, 2440 with a minimum age of 16 only for private appli cators who are family members on family farms 2441 (Private Age-03), which has an estimated cost of about $68,000 annually. This option would 2442 cover just over 100 adolescents, including hired a pplicators of 16 or 17 y ears of age, implying a 2443 cost of around $680 per year pe r adolescent protected. Although these alternatives are less 2444 expensive, EPA decided that the additional expens e of a minimum age of 18 is justified because 2445 of the risks posed to the adolesce nt, bystanders, and the environment. 2446



### 4.1.5 Age Requirements for Noncertifie d Applicators Using RUPs under the 2447 

### Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators 2448

Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05: Minimum Age for Noncertified Applicators 2449

To protect noncertified applicators working unde r the direct supervision of commercial and 2450 private applicators as well as human health and the environment, EPA is proposing to establish a 2451 minimum age for noncertified applicators. The proposed minimum age for persons to qualify as 2452 noncertified applicators under the di rect supervision of private a nd commercial applicators is 18 2453 (Comm Age-04 and Private Age-05). EPA made th is decision for the sa me reasons as choosing 2454 a minimum age of 18 for certified applicators. Younger people are more likely to lack the 2455 experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unn ecessary exposure to RUPs. These proposals 2456 are estimated to be expensive – about $12.8 m illion annually for commer cial applicators and 2457 about $1.1 million for private applicators. Cost s are driven by estimates of the number of 2458 adolescents applying RUPs under the supervision of certified applicators. EPA estimates that 2459 there are over 11,000 such adolesce nts working under the supervisi on of commercial applicators, 2460 meaning that the proposal costs about $1,100 per adol escent applicator. EPA also estimates that 2461 there are 2,800 adolescents working under the superv ision of private appli cators, resulting in a 2462 cost per applicator of about $400 per year. The lower cost per adolescent working under a 2463 private applicator is due to many fewer hours an y one adolescent on farm spends applying RUPs. 2464

EPA considered less expensive alternatives, as we ll. The alternatives include a minimum age of 2465 16 for noncertified applicators working under the di rect supervision of commercial applicators 2466*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 (Comm Age-03). As with certified applicators, this option is es timated to have zero costs and 2467
benefits due to a lack of adolescents under 16 wo rking in these jobs. A similar alternative was 2468 considered for noncertified applicators working u nder the supervision of a private applicator 2469 (Private Age-04). An additional alternativ e (Private Age-06) would require noncertified 2470 applicators working under the dire ct supervision of private app licators to be 18, but with an 2471 exception for noncertified applicator s under the direct supervision of a private applicator who is 2472 also an immediate family member of the noncer tified applicator. These alternatives were 2473 estimated to be less expensive than the proposed alternative. For private applicators, we estimate 2474 the cost of the minimum age of 16 to be a bout $83,000 annually, or about $120 for each of the 2475 estimated 690 adolescents applying RUPs, and fo r a minimum age of 18 but with a minimum age 2476 of 16 for family members to be about $634,000 a nnually, or about $920 per adolescent. Thus, on 2477 the basis of the cost per a dolescent protected, the proposal provides the greatest cost 2478 effectiveness even though it is more costly in total. 2479



### 4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators 2480

EPA is proposing new standards for recertification of both private and commercial applicators. 2481 The proposed recertification requ irements would establish a maxi mum duration of three years for 2482
certifications and set minimum standards for con tinuing education programs. Security standards 2483 discussed in Chapter 4.1.7 apply to recertification as well. 2484

Comm Recert-01: Commercial Applicator Rece rtification – Exams or Six CEUs for Core 2485 Recertification plus 6 CEUs for Each Cate gory, Three Year Recertification Interval 2486

The proposal establishes requirements for recertif ication of commercial applicators – either 2487 passing exams relevant to existing certifications or completing a specifi c number of continuing 2488 education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing comp etency. EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50 2489
minutes of educational contact time. For commer cial applicators, the pr oposed recertification 2490 training requirements are six CEUs for core certification and six CEUs per category of 2491 certification (Comm Recert-01), with recertification admi nistered by the states. 2492

The estimated cost of these proposals is about $6.5 million annually for commercial applicators. 2493 This estimate only includes costs to applicators, it does not include the costs to states of altering 2494 and administering recertifi cation at shorter interval. 2495

The Agency considered an alternative with the same recertification requi rements at five year 2496 intervals (Comm Recert-04) rather than three years. The esti mated annual cost is about $1.7 2497 million per year. This option is substantially lo wer in cost because most jurisdictions already 2498 meet or exceed the requirement. Only one state, Maine, has a recertifica tion period of six years; 2499 all others are five years or fe wer. While many states do not sp ecify requirements to recertify in 2500 core categories, most require a sufficient num ber of CEUs that, with some reallocation, 2501 applicators would face few ch anges to meet the requirements of this alternative. 2502*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 While substantially more expensive, the proposal o ffers substantially higher benefits as well. 2503 Maintaining competency necessities that a pplicators are knowledgeable about changing 2504 technology, product reformulations , new labeling and regulator y requirements, and other 2505 essential labeling information. Applicators also must be remi nded about personal safety and 2506 basic application principles (Anger, et al ., 2009). A three-year recertif ication period ensures that 2507 even those commercial applicators who dela y obtaining the required training receive new 2508 information and are reminded of safety protocols at a reasonable interval . Moreover, the same 2509 training requirement, concentrated into a three year period, permits more content and more rigor 2510 than would be obtained if spread over five years. The adva ntage of the proposals over the 2511
alternatives is that it ensu res a continuing level of compet ency among certified applicators by 2512 more frequent recertification, which w ill help to reduce th e risk of RUPs. 2513

Two other alternatives for commercial applicat or recertification were considered that would 2514 require passing an exam, wit hout the option of training or CEUs, over three years (Comm 2515 Recert-02) or five years (Comm Recert-05). EPA assumes that the option of exam is equivalent 2516 in effort to obtaining CEUs; therefore the estimat ed annual costs of these options are the same as 2517 the respective alternative allowing an exam or CEUs . These alternatives, which rely on an exam 2518 without the options of ce rtification by CEUs, have less flexibili ty for the certified applicators, 2519 and also impose an additional burden on the certifying authority, which would be required to 2520
hold exams. 2521

Private Recert-01: Exams or Six CEUs for Ge neral Recertification plus Three CEUs for Each 2522 Category, Three Year Recertification Interval 2523

The proposal is similar to that for commercial applicators, but with fewer CEUs required for 2524 category certification (six CEUs for general private applicator certification and three CEUs per 2525 category). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to be $13.6 million per year, which is 2526 approximately $30 per year per priv ate applicator. As with commerc ial applicators, the benefits 2527 are derived by maintaining the competency of private applic ators given changing technology, 2528 product reformulations, new labeli ng and regulatory requirements, and new practices to better 2529 control undesirable effects of pe sticide exposure. Applicators also must be reminded about 2530 personal safety and basic application principles. 2531

For private applicators, EPA considered requiri ng private applicators to obtain eight CEUs for 2532 general private applicator certification and an additional four hours of training per application 2533 method-specific category. If recertification woul d take place every three years (Private Recert2534 02), the estimated cost is about $22.4 million, or $50 per applicator per year, not including the 2535 cost of recertification in application-specific ca tegories. If the recert ification period would be 2536 every five years (Private Recert-05), the estimat ed cost is about $7.4 million, or $16 per year per 2537 private applicator. Finally, if six CEUs were requ ired to maintain general certification over five 2538 years (Private Recert-04), the cost is estim ated to be $3.5 million. Impacts would be 2539 concentrated, however, in fewer than 20 states. EPA selected a three-year recertification period 2540 over the five year option because of the benefits of more frequent training to maintain safety and 2541 competency and the lower CEU requirement because the benefits of more training do appear to 2542 justify the substantial increase in cost. 2543*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 

### 4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Comme rcial and Private 2544 

### Applicators 2545

The Agency is proposing changes to the requirements for hold ing the certifica tion exams and 2546 conducting training. These changes may impose co sts on states and othe r jurisdictions in 2547 administering exams or trainings or in approving CEUs for recertification. 2548

The Agency is proposing change s to the requirements for ho lding the exam and conducting 2549 training: that exam takers provi de identification for themselves, and that the exams be written, 2550 proctored, “closed book” exams. Three are multip le line item designations are for costing 2551 purposes, because initial and rece rtification exams, and for diffe rent periods of recertification 2552 (three vs. five years) were considered separately. 2553

There are substantial benefits to closed-book, pr octored exams. These standards ensure the 2554 security of the exams, reduced the burden on cert ifying authorities to update exams after security 2555 breaches, and limiting instances where candidates taking an exam can cheat. The value of 2556 setting federal standards for examin ation practices is that states, employers, and the public can be 2557 confident that all certified applicators have met a consistent standard with out having to verify the 2558 examination practices of each state. Certif ying authorities using EPA-developed exams or 2559 sharing a state-developed exam w ith another state have confiden ce that the exam administration 2560 would meet a consistent security standard. Confirming the identi ty of the test takers would 2561 ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requir ements. It would also help 2562 prevent persons from taking a cer tification exam or training or at tending a recertification training 2563 session in the place of the actual candidate, there by limiting certification to the candidates who 2564 are qualified. 2565

In addition to verifying the identity of test ta kers, the Agency is proposing to codify existing 2566 policy related to the security of the exam pro cess. These standards include requiring that the 2567 exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requi ring closed-book exams to ensure that no outside 2568
materials are used in the exam. These cha nges should also ensure that only competent 2569 applicators become certified. The Agency chose to codify the exam standards and identification 2570 of test takers because they were low cost, and no other way to ensure the security of 2571 examinations and training was identified. These requirements would help preserve the integrity 2572 of the exam process and give confidence that the security of EPA-developed exams is not 2573 compromised by varying administ ration standards across states. 2574
2575 Checking identification of the test takers (e.g., check ing their driver’s lice nse as they enter the 2576 examination room) would take a few seconds of both the state employee proctoring the exam and 2577 test takers’ time. These costs are very small a nd are incorporated into the proctoring cost (one 2578 hour proctoring time for one hour exam) for the st ate proctor and one hour of exam taking time 2579
for the test takers. 2580*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 

### 4.1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal 2581 

### Agencies for Submission, Approval and Main tenance of State Certification Plans 2582

There are several proposed new requirements th at are administrative in nature, which would 2583 include recordkeeping requirements for indus try, and requirements for state and federal 2584 governments to implement the changes in the rule. 2585

Dealers Maintain Records of Restrict ed Use Pesticide Sales (Admin-01) 2586

The EPA proposal Admin-01 would re quire pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, 2587 including the pesticide(s) purchas ed, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the 2588 sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a 2589 zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisd ictions are already doi ng these activities. 2590

Jurisdiction Administration (Admin-02 and -03) 2591

Changes to the regulations govern ing certification programs would re quire all jurisdictions, i.e., 2592 states, territories, and tribes, to rewrite thei r laws and regulations, a nd to update plans as 2593 necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirement s. While many states have 2594 implemented similar changes, no state has implem ented all revisions and EPA assumes that all 2595 jurisdictions would need to revi se their laws and plans. EP A estimates a total cost of $119 2596 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations, detailed under Admin-02 in Chapter 3. Since the 2597 potential regulatory requirement would allow ju risdictions two years to revise their laws, 2598 regulations, and plans, EPA assume s that jurisdictions would expend one-half of the cost in each 2599 of the two years. 2600

EPA estimates a total incremental cost of subm itting revised certificati on plans at $4 thousand. 2601 See Admin-03 in Chapter 3. 2602

Federal Administration (Admin-04 and -06) 2603

The proposed revisions would also necessitate changes to federal certif ication plans and the tribal certification plans admini stered by EPA. The total incremental cost of the latter is estimated at $4 thousand (Admin-06). Federal agen cies are expected to in cur a total incremental cost at $41 thousand (Admin-04).*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 5. Cost of Proposed Rule 2604

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the co st of proposed changes to the requirements for 2605 the certification of pe sticide applicators in 40 CFR 171. EP A estimates that the present value 2606 (PV) of the incremental cost of the proposed ru le over ten years to be $415 million, given a three 2607 percent discount rate. The annualized cost is about $47.2 million per year. Using a seven 2608 percent discount rate would have little effect in this case as most of the costs recur annually. 2609

Private applicators, as a group, would bear add itional costs of about $19.5 million per year, about 2610 41 percent of the total cost of th e proposed rule. Commercial a pplicators would be expected to 2611 bear costs of about $27.4 million per year. Stat es and other jurisdictions that administer 2612 certification programs would bear annualized costs of about $ 359,000 per year, but most of the 2613
state costs would be borne immedi ately after the rule is finalized as they modify their programs 2614
to follow the new federal rules. Those immediate costs of the proposed rule if it is implemented 2615 are estimated to be about $2.2 million, with subsequent incremental costs in administering the 2616 certification programs to be around $936,000 per year. 2617

The changes in the certification requirements woul d be unlikely to have an impact on jobs. Most 2618 private applicators are self-employed. The annualized incremental cost of obtaining and 2619 maintaining private certification would be about $30 per applicator, on av erage, and this would 2620 represent a small fraction of the cost of employing an applicator, even part time. The average 2621 annualized cost of obtaining and maintaining comme rcial certification woul d be less than $80 in 2622 all jurisdictions and is similarly a very small fraction of the cost of employing a part-time 2623 applicator. 2624

The changes are not expected to have a signif icant impact on a substantial number of small 2625 businesses. In most cases, incremental costs re present less than one percent of gross revenues 2626 for commercial enterprises or less than one per cent of total sales of agricultural products for 2627 farming enterprises. Incremental costs in a few states could exceed two percent of total sales of 2628 agricultural products for farms w ith sales less than $5,000 per year. The number of farms facing 2629 such impacts is likely to be quite small, how ever. Perhaps a fifth of the farms affected by 2630 proposed changes to the certifi cation requirements might also bear costs associated with 2631 proposed changes to the Wo rker Protection Standard. 2632



### 5.1 Overview 2633

The proposed Certification of Pesticide Applicator s rule consists of a number of requirements 2634 that would affect commercial and private applic ators; state and other government agencies; and 2635 pesticide dealers. Table 5.1-1 pr esents the estimated regional incr emental cost (RIC), that is, by 2636 state and jurisdiction, using a thre e percent discount rate. Vari ations in state cost depend on 2637 current state requirements and the number of certified applicators in each state. 2638*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 Table 5.1-1. Total Incremental Cost of Prop osed Requirements, by State or Jurisdiction

. 2639

State/Jurisdiction NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized RIC ($1,000) Alabama 4,391 499
Alaska 436 50 Arizona 4,482 510 Arkansas 19,300 2,198 California 27,110 3,085 Colorado 6,704 762 Connecticut 1,999 227 Delaware 2,149 246 Florida 10,141 1,154 Georgia 25,126 2,858 Hawaii 1,255 143 Idaho 1,798 203 Illinois 3,547 403 Indiana 7,835 891

Iowa 356 40 Kansas 8,287 943 Kentucky 21,186 2,412 Louisiana 6,503 740 Maine 1,748 199 Maryland 1,901 216
Massachusetts 282 31 Michigan 5,449 620 Minnesota 5,287 602 Mississippi 7,109 808 Missouri 21,428 2,439 Montana 3,129 357 Nebraska 16,193 1,843 Nevada 1,882 215 New Hampshire 223 25 New Jersey 1,987 226 New Mexico 1,559 177 New York 7,218 822 North Carolina 16,839 1,917 North Dakota 9,890 1,125 Ohio 15,362 1,747 Oklahoma 14,502 1,651 Oregon 2,172 247 Pennsylvania 16,283 1,853 Rhode Island 1,328 151 South Carolina 7,490 854 South Dakota 12,949 1,475 Tennessee 14,712 1,675*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Texas 8,390 955 Utah 3,507 399

Vermont 630 71 Virginia 3,035 345 Washington 16,992 1,933 West Virginia 767 87 Wisconsin 19,839 2,258 Wyoming 3,650 416 Puerto Rico 16,106 1,834 Other Jurisdictions 2,454 279 Federal Agencies 19 2
U.S. 414,928 47,227 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2640

The states with the highest incremental costs would include California, Georgia, Missouri, 2641 Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Kentucky. The main driv er in these states is the relatively large 2642 number of certified applicators. In California, commercial app licators would bear a relatively 2643 large proportion of the cost, in part because Ca lifornia would need to establish a new non-soil 2644 fumigation category and EPA anticip ates a large number of commer cial applicators would obtain 2645 certification. For the other states, the primary ch ange would be in the in itial certification of 2646 private applicators. 2647

States with the lowest incremental costs include Alaska and the New England states where there 2648 are relatively few certified applicators. Other low- cost states, such as Iowa and Virginia have 2649 state requirements that largely meet or exceed the proposed federal requirements. 2650



### 5.2 Methodology 2651

The cost of the proposed rule is largely the sum of the costs of the individual requirements as 2652 estimated in Section 3.3. However, there may be some interactions between the proposed 2653 requirements. In Chapter 3, EPA estimated the in creased labor cost if employers shift certain 2654 tasks from adolescent workers to adult workers, who presumably are paid a higher wage. In 2655 estimating the cost of the proposed rule, we also take into account the cha nges in the labor force 2656 and the differences in the opportunity cost of time when estimating the impact of new 2657 requirements, e.g. , initial certification. 2658

Where interactions occur, EPA’s methodology for estimating the cost of the proposed rule is 2659 similar to the methodology employed for estim ating the cost of individual potential 2660 requirements. In the first two steps, we estim ate the per-actor costs for the suite of proposed 2661 requirements and the associated baseline. Typica lly, the main actors are certified applicators, 2662 where private and commercial applicators are sepa rated into those obtaining initial certification 2663 and those pursuing recertificat ion. We also consider noncer tified applicat ors under their 2664 supervision. To account for the age restrictions, we further define actors within each of these 2665 groups by age: adults (18 years old and older), 16 and 17 year old adolescents, and adolescents 2666 under age 16. Other actors include state regulator s, who would have to revise regulations and 2667*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 develop examinations and/or tr aining programs, and state admi nistrators, who would have to 2668 oversee or proctor the trainings or examinations. Federal agencies, including EPA, will also bear 2669

some costs. 2670

As in Chapter 3, the third step ex trapolates the per-actor costs, ba seline and proposal, to the state 2671 level by multiplying by the number of actors with in each state or jurisdiction who would be 2672 affected by the proposed set of requirements. Ju risdictions include territo ries and tribal areas 2673 that operate certification programs. In Step 4, state level costs are estimated over a 10-year time 2674 horizon. It is at this step th at interactions with the minimu m age requirement may come into 2675 play, as adolescents who are cert ified before the requirement goes into effect would be allowed 2676 to continue to work as applic ators and pursue r ecertification. 2677

Subsequent steps are essentially id entical to those presented in S ection 3.3. The incremental cost 2678 of the proposed rule is calculated as the differe nce between the present va lue (PV) of baseline 2679 cost and the PV of the compliance cost. Stat e or jurisdictional cost s are summed to obtain 2680 national costs. Finally, we calcu late the annualized incremental co st of the proposed rule at the 2681
state and national levels. 2682

The next section presents the results of the analysis of co sts to private applicators and 2683 demonstrates the methodology for the case of th e private applicator obtaining an initial 2684 certification, if the proposed rule becomes regulation. The data required for the analysis are 2685 presented in Chapter 3. 2686



### 5.3 Private Applicator Costs of Proposed Rule 2687

Table 5.3-1 presents the requireme nts EPA is proposing that would impact private applicators. 2688 These include new or amended requirements for initial certification and recertification and 2689 requirements for training and communication with applicators under their supervision. Age 2690 restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and applicat ors under their supervision. In 2691 total, EPA estimates the cost of the proposed changes would be about $18.8 million per year or, 2692 on average, about $38.50 per year per certifie d private applicator, given around 490,000 private 2693 applicators. 2694*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 Table 5.3-1. Proposed Privat e Applicator Requirements. 2695
Regulatory Requirement Description

Private Cert-02 Exam or 12-hour training fo r private certification Private Cert-04 Add private aerial category and re quire exam or 4-hour tr aining for certification

Private Cert-10 Add private soil and non-soil fumigation categories and require exam or 4-hour training for
certification Private Cert-12 Add private pred ator control category, codifyi ng existing label requirements

Private Cert-15 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for certification

Private Recert-01 Within three years, exam or 6-hours of traini ng for private core comp etency and exam or 3- hours of training for category recertification

Private Recert-03 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for recertification

Private Sup-02 Private noncertified applicators must complete training or be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard or comple te commercial core exam Private Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertif ied applicators by certified private applicators Private Sup-05 Private noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors Private Age-02 Minimum age re quirement of 18 years old fo r certified private applicators Private Age-05 Minimum age requ irement of 18 years old for pr ivate noncertified applicators

As an example of how costs are computed, EPA pr esents the details of the cost calculation for 2696 the proposed initial certification re quirements for private applicator s. For the other components, 2697 including recertification, traini ng for and communication with supe rvised applicat ors, and labor 2698 costs, we only present the present value of costs over ten years. Details of the estimations are 2699 provided in Appendix B. 2700

5.3.1 Initial Certification, Private Applicators 2701

This section presents the method for calculating th e costs of the proposed suite of requirements. 2702 As an example, we present the costs to first tim e private applicators, who may be self-employed 2703 or employed on an agricultural establishment. The underlying data and assumptions can be 2704 found in Chapter 3.3. 2705

Step 1. Calculate the per-appli cator cost to each actor of the requirements under the current 2706 regulatory regime. Per-applicator costs will generally consist of the value of time to conduct 2707 required activities. This is calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the time spent multiplied by 2708 the frequency or probability that an actor will en gage in the activity. In the case of initial 2709 certification, the actor is the individual seeki ng certification who must prepare for an exam 2710 and/or obtain training as explained in Chapter 3.4.1. Because of the proposed age requirement 2711 (Chapter 3.4.5), however, we also di stinguish these individuals by age. 2712

Table 5.3-2 presents the baseline co sts that first-time private applic ators in selected states would 2713 incur if they were to become a certified appli cator, given the training requirements. These are 2714
states where the baseline cost differs from the co st under the proposal. Other states have initial 2715 certification requirements similar to the proposal, which is described in Step 2 of this example. 2716 Costs are calculated as the wage rate multip lied by the amount of time required to obtain 2717 certification and by the frequency of the action. See Chapter 3 for details. The wage rate 2718 depends on the age of the applicator. The time re quired for the states shown in Table 5.3-2 are in 2719 terms of a required training. All first-time certi fied applicators must go through this process. 2720*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 Table 5.3-2. Per-Applicator Baseline Cost for Initial Privat e Certification. 2721 Action Wage/price Training time Frequency Cost

Arkansas

Adults 51.96 4 1 207.84
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 4 1 124.70
< 16 Years Old 25.98 4 1 103.70 Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

Adults 51.96 2 1 103.92
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 2 1 62.35
< 16 Years Old 25.98 2 1 51.96 Mississippi

Adults 51.96 19 1 779.39
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 19 1 467.63
< 16 Years Old 25.98 19 1 389.69
Missouri

Adults 51.96 3 1 155.88
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 3 1 93.53
< 16 Years Old 25.98 3 1 77.94
Montana 1

Adults 51.96 7-12 1 376.70
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 7-12 1 226.02
< 16 Years Old 25.98 7-12 1 188.35
New York

Adults 51.96 42 1 2,182.28
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 42 1 1,309.37
< 16 Years Old 25.98 42 1 1,091.14
South Dakota 1

Adults 51.96 3-12 1 268.11
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 3-12 1 160.87
< 16 Years Old 25.98 3-12 1 134.05 Wyoming 2

Adults 51.96 2-6 1 301.36
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 2-6 1 180.82
< 16 Years Old 25.98 2-6 1 150.68 All other jurisdictions 3

Adults 51.96 12 1 623.51
16-17 Year Olds 31.18 12 1 374.10
< 16 Years Old 25.98 12 1 311.75 Source: EPA estimation. Adult wage rates are from BLS (2014a); training time from state regulations. 2722 Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2723

1 Montana and South Dakota offer the choice of training or exam (12 hour preparation), where the 2724 majority of applicators take the training. Per-applicat or cost is a weighted average of the cost of the 2725 two options. 2726

2 Wyoming offers the choice of a 6-hour training or a take-home exam (approximately 2 hours), where 2727 the majority of applicators take the training. Per-appl icator cost is a weighted average of the cost of 2728 the two options. 2729

3 All other jurisdictions require an exam, which EPA considers equivalent to the proposed training. 2730*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 Step 2. Calculate the per-applicator cost to each actor of the ac tivities under the proposed rule. 2731 Costs to prepare for an exam or take a training th at covers the proposed content are calculated in 2732 the same fashion, as shown in Chapter 3 (Private Cert-02). A training is expected to take about 2733 12 hours, as in the case of EPA’s training for prog rams the Agency administers. Preparing for an 2734 exam is assumed to require a similar investment in time. Costs for an adult are calculated to be 2735 $623.51. Under the proposal, only indi viduals at least 18 years of ag e would be certified (Private 2736 Age-02). 2737

Step 3. Calculate the state/jurisd iction baseline cost and cost of the proposed requirements. To 2738 obtain the yearly costs in each state to comply with current requirements and with the proposed 2739 regulation, we multiply the adjusted cost per actor by the number of affected actors in a state and 2740 sum across all types of actors: 2741

ܥܴ ௜,ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a 2742

where RC R,i

X t

is the state cost of the proposed set of requirements, R; X = B, P for baseline and 2743 proposed, i denotes the state or jurisdiction, and t the year; cost R,a represents the per-actor cost of 2744 the proposed set of requirements and N is the number of actors, as explained in Section 3.3. 2745

Table 5.3-3 presents the baseline state cost, RC R,i

B t , for t = 1, for first-time private applicators. 2746 In fact, this would be the baseline cost in a ll years. States noted in Step 1 are presented 2747 separately; all other jurisdictions, where require ments meet or exceed the proposed requirements, 2748 are aggregated. Per applicator costs are multipli ed by the number of applicators in each age 2749 group and summed. Adolescent app licators are likely to be few in number and many states have 2750 established minimum ages. Between 2008 and 2013, th e number of private certified applicators 2751 has averaged 34,039 and has been relatively stable. 2752

Table 5.3-3. Baseline costs, In itial Private Certification 2753

Jurisdiction Adult 16-17 Year Old < 16 Years Old RC R,i B
($1000)
Arkansas

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $207.84 $124.70 103.70

N
a 1,482 0.9 1.5

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N
a $308,019 $112 $156 $308 Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $103.70 $62.35 $51.96

N a, GA 1,667 1.7 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N GA $172,868 $106 $0 $173

N a, KY 2,567 4.8 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N KY $266,198 $299 $0 $267

N a, TN 401 1.3 2.0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N TN $41,584 $81 $104 $42 Mississippi

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $779.39 $467.63 $389.69

N a, MS 1,344 0 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N MS $1,047,364 $0 $0 $1,047
Missouri

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $155.88 $93.53 $77.94

N a, MO 1,628 0 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N MO $253,773 $0 $0 $254

Montana

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $376.70 $226.02 $188.35

N a, MT 257 1.4 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N MT $96,812 $316 $0 $97
New York

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $2,182 $1,309 1,091

N a, NY 244 2.1 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N NY $531,603 $3,142 $0 $535
South Dakota

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $268.11 $160.87 $134.05

N a, SD 2,147 1.3 2.0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N SD $575,632 $209 $268 $576 Wyoming

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $301.36 $180.82 $150.68

N a, WY 387 0.7 0

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N WY $116,626 $127 $0 $117
Other Jurisdictions

cost INIT CERT ,a

B $623.51 $374.10 $311.75

N a, total 21,807 55.8 36.8

cost INIT CERT ,a

B

x N OTHER $13,548,566 $20,594 $9,576 $13,579 U.S. Total, N a 33,934 68.6 31.8

cost INIT CERT,a B

x N
a $16,960,528 $20,594 $10,136 $16,995 Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2754

Baseline costs by state for initial certification are pr esented in the final column of the table. The 2755
baseline national cost for the initi al certification for first-time private applicators is estimated to 2756 be $17.0 million per year. This estimate is different from that estimated in Chapter 3 because it 2757 considers adolescent applicators, whose time is assumed to be less valuable. 2758

The costs of the proposed requirements for first-time private applicators, RC R,i

P , are presented in 2759 Table 5.3-4 for the first year of implementation, which is expected to be in the third year 2760 following finalization of the rule. The eight stat es shown in Table 5.3-4 w ould see cost increases 2761 due to more hours needed for training or to pr epare for exams. Due to the age restrictions 2762 (Private Age-02), no adolescents would be allowed to obtain certification. This restriction would 2763
contribute to the cost of initial certification, including in states that meet or exceed the proposed 2764 training requirements for certification, as adults , who are assumed to ha ve a higher opportunity 2765 cost of time, replace thos e certified as adolescents. 2766*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 Table 5.3-4. Proposed Initial Certification Cost s for First-Time Private Adult Applicators 2767
in Year 3. 2768

Jurisdiction Adult ( N
a ) State/Jurisdiction Cost
RC R,i P
($1000)

cost INIT CERT,a P

= $623.51 1

Arkansas 1,485 $926 Georgia 1,669 $1,041 Kentucky 2,572 $1,603 Tennessee 404 $252 Missouri 1,628 $1,015 Montana 258 $161 South Dakota 2,151 $1,341 Wyoming 388 $242 Other Jurisdictions 23,485 $15,236
U.S. Total 34,039 $21,817 Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2769

1 Costs in Mississippi and New York are assume d to remain at $779 and $2,182 per applicator, 2770 respectively. 2771

Step 4. Calculate the present va lue of state and national costs. Per-applicator costs for the 2772 baseline are expected to remain constant through time, that is, EPA assumes that states will not 2773 revise their certification requireme nts. As explained in Section 3.3, the equation for the PV of 2774
the cost stream is 2775

ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ ௜

஻ ൯ ൌ ܴܥ ோ ௜,ଵ

஻ ∙෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 2776

where r is the discount rate, and all other variables are as pr eviously defined. Given a three 2777 percent discount rate, the value of the summation on the right hand side is 8.79. 2778

Under the proposed rule, states will have two y ears to revise their requi rements and applicators 2779 would incur new costs beginning in the third year. The PV of the cost stream is, therefore 2780

ܸܲቀܴܥ

ோ ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܴܥ

ோ ௜,ଵ

஻ ∙ ෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଶ

௧ୀଵ ൅ ܴܥ ோ ௜,ଵ

௉ ∙෍ 1 ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଷ 2781

where the values of the summations are 1.97 and 6.82, respectively. 2782

State and jurisdictional costs are summed to obt ain national level costs for both the baseline and 2783 the proposed rule. Table 5.3-5 presents the PV of costs for first-time private applicators initial 2784
certifications. 2785*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 Table 5.3-5. Present Value of Costs for Priv ate Applicators, Init ial Certification. 2786

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 3,071 3,071 0 0
Alaska 47 47 0 0
Arizona 459 456 4 0 Arkansas 6,918 2,711 4,206 479 California 8,886 8,879 6 1 Colorado 2,149 2,145 4 0
Connecticut 112 112 0 0
Delaware 383 383 0 0 Florida 1,865 1,865 0 0 Georgia 7,433 1,523 5,910 673
Hawaii 170 170 0 0
Idaho 759 759 0 0 Illinois 5,882 5,871 10 1 Indiana 4,358 4,351 6 1 Iowa 4,777 4,762 15 2 Kansas 6,059 6,050 9 1 Kentucky 11,454 2,346 9,108 1,037 Louisiana 2,050 2,047 3 0
Maine 414 413 1 0 Maryland 589 588 2 0
Massachusetts 461 461 0 0 Michigan 2,720 2,720 0 0 Minnesota 3,663 3,652 11 1 Mississippi 9,202 9,202 0 0 Missouri 7,420 2,230 5,190 591 Montana 1,287 851 436 50 Nebraska 4,197 4,188 9 1
Nevada 264 264 0 0 New Hampshire 178 178 0 0 New Jersey 1,093 1,093 0 0 New Mexico 1,230 1,224 6 1 New York 4,713 4,698 14 2 North Carolina 2,571 2,566 4 1 North Dakota 5,056 5,056 0 0 Ohio 1,522 1,511 11 1 Oklahoma 8,557 8,546 11 1 Oregon 1,014 1,014 0 0 Pennsylvania 3,642 3,634 8 1
Rhode Island 35 34 0 0 South Carolina 4,009 4,009 0 0 South Dakota 10,274 5,062 5,212 593 Tennessee 1,801 368 1,433 163*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 Texas 16,597 16,577 20 2 Utah 1,530 1,528 2 0

Vermont 230 230 0 0 Virginia 4,728 4,724 4 0 Washington 3,666 3,662 3 0 West Virginia 432 431 1 0 Wisconsin 5,862 5,855 7 1 Wyoming 1,878 1,026 852 97 Puerto Rico 4,086 4,085 0 0
Other Jurisdictions 1 426 86 339 39 U.S. 182,181 149,323 32,858 3,740 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2787

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 2788

Step 5. Calculate the incremental cost of the pr oposed rule. Incremental costs are simply the 2789 difference between the cost of compliance with the proposed rule and the baseline compliance 2790

cost. 2791 ܸܰܲቀܴܥܫ

ோ ௜,௧

௉ ቁ ൌ ܸܲቀܴܥ

ோ ௜,௧

௉ ቁ െ 	ܸܲቀܴܥ

ோ ௜,௧

஻ ቁ 2792

The national PV of the incremental cost for in itial certificatio n is $32.9 million over 10 years, 2793 using a three percent discount rate (Table 5.3-5). Annualized costs are ca lculated to be about 2794 $3.7 million per year. Given that there are a bout 34,000 new private applicators certified each 2795 year, the average additional cost per applicator is about $110. For an individual, this would be a 2796 one-time cost. Note, however, th at about the same number of new applicators become certified 2797 each year. The incremental costs are heavily concen trated in eight states with low requirements, 2798 as discussed in Chapter 3.4.1. Costs are highes t in Kentucky, where current certification 2799 standards are less stringent th an those proposed (incremental costs are around $400) and over 2800 2,500 private applicators obtai n certification each year. 2801

5.3.2 Category Certification and Recer tification, Private Applicators 2802

The proposal establishes several new categories: aerial applica tion (Private Cert-04), soil and 2803 non-soil fumigation (Private Cert-10) , and predator control (Private Cert-12). The cost to private 2804 applicators of the new applicati on method-specific categories is si mply the sum of the cost of 2805
initial certification and of recerti fication (Private Recert-01). No adolescents are expected to 2806
obtain certifications in these ve ry technical application methods and so there are no interactions 2807
as was the case for initial co re certification. Table 5.3-6 pres ents the present value of the 2808 incremental cost over a ten-year time horizon as well as the annualized co st of certification and 2809
recertification of new categories. 2810

Table 5.3-6. Present Value of Costs for Priv ate Applicators, Category Certification. 2811

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 17 0 17 2
Alaska 0 0 0 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 Arizona 37 37 0 0
Arkansas 50 0 50 6
California 191 0 191 22
Colorado 38 0 38 4
Connecticut 2 0 2 0
Delaware 6 0 6 1
Florida 326 0 326 37 Georgia 21 0 21 2
Hawaii 12 0 12 1
Idaho 15 0 15 2
Illinois 13 0 13 1
Indiana 21 0 21 2

Iowa 63 57 6 1

Kansas 36 0 36 4 Kentucky 28 0 28 3
Louisiana 35 0 35 4
Maine 4 0 4 0 Maryland 70 0 70 8
Massachusetts 2 0 2 0 Michigan 21 0 21 2
Minnesota 33 30 3 0 Mississippi 24 0 24 3
Missouri 24 0 24 3

Montana 0 0 0 0
Nebraska 29 9 20 2
Nevada 77 77 0 0 New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 24 0 24 3
New Mexico 50 0 50 6
New York 34 0 34 4
North Carolina 60 0 60 7
North Dakota 762 759 3 0
Ohio 26 26 0 0
Oklahoma 42 0 42 5 Oregon 36 0 36 4 Pennsylvania 88 49 39 4
Rhode Island 0 0 0 0
South Carolina 65 0 65 7
South Dakota 18 0 18 2

Tennessee 15 0 15 2

Texas 57 0 57 6
Utah 64 64 0 0

Vermont 0 0 0 0 Virginia 63 0 63 7 Washington 56 0 56 6*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

13 West Virginia 13 0 13 1
Wisconsin 13 0 13 1 Wyoming 3 0 3 0
Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0
Other Jurisdictions 1 0 0 0 0 U.S. 2,681 1,097 1,576 179 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2812

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 2813

Total annualized cost of the new private category certification and recertifi cation is estimated to 2814 be about $179,000 per year. California and Florida see the highest costs, due to the number of 2815 applicators expected to obtain certificati ons in the new categor ies in those states. 2816

5.3.3 Noncertified Applicators und er the Supervision of a Pr ivate Certified Applicator 2817

A few proposed requirements would impact noncertifi ed applicators under th e direct supervision 2818 of certified applicators. They must show co mpetency (Private Sup-02) through completion of 2819 the core exam or be trained, which for ma ny would be covered by the proposed Worker 2820 Protection Standards; they must be provided gu idance by their supervisor (Private Sup-03); and 2821 they must have a means of immediate communicati on with the supervisor (Private Sup-05). As 2822 with the certified applicators, th e age restriction (Private Age-05) influences the impact of the 2823 other requirements through the wage rates that de termine the value of tim e spent in training. 2824

The present value of proposed a nd baseline costs associated with private noncertified applicators 2825 under the direct supervision are shown in Table 5. 3-7. Details of the calcu lations are provided in 2826 Appendix B. 2827

Table 5.3-7. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators under the Supervision of a 2828 Certified Applicator

. 2829

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 143 0 143 16
Alaska 5 0 5 1
Arizona 7 0 7 1
Arkansas 678 0 678 77
California 837 0 837 95
Colorado 200 199 1 0
Connecticut 12 12 0 0
Delaware 49 0 49 6
Florida 103 102 2 0 Georgia 645 0 645 73
Hawaii 6 0 6 1
Idaho 159 158 1 0
Illinois 984 982 2 0
Indiana 601 598 3 0*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 Iowa 0 0 0 0

Kansas 691 690 2 0 Kentucky 209 206 3 0
Louisiana 237 236 1 0
Maine 20 0 20 2 Maryland 166 165 1 0
Massachusetts 24 23 0 0 Michigan 286 284 2 0
Minnesota 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 490 489 1 0
Missouri 577 573 3 0

Montana 339 338 1 0 Nebraska 1,638 1,638 1 0
Nevada 15 15 0 0 New Hampshire 7 7 0 0 New Jersey 48 48 0 0
New Mexico 62 61 1 0
New York 299 297 2 0
North Carolina 906 905 2 0
North Dakota 607 0 607 69
Ohio 613 609 4 0
Oklahoma 295 0 295 34 Oregon 134 133 1 0 Pennsylvania 762 759 4 0
Rhode Island 3 0 3 0
South Carolina 129 0 129 15
South Dakota 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 130 0 130 15 Texas 1,054 1,047 7 1
Utah 30 0 30 3

Vermont 15 0 15 2 Virginia 143 141 2 0 Washington 457 0 457 52 West Virginia 18 17 1 0
Wisconsin 500 0 500 57 Wyoming 244 0 244 28
Puerto Rico 808 0 808 92
Other Jurisdictions 1 8 0 8 1 U.S. 16,388 10,731 5,657 644 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2830

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 2831

Nationally, the cost of proposed supervision requ irements, which are esse ntially the competency 2832 (training) requirements, are estimated to be about $644,000 per year. Twelve states or 2833 jurisdictions would bear the major ity of the costs because they ha ve the largest number of private 2834*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 applicators and, by assumption, the largest number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs 2835 under their supervision. 2836

5.3.4 Private Applicators Labor Costs 2837

The direct effect of the proposed age requirement s, Private Age-02 and 05, affect the cost of 2838 labor because older, typically hi gher paid individuals would be n eeded to replace adolescents. 2839
These costs were estimated in Section 3.3 and ar e not affected by other proposed requirements. 2840 The combined costs of the age restrictions are sh own in Table 5.3-8. Note that ‘baseline’ costs 2841 are not the result of any regulation or requirement as in other cases, such as initial certification. 2842 Further, the analysis captures on ly those labor costs estimated to arise from the employment of 2843 adolescents, not total costs of em ploying or utilizing private app licators. Hence, a state like 2844 Alabama, which does not allow applications of RUPs by anyone under 18 years of age, would 2845
have zero labor costs. 2846

Table 5.3-8. Incremental Labor Cost for Private Applicators

. 2847

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000)

Alabama 0 0 0 0
Alaska 6 4 2 0
Arizona 264 168 97 11 Arkansas 1,251 798 453 52 California 1,516 971 545 62
Colorado 492 314 178 20
Connecticut 0 0 0 0
Delaware 0 0 0 0
Florida 346 217 129 15 Georgia 1,140 731 408 46
Hawaii 25 16 9 1
Idaho 321 203 118 13 Illinois 1,579 1,020 559 64 Indiana 1,195 766 429 49

Iowa 396 262 134 15 Kansas 1,211 777 434 49 Kentucky 796 511 285 32
Louisiana 444 286 158 18
Maine 90 58 31 4 Maryland 287 184 103 12
Massachusetts 82 52 31 3 Michigan 612 386 225 26
Minnesota 277 183 94 11 Mississippi 532 339 193 22 Missouri 1,094 692 402 46

Montana 516 330 185 21*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 Nebraska 1,712 1,135 577 66
Nevada 40 25 14 2 New Hampshire 44 27 16 2 New Jersey 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 326 209 117 13
New York 617 392 225 26 North Carolina 1,127 724 403 46 North Dakota 1,009 646 363 41 Ohio 1,513 966 547 62 Oklahoma 1,009 645 364 41 Oregon 332 209 123 14 Pennsylvania 1,486 952 535 61
Rhode Island 20 13 7 1
South Carolina 287 182 105 12
South Dakota 169 112 57 7

Tennessee 712 453 259 30 Texas 2,336 1,489 847 96
Utah 183 117 66 8

Vermont 47 32 16 2 Virginia 461 294 166 19 Washington 838 539 299 34 West Virginia 169 107 62 7 Wisconsin 1,246 798 448 51 Wyoming 285 183 102 12
Puerto Rico 765 491 273 31
Other Jurisdictions 1 258 165 93 11 U.S. 31,463 20,172 11,291 1,285 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2848

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 2849

In total, EPA estimates the cost of the minimum age provisions to be about $1.3 million per year. 2850 As noted in Chapter 3, these estimates are heavily influenced by assumptions as to the number of 2851
adolescents certified or worki ng under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, the hours 2852 spent working with RUPs, and the difference in wage rates between adolescents younger than 18 2853
and those 18 and older. 2854

5.3.5 Recertification, Private Applicators 2855

Recertification requirements, like initial certif ication and supervision requirements, would 2856 interact with the minimum age requirements. Adolescents who obtain certification before the 2857 rule goes into effect could maintain their ce rtification and some ma y even go through the 2858 recertification process before turning 18. Thus, the same methodology is applied to account for 2859 the potential interaction; we consider each age group as a separate category of actors. 2860*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 Table 5.3-9 presents the present value of proposed and baseline compliance costs along with the 2861 incremental costs of the proposed private recertification requirements. Details of the estimation 2862 can be found in Appendix B. The PV of the na tional incremental cost is $120 million, or about 2863 $13.6 million annually. In twenty jurisdictions, applic ators bear little or no cost because current 2864 state requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements. In other jurisdictions, cost 2865 differences are largely a function of the number of applicators. 2866

Table 5.3-9. Present Value of Cost for Recertification, Pri vate Applicators. 2867

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 4,564 3,288 1,275 145
Alaska 147 147 0 0
Arizona 443 442 1 0 Arkansas 15,018 5,345 9,673 1,101 California 23,252 23,250 2 0 Colorado 4,681 3,012 1,669 190
Connecticut 595 595 0 0
Delaware 537 257 279 32 Florida 3,255 2,818 437 50 Georgia 13,862 4,933 8,929 1,016
Hawaii 754 754 0 0 Idaho 3,965 3,965 0 0 Illinois 19,749 19,747 1 0 Indiana 10,146 6,687 3,459 394 Iowa 20,180 20,178 2 0 Kansas 15,328 10,102 5,226 595 Kentucky 8,333 3,266 5,067 577 Louisiana 5,499 1,653 3,846 438 Maine 1,004 1,004 0 0 Maryland 2,494 978 1,517 173 Massachusetts 1,591 1,591 0 0 Michigan 17,446 17,446 0 0 Minnesota 13,813 8,888 4,926 561 Mississippi 7,386 2,629 4,758 541 Missouri 15,007 5,341 9,667 1,100 Montana 5,014 3,304 1,709 195 Nebraska 16,705 8,008 8,697 990
Nevada 340 340 0 0 New Hampshire 642 642 0 0 New Jersey 1,368 1,146 222 25 New Mexico 2,008 1,130 878 100 New York 6,214 6,214 0 0 North Carolina 13,331 9,605 3,726 424 North Dakota 9,087 6,548 2,540 289*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 Ohio 12,764 11,048 1,716 195 Oklahoma 13,624 8,979 4,645 529 Oregon 5,979 5,979 0 0 Pennsylvania 14,138 7,962 6,176 703
Rhode Island 150 99 51 6 South Carolina 4,657 2,623 2,034 232 South Dakota 11,193 3,983 7,210 821 Tennessee 8,170 3,202 4,968 565 Texas 55,011 55,004 7 1 Utah 1,264 1,263 0 0

Vermont 454 380 74 8 Virginia 5,050 5,050 0 0 Washington 11,555 10,003 1,552 177 West Virginia 1,053 911 142 16 Wisconsin 14,201 9,360 4,841 551 Wyoming 3,721 3,117 604 69 Puerto Rico 12,547 5,472 7,074 805
Other Jurisdictions 1 175 32 143 16 U.S. 439,463 319,719 119,743 13,629 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2868

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 2869

5.3.6 Total Costs, Private Applicators 2870

The total incremental cost of the proposed rule to private applicators is the sum of the five 2871 components: (1) initial certification costs, (2) category certif ication costs, (3) costs for 2872 noncertified applicators under the di rect supervision of a certified applicator, (4) additional labor 2873 due to minimum age requirements, and (5) recer tification costs. Tabl e 5.3-10 presents the 2874 compliance costs for the proposed requirements and the baseline for the states and jurisdictions 2875
and at the na tional level. 2876

Table 5.3-10. Total Incremental Cost of Propos ed Requirements for Private Applicators

. 2877

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 7,795 6,359 1,435 163
Alaska 205 198 7 1 Arizona 1,210 1,103 109 12 Arkansas 23,914 8,852 15,062 1,715 California 34,682 33,100 1,581 180 Colorado 7,560 5,670 1,890 214
Connecticut 721 719 2 0
Delaware 975 640 334 39 Florida 5,895 5,002 894 102 Georgia 23,101 7,187 15,913 1,810*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 Hawaii 967 940 27 3 Idaho 5,219 5,085 134 15 Illinois 28,207 27,620 585 66 Indiana 16,320 12,400 3,920 446 Iowa 25,421 25,279 142 16 Kansas 23,325 17,619 5,707 649 Kentucky 20,820 6,329 14,491 1,649 Louisiana 8,265 4,222 4,043 460 Maine 1,532 1,475 56 6 Maryland 3,606 1,915 1,693 193 Massachusetts 2,160 2,127 33 3 Michigan 21,085 20,836 248 28 Minnesota 17,786 12,753 5,034 573 Mississippi 17,634 12,659 4,976 566 Missouri 24,122 8,836 15,286 1,740 Montana 7,156 4,824 2,330 266 Nebraska 24,281 14,978 9,304 1,059
Nevada 736 721 14 2 New Hampshire 871 854 16 2 New Jersey 2,533 2,287 246 28 New Mexico 3,676 2,624 1,052 120 New York 11,877 11,601 275 32 North Carolina 17,995 13,800 4,195 478 North Dakota 16,521 13,009 3,513 399 Ohio 16,438 14,160 2,278 258 Oklahoma 23,527 18,170 5,357 610 Oregon 7,495 7,335 160 18 Pennsylvania 20,116 13,356 6,762 769
Rhode Island 208 146 61 7 South Carolina 9,147 6,814 2,333 266 South Dakota 21,654 9,157 12,497 1,423 Tennessee 10,828 4,023 6,805 775 Texas 75,055 74,117 938 106 Utah 3,071 2,972 98 11

Vermont 746 642 105 12 Virginia 10,445 10,209 235 26 Washington 16,572 14,204 2,367 269 West Virginia 1,685 1,466 219 24 Wisconsin 21,822 16,013 5,809 661 Wyoming 6,131 4,326 1,805 206 Puerto Rico 18,206 10,048 8,155 928
Other Jurisdictions 1 867 283 583 67

U.S. 672,176 501,042 171,125 19,477 Source: Summation of Tables 5.3-5 to 5.3-9. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2878

1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. 2879*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 Private applicators are estimated to face incremental costs of $19.5 million dollars annually due 2880 to changes in certification requirements. Give n that there are nearly 490,000 certified private 2881 applicators nationally, the averag e cost per applicator is approximately $39.80 per year. Per2882 applicator costs are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6. 2883

Table 5.3-11 presents the incremental cost by co mponent. Recertification costs comprise about 2884 70 percent of the total cost because of the large number of applicators obtaining or working 2885
toward recertification. Additional costs for in itial certification requirements make up about 19 2886 percent of the total incremental cost. The impacts of the supervision and minimum age 2887 requirements are each estimated to be about three to four perc ent of the total. 2888

Table 5.3-11. Incremental Cost, Private Certified Applicators, by Component. 2889 Component Annualized Incremental Cost ($1,000) Initial Certification 3,740 Application-Specific Categories 179 Supervision 644 Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 1,285 Recertification 13,629
Total 19,477 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2890



### 5.4 Commercial Applicator Costs of the Proposed Rule 2891

Table 5.4-1 presents the proposed requirements that affect commercial applicators. As with 2892 private applicators, these incl ude new certification categories, supervision requirements, and 2893 recertification requirements. Commercial a pplicators would also be subject to some 2894 recordkeeping requirements. Age restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and 2895 applicators under th eir supervision. 2896

The costs of the proposed requirements to comme rcial applicators are calculated using the 2897 methodology described above for priv ate applicators. For further details discussing the costs of 2898 the proposed option for each line item and th e proposed regulation see Appendices A and B. 2899

Table 5.4-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting Commercial Applicators. 2900
Regulatory Requirement Description

Comm Cert-01 Add comm ercial aerial category

Comm Cert-04 Add commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories

Comm Cert-05 Add commercial predator control category

Comm Cert-06 Identification check for commercial certification

Comm Sup-01 Commercial noncertified applicators must complete training, be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam Comm Sup-03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertifie d applicators by certified commercial applicators*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 Comm Sup-05 Commercial noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors Comm Sup-06 Commercial applicators keep records of noncertified applicators (for two years) Comm Age-02 Minimum ag e requirement of 18 years old fo r certified commercial applicators Comm Age-04 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for co mmercial noncertified applicators

Comm Recert-01 Exam or 6-hour training for commercial core competency an d category recertification, at least every three years

Comm Recert-03 Identifica tion check for commercial r ecertification (every three years, Industry cost)

There are very minor interactions between the minimum age requirements and the training 2901 requirement for noncertified applicators applyi ng RUPs under the dir ect supervision of a 2902 commercial applicator, we estimate slightly higher incremental cost s here. Given the presence of 2903 adolescents currently employed in pest control operations, who are presumably paid less than 2904 their adult counterparts, the base line costs are slightly lower than shown in Chapter 3. Table 5.4- 2905 2 presents the national annualized incremental cost for commercial applicators to comply with 2906 the proposed regulatory requirements. Nationall y, the proposed requirements are estimated to 2907 cost $23.6 million annually. 2908

Table 5.4-2. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Commercial 2909 Applicators 2910

State/Jurisdiction PV(RC P ) ($1,000) PV(RC B ) ($1,000) NPV(RIC) ($1,000) Annualized
RIC ($1,000) Alabama 14,049 11,138 2,911 331 Alaska 1,600 1,198 402 46 Arizona 24,569 20,228 4,341 494 Arkansas 9,115 5,007 4,108 468 California 149,087 123,633 25,454 2,897 Colorado 16,824 12,068 4,757 542 Connecticut 11,268 9,307 1,960 223 Delaware 9,799 8,026 1,773 202 Florida 82,452 73,268 9,185 1,045 Georgia 22,062 12,999 9,063 1,031 Hawaii 4,759 3,568 1,191 136 Idaho 22,373 20,772 1,601 181 Illinois 30,835 27,919 2,916 332 Indiana 48,261 44,401 3,860 439 Iowa 22,138 21,977 161 18 Kansas 20,727 18,236 2,491 284 Kentucky 34,697 28,187 6,510 742 Louisiana 11,754 9,356 2,398 273 Maine 3,916 2,261 1,654 189 Maryland 8,152 7,984 168 19 Massachusetts 6,443 6,231 211 24 Michigan 63,127 57,979 5,149 586 Minnesota 10,808 10,608 200 23*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 Mississippi 7,207 5,128 2,079 236 Missouri 23,605 17,608 5,997 683 Montana 5,203 4,444 759 86 Nebraska 27,944 21,117 6,827 777 Nevada 8,362 6,526 1,837 209 New Hampshire 1,017 847 170 19 New Jersey 12,417 10,714 1,703 194 New Mexico 5,753 5,288 464 52 New York 63,668 56,766 6,901 785 North Carolina 59,159 46,577 12,582 1,432 North Dakota 15,600 9,268 6,332 721 Ohio 43,441 30,396 13,046 1,485 Oklahoma 39,899 30,839 9,060 1,031 Oregon 18,311 16,353 1,958 223 Pennsylvania 50,179 40,698 9,481 1,079 Rhode Island 3,112 1,882 1,230 140 South Carolina 11,414 6,299 5,115 583 South Dakota 6,960 6,675 285 33 Tennessee 40,692 32,865 7,827 891 Texas 75,362 67,987 7,375 840 Utah 14,033 10,652 3,381 385 Vermont 1,343 855 488 55 Virginia 11,667 8,909 2,758 314 Washington 54,255 39,690 14,564 1,657 West Virginia 2,760 2,254 506 58 Wisconsin 34,145 20,162 13,983 1,592 Wyoming 6,538 4,746 1,792 204 Puerto Rico 18,546 10,637 7,908 901
Other Jurisdictions 1 4,481 2,693 1,788 203

U.S. 1,295,884 1,055,222 240,665 27,391 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2911

California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina , Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, and 2912 Wisconsin are estimated to see incremental costs to commercial applicators of over $1 million 2913 annually, but this is mostly due to the large num ber of commercial applicators in those states. 2914 Together, these eight states ac count for almost one-third of the 414,000 commercial applicators 2915 in the United States. The overall average co st per applicator of around $66.18 per year, although 2916
there is considerable variation across states and jurisdictions. Per-applicat or costs are discussed 2917
in more detail in Section 5.6. 2918

Table 5.4-3 presents the incremental cost to co mmercial applicators by component. The costs 2919 associated with initial certification are a function of the minimum age requirement; adolescent 2920 applicators are presumed to cost less to certify because they have a lower opportunity cost of 2921 time than adults. The impacts of the minimum ag e requirements in terms of additional labor cost 2922 are estimated to be half of the total cost, and are a function of assumptions made about 2923*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 uncertified applicators applyi ng RUPs. Data are extremely limited and EPA assumes that 2924 adolescents are typically employed for 40 hours pe r week for 16 weeks, which may be long for 2925 summer employment. Further, we assume that 50 percent of the adolescent’s time is spent 2926 handling RUPs, which is likely extremely high for youths who are probably working on golf 2927
courses or in residentia l, commercial, and public areas where RUPs would rarely be used. If 2928 only 25 percent of adolescents’ tim e is spent handling RUPs, the additional labor costs fall to 2929 $6.7 million annually and the total incremental cost to commercial applicators would be 2930 estimated at $17.1 million per year. Recertificati on costs and supervision costs each comprise 2931 about 20 percent of the total incremental cost. 2932

Table 5.4-3. Incremental Cost, Commercial Certified Applicators, by Component. 2933 Component Annualized Incremental Cost ($1,000)

Initial Certification 0 Application-Specific Categories 540 Supervision 7,269 Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 13,082 Recertification 6,500
Total 27,391 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2934



### 5.5 State and Governmental Agency Costs of the Proposed Rule 2935

The costs of the proposed requirements to state and government agencies are calculated simply 2936 as the sum of the components as there are no interactions. Ta ble 5.5-1 presents the proposed 2937 requirements that would affect st ates or other government entities. Admin-02, 03, and 04 are not 2938 strictly proposed requirements. However, any changes EPA makes in the existing requirements 2939 will obligate authorizing agencies to revise their plans, which must then be reviewed by EPA. 2940 Admin-04, 05, and 06 are costs borne by EPA. Several other requirements merely codify 2941 existing policies or label requirements ( e.g. , certification requirements for predator control). 2942 Some governmental agencies employ certified applicators; thus they would bear some part of the 2943 incremental costs to commercial applicat ors estimated in the previous section. 2944

Table 5.5-1. Proposed Requirements Affecting States, Other Jurisdictions, and Federal 2945 Agencies. 2946 Regulatory Requirement Description

Admin-02 Revise State regulations and Update plans Admin-03 Submit state plans
Admin-04 EPA review of Stat e and Federal Agency plans Admin-06 Revise EPA administered tribal plans Comm Cert-01 Develop/Adapt commercial aerial category exam; ID check and proctor exams Comm Cert-04 Develop commercial soil and non-soil fumigation categories; ID check and proctor

exams Comm Cert-05 Commercial predator c ontrol category exam (codification) Private Cert-02 Develop/Adapt private certification training and/or exam*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 Private Cert-04 Develop/Adapt priv ate aerial category exam/training Private Cert-10 Develop/Adapt private soil and non-soil fumigation categories exam/training
Private Cert-12 Private predator control category exam (codification)
Private Cert-15 ID Check and Proctor/Administ er private certification exams/trainings
Comm Recert-03 ID Check and Pr octor commercial recertification
Private Recert-03 ID Check and Proctor private recertification

Table 5.5-2 presents the estimated costs to gove rnment entities other than EPA. The two key 2947 components of these requirements are (1) states, territories, and other ju risdictions, along with 2948 several federal agencies, must re vise regulations and certification plans and (2) administer exams 2949 or trainings to certify applicator s, both commercial and private. Costs for the former would be 2950 incurred immediately after the ru le is finalized; EPA anticipates the process would take about 2951 two years. The administration costs occur as the new requirements are implemented and would 2952 be on-going. See Chapter 3 and Appendix A for details. 2953

Table 5.5-2. Total Incremental Cost to Gove rnment Entities of Proposed Requirements 2954

State/Jurisdiction PV(RIC) Revise &
Others 1
($1,000) PV(RIC)
Administer ($1,000) Total Annualized
RIC ($1,000)
Alabama 41 4 5
Alaska 27 0 3
Arizona 31 1 4
Arkansas 50 80 15
California 56 19 8
Colorado 50 7 6
Connecticut 37 0 4
Delaware 41 1 5
Florida 46 16 7 Georgia 46 104 17
Hawaii 37 0 4
Idaho 60 3 7
Illinois 46 0 5
Indiana 46 9 6

Iowa 37 16 6

Kansas 60 29 10 Kentucky 37 148 21
Louisiana 56 6 7
Maine 37 1 4 Maryland 37 3 4
Massachusetts 37 1 4 Michigan 46 6 6
Minnesota 37 16 6 Mississippi 46 8 6
Missouri 50 95 16

Montana 27 13 5
Nebraska 46 16 7*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 Nevada 31 0 4 New Hampshire 37 0 4 New Jersey 37 1 4
New Mexico 41 2 5
New York 37 5 5
North Carolina 50 12 7
North Dakota 37 8 5
Ohio 27 11 4
Oklahoma 50 35 10 Oregon 50 4 6 Pennsylvania 27 13 5
Rhode Island 37 0 4
South Carolina 37 5 5
South Dakota 50 117 19

Tennessee 50 30 9

Texas 46 31 9
Utah 27 1 3

Vermont 37 0 4 Virginia 37 5 5 Washington 50 11 7 West Virginia 41 1 5
Wisconsin 37 10 5 Wyoming 37 16 6
Puerto Rico 31 12 5
Other Jurisdictions 83 0 9 Federal Agencies 19 0 2

U.S. 2,202 936 359 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2955

1 Includes all requirements in Table 5.5-1 except Priv ate Cert-15, Comm Recert-03, and Private Recert-03

The annualized cost to governme nt entities including EPA, a ssuming a three percent discount 2956 rate, is estimated to be about $359,000. As shown in Table 5.5-2, Column 2, revisions to state 2957 plans and certification programs, including developm ent of new application-specific categories, 2958 is likely to cost about $2.2 million over the first tw o years after the rule is finalized. The cost per 2959 governmental entity is around $36,700, with a dozen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, 2960 Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, 2961 Tennessee, and Washington) facing costs of around $50,000-60,000 because they must develop 2962 multiple new categories. Costs for administer ing the certification pr ogram under the proposed 2963 requirements (Column 3) would most affect the seven states that currently certify private 2964 applicators by training. This may overstate costs. The new requi red content is anticipated to 2965 take about 12 hours of training, bu t some of these states currently offer an option for exam. 2966 Incremental costs are estimated assuming that th e states continue to offer training and the 2967 applicators continue to choose tr aining instead of exam. State costs could be lower if more 2968 applicators opt for exams as the state would not need to provide trainers for as many sessions. 2969*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

26 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (P.L. 104-4) requires Federal 2970 agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on Stat e, local, and tribal governments 2971 and the private sector. In gene ral, Title II mandates especially rigorous economic analysis for 2972 rules imposing high costs on either the public or the private sector, a nd it directs energetic 2973 consultation with small governments prior to acti ons that may significantly or uniquely affect 2974 them. Under UMRA, an agency must generally prepare a written statement, including a benefit2975 cost analysis, for proposed and final rules w ith “Federal mandates” that may result in 2976 expenditures by State, local, and trib al governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 2977 $100 million or more in any one year. This proposal does not result in expenditures of this 2978 amount, but EPA has prepared this benefit-cost an alysis to better inform the Agency’s decision2979 making process. 2980



### 5.6 Impact on Employment 2981

Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job 2982 creation and employment. Labor is an important input into production and ch anges in the cost of 2983 labor may induce farms and firms to adjust employment levels. If farms and commercial 2984 pesticide services bear the cost of changes in certification requirement, by, for example, paying 2985 for training or allowing employees to prepare for exams during working hours, there would be an 2986 increase in the cost of empl oying a certified applicator and, potentially, a reduction in the 2987 demand for certified applicators. On the other hand, if th e applicator bears the cost of changes in 2988 certification requirements, becau se training and exams are take n outside working hours as a 2989 means of increasing skills and employment opportunities, increased costs of obtaining and 2990 retaining certification may lead to a reducti on in the supply of certified applicators. 2991

Thus, an important consideration is the impact the revisions to the Certification requirements 2992 have on employment. The magnitude of the incremen tal per-applicator cost, relative to the cost 2993 of employment or return to employment, provides a meas ure by which EPA can judge the 2994 impacts on jobs. Tables 5.6-1 and 5.6-2 presen t the estimated annual cost for private and 2995 commercial applicators for each state (from Tables 5.3-10 and 5.4-2), the total number of 2996 applicators, and the aver age cost per applicator. 2997

Table 5.6-1. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Private Applicators. 2998

Jurisdiction Annualized RIC,
Private ($1,000) Number of Private Applicators Cost per Private Applicator Alabama 163 5,963 $ 27.34 Alaska 1 89 $ 11.24 Arizona 12 473 $ 25.39 Arkansas 1,715 20,997 $ 81.68 California 180 18,601 $ 9.68 Colorado 214 6,049 $ 35.38 Connecticut 0 564 $ -

. Delaware 39 746 $ 52.26*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 Florida 102 4,044 $ 25.22 Georgia 1,810 19,679 $ 91.98 Hawaii 3 444 $ 6.75 Idaho 15 3,613 $ 4.15 Illinois 66 17,297 $ 3.82 Indiana 446 13,004 $ 34.30 Iowa 16 22,977 $ 0.70 Kansas 649 14,939 $ 43.44 Kentucky 1,649 13,304 $123.95 Louisiana 460 7,616 $ 60.40 Maine 6 1,175 $ 5.11 Maryland 193 3,320 $ 58.13 Massachusetts 3 1,130 $ 2.66 Michigan 28 7,662 $ 3.65 Minnesota 573 17,359 $ 33.01 Mississippi 566 10,941 $ 51.73 Missouri 1,740 21,127 $ 82.36 Montana 266 6,291 $ 42.28 Nebraska 1,059 21,818 $ 48.54 Nevada 2 296 $ 6.75 New Hampshire 2 502 $ 3.99 New Jersey 28 1,768 $ 15.84 New Mexico 120 2,702 $ 44.41 New York 32 7,051 $ 4.54 North Carolina 478 16,251 $ 29.41 North Dakota 399 11,680 $ 34.16 Ohio 258 14,803 $ 17.43 Oklahoma 610 13,858 $ 44.02 Oregon 18 4,278 $ 4.21 Pennsylvania 769 18,107 $ 42.47 Rhode Island 7 186 $ 37.57 South Carolina 266 6,477 $ 41.07 South Dakota 1,423 16,694 $ 85.24 Tennessee 775 10,927 $ 70.93 Texas 106 43,201 $ 2.45 Utah 11 1,663 $ 6.61 Vermont 12 562 $ 21.35 Virginia 26 6,395 $ 4.07 Washington 269 13,817 $ 19.47 West Virginia 24 1,277 $ 18.79 Wisconsin 661 13,886 $ 47.60 Wyoming 206 4,655 $ 44.26 Puerto Rico 928 16,728 $ 55.48 Other 67 333 $201.00

U.S. 19,477 489,317 $39.80*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent di scount rate. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 2999

The average cost per private applicator across the United States is estimated to be about $39.80 3000 per year (Table 5.6-1). There is substantia l variation across states, however. Average 3001 incremental cost per applicator is estimated to be less than $10 per year in 17 states while 3002 applicators in five states – Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mi ssouri, and South Dakota – are 3003 expected to bear incremental cost of over $80 per year. The estimated cost to applicators in other 3004 jurisdictions such as tribes and Pacific Islands are estimated to be $195 per year, but this is an 3005 artifact due to lack of specific information a bout current certification requirements in these 3006 territories. EPA assumed that these jurisdicti ons maintained the minimum standards in all 3007 components for the certificati on of private applicators. 3008

The average cost per applicator can be influenced by the turnover in app licators. For example, 3009 Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee have very similar requirements for certification and 3010 recertification, but the average pe r-applicator cost in Kentucky is higher because they have a 3011 higher proportion of first-time applicators ob taining certification, who face much higher 3012 incremental costs than do applicators obtaini ng recertification. Compar ed to current state 3013 requirements, the proposed certification require ments would increase th e cost of initial 3014 certification in those states by a bout $400. Two things should be note d. Initial cert ification is a 3015 one-time cost, not an annual cost, an d this increase in cost largely br ings the cost of certification 3016
in these states in line with the co st to applicators in other states. 3017

As to the impact on jobs, it is important to note th at most private applicators are self-employed as 3018 the owner or operator of a farm or livesto ck operation. Some operations, however, would 3019 employ a pesticide applicator and he or she may n eed to be certified. A closer examination of 3020 the incremental costs to Kentucky applicators may be revealing. As an example, consider a farm 3021 in Kentucky that may need to use a RUP a nd therefore needs to have a certified private 3022 applicator. Let us assume that there is a 20 pe rcent chance over a ten-year time horizon that an 3023
initial certification is needed wh ile 80 percent of the time the holder may need recertification. 3024 This represents the likelihood of turnover in em ployees, where newly certified applicators in 3025 Kentucky make up nearly 20 percent of the total number of applicat ors. For a farm that does not 3026 need certification in one of the new applicatio n-specific categories, the incremental costs are 3027 estimated to be about $108 per year . The additional cost in the y ear an initial certification is 3028 required would be about $400, but maintaining th e certification in Kent ucky would cost about 3029 $54 per year more than is curren tly the situation. If an app lication-specific certification is 3030 needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumiga ting grain in storage, the cost of a certified 3031 applicator is estimated to be about $128 per year. According to wage data from BLS (2014a), a 3032 private applicator earns a bout $38.83 per hour and costs the employer about $51.96 per hour, 3033 including non-monetary benefits. Employing an applicator 40 hours per week for a six-month 3034 growing season would therefore cost about $54,000. An incremental change in certification 3035 costs of $130 represents about 0.25 percent of the cost of empl oying the applicator, which is 3036 unlikely to affect the employment decision. For the applicator, a 40-hour week for six months 3037 implies a take-home pay of just over $18,600. The in creased cost of change s in certification and 3038 recertification requirements represents less than one percent of the likely returns to a typical 3039 salary for a certified applicator. Given this an alysis, EPA concludes that the revisions to the 3040 Certification requirements woul d not negatively impact employme nt for private applicators. 3041*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29 Table 5.6-2. Annualized Per-Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Commercial Applicators. 3042

Jurisdiction Annualized RIC,
Commercial ($1,000) Number of
Commercial Applicators Cost per
Commercial Applicator Alabama 331 4,102 $ 80.70 Alaska 46 665 $ 69.17 Arizona 494 7,105 $ 69.53 Arkansas 468 4,332 $ 108.04 California 2,897 36,236 $ 79.95 Colorado 542 3,899 $ 139.00 Connecticut 223 2,810 $ 79.36 Delaware 202 1,967 $ 102.71 Florida 1,045 17,005 $ 61.45 Georgia 1,031 11,178 $ 92.23 Hawaii 136 1,267 $ 107.34 Idaho 181 4,001 $ 45.24 Illinois 332 15,330 $ 21.66 Indiana 439 10,125 $ 43.36 Iowa 18 13,401 $ 1.34 Kansas 284 6,023 $ 47.15 Kentucky 742 12,929 $ 57.39 Louisiana 273 4,498 $ 60.69 Maine 189 1,613 $ 117.17 Maryland 19 4,556 $ 4.17 Massachusetts 24 2,187 $ 10.97 Michigan 586 14,816 $ 39.55 Minnesota 23 10,225 $ 2.25 Mississippi 236 3,045 $ 77.50 Missouri 683 7,647 $ 89.31 Montana 86 2,411 $ 35.67 Nebraska 777 9,711 $ 80.01 Nevada 209 1,691 $ 123.62 New Hampshire 19 1,262 $ 15.05 New Jersey 194 9,037 $ 21.47 New Mexico 52 2,377 $ 21.88 New York 785 18,904 $ 41.53 North Carolina 1,432 18,373 $ 77.94 North Dakota 721 5,316 $ 135.62 Ohio 1,485 12,968 $ 114.51 Oklahoma 1,031 10,539 $ 97.82 Oregon 223 4,873 $ 45.76 Pennsylvania 1,079 16,127 $ 66.91 Rhode Island 140 659 $ 212.34 South Carolina 583 5,762 $ 101.19 South Dakota 33 5,757 $ 5.73*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 Tennessee 891 14,378 $ 61.97 Texas 840 19,194 $ 43.76 Utah 385 4,318 $ 89.16 Vermont 55 994 $ 55.36 Virginia 314 7,484 $ 41.96 Washington 1,657 15,713 $ 105.46 West Virginia 58 1,987 $ 29.18 Wisconsin 1,592 12,909 $ 123.32 Wyoming 204 1,910 $ 106.81 Puerto Rico 901 5,889 $ 153.01 Other 203 2376.5 $ 85.42

U.S. 27,391 413,879 $66.18

As shown in Table 5.6-2, we estimate the average incremental cost per applicator for commercial 3043 certification to be about $62 pe r year, ranging from $1.34 in Iowa to about $212 per year in 3044 Rhode Island. Eight states are expected to s ee incremental costs of over $100 per year. Note, 3045 however, that this cost includes the cost of supervising noncertifie d applicators, which would not 3046 be a consideration in an employer’s decision to hire a certified applicator . Absent supervision 3047 costs, the incremental cost per applicator is $10 0 in or less in all juri sdictions, even accounting 3048 for the possibility of obtaining ce rtification in one of the new, application specific categories. 3049 The unloaded wage rate for comm ercial applicators is $14.82 pe r hour while the loaded wage 3050 rate is $21.49 per hour, according to BLS data (2014a). Even a ssuming part-time employment of 3051 about six to eight months, a commercial applicator would cost an employer around $22,300 to 3052 $29,200 per year. An incremental cost of $100 pe r year due to the rule would be 0.3 to 0.5 3053 percent of employment costs. The applicat or’s take-home pay would range from $7,700 to 3054 $12,450 for six to eight months and an incrementa l cost of $100 per year would represent 0.8 to 3055 1.3 percent of his or her salar y. It is unlikely that such modest changes would impact 3056 employment. 3057



### 5.7 Potential Impacts on Small Businesses 3058

This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the requirements for the 3059 certification of pesticide applicat ors may have on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 3060 (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Bu siness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 3061 (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulator s to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, 3062 including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments. In some instances, when 3063 significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, agencies are 3064 also required to examine regul atory alternatives that may re duce adverse economic effects on 3065 significantly impacted small entities. 3066

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 3067 economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 3068 incremental compliance costs of th ree percent or more of annual re venue as significant, costs less 3069 than one percent of annual revenue as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of 3070 revenue as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one pe rcent of annual revenue, 3071*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 EPA considers both the number of significantly affected small fi rms and their proportion of all 3072
affected small firms to determine if a substant ial number of small firms would be impacted. 3073

Consistent with a previous an alysis on the farm sector (W yatt, 2008), we set the following 3074 thresholds at which the number of impacted enti ties is not considered “substantial” for impacts 3075 greater than one per cent of annual sales: 3076

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affect ed, provided the number represents less 3077 than 30 percent of all small entities; 3078

 Between 100 and 1,000 small entities may be affected, provided the number 3079 represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or 3080

 More than 1000 small entities may be aff ected, but the number represents less than 3081 ten percent of all small entities. 3082

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, or if impacts cannot be quantified, the thresholds 3083
at which EPA concludes a substantial number of small entities would not be affected are as 3084
follows: 3085

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affect ed, provided the number represents less 3086 than 20 percent of all small entities; 3087

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but acc ount for less than ten percent of all 3088 small entities; or 3089

 More than 1000 small entities may be aff ected, but the number represents less than 3090 five percent of all small entities. 3091

For firms employing commercial applicators, we utilize lower threshol ds for the number of 3092 impacted small entities considered substantial because there are fewer firms than there are farms. 3093 For impacts greater than one per cent of gross revenues, the number of impacted entities is not 3094
considered substantial if: 3095

 Fewer than 20 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less 3096 than 30 percent of all small entities; 3097

 Between 20 and 200 small entities may be a ffected, provided the number represents 3098 less than 20 percent of all small entities; or 3099

 Between 200 and 1000 small entities may be affected, provided the number 3100 represents less than ten percent of all small entities. 3101

To determine the magnitude of any potential ad verse impact, the annualiz ed incremental costs on 3102 a per-company basis is compared to the annual revenue for small businesses to develop cost-to3103
sales ratios. 3104

In the next section, we explain the methodology fo r estimating the average cost per entity of the 3105 proposed rule. Section 5.7.2 estimates the per-en tity cost for small businesses (farm) employing 3106 or operated by private applicators. We also present a profile of the affected industry, including 3107 estimates of per-entity revenues a nd calculate the impacts. In S ection 5.7.3, we present the same 3108
information for small business em ploying commercial applicators. 3109

Based on this analysis, EPA certifies that there woul d not be a significant impact to a substantial 3110 number of small businesses. Agricultural esta blishments may be owned or operated by private 3111*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 certified applicators or may employ private certif ied applicators. Average impacts to small crop 3112 producing enterprises, those making less than $750,000 in annual sales of agricultural products, 3113 are estimated to be around 0.1 percent of annual sales. Even in the most heavily impacted 3114 regions, the estimated impacts on most small agricu ltural operations are less than one percent of 3115 average annual sales. Small entities with commercial applicators, including agricultural 3116 pesticide services, extermination services, a nd landscaping services, are estimated to face 3117 impacts of 0.2 percent or less of annual revenue. 3118



### 5.7.1 Methodology 3119

The basis for this analysis is the results from Section 5.6, cost per applicator. The methodology 3120 requires the determination of th e number of applicators (certifie d and noncertified applicators 3121 under the direct supervision) for representative entities, and the im pacts are measured in terms of 3122
the incremental cost to small entitie s relative to their sales revenues. 3123



### 5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments 3124

Private applicators are largely employed by or op erate establishments in agricultural production. 3125 EPA has identified a number of specific types of establishments. The SBA specifies a revenue 3126 threshold to distinguish small entities, as shown in Table 5.7-1. 3127

Table 5.7-1. Private Applicator Establishment NAICS Codes with Small Business 3128 Thresholds (Annual Revenue) 3129

Farming Sector NAICS Code Large Business

Threshold Crop Farming 111 $750,000 Animal Farming 112 $750,000
Feedlots 112112 $7,500,000
Source: SBA, 2014 3130

Impacts could differ across these types given diff erent pest problems and, therefore, different 3131 certification needs. Within crop farming, producer s of field crops such as soybean and grain 3132 farmers, for example, may require an aerial cert ification and/or a cer tification for commodity 3133 (non-soil) fumigation. Nut, fruit, and vegetable farms may need a soil fumigation certification. 3134 While many farms produce multiple types of crops , generally speaking, a small farm would be 3135 unlikely to need more than one application-sp ecific certification. The proposed rule would 3136 impose similar training or exam requirements for each category certification. Impacts on 3137
individuals and individual entities are more likely to be a function of the state or region, given 3138 the variability in current certification requirements. 3139

Profile of Private Applicator Establishments 3140

The National Agricultural Statistic s Service (NASS) of the Depart ment of Agriculture conducts a 3141 census of agriculture every five years. A fa rm is defined as “any place from which $1,000 or 3142 more of agricultural product were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold, during 3143*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 the year of the census (NASS, 2014c).” Accord ing to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 3144 2014c), there are over 2.1 million farms in th e United States, including about 430,000 places 3145 with less than $1,000 in total sales of agricultura l products. Excluding the latter places, which do 3146 not strictly meet the definition of ‘farm’ and, moreover, are extr emely unlikely to utilize RUPs, 3147
there are between 1.5 and 1.6 million farms classi fied as small by the SBA criterion. The 3148 publicly available Census data reports that about 76,000 farms have a nnual revenue between 3149 $500,000 and $999,999, whereas the SBA criterion for a small farm is sales less than $750,000. 3150 We therefore have a range for farms and average revenue. Revenue includes sales of agricultural 3151 products and government payments, but does not in clude farm-related income, such as crop and 3152 livestock insurance payments, rental income, and income from agricultural services. 3153

To better understand the impacts and the distribut ion of impacts on small farms, EPA identifies 3154 three categories of small farms. We define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales 3155 between $1,000 and $10,000, medium-small farms as those with annual sales between $10,000 3156 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. 3157 Table 5.7-2 provides the distribut ion of small crop and animal farms across these various 3158 categories. The table also pr ovides similar data from the 2007 Ce nsus of Agriculture (NASS, 3159 2008b), for which a special tabulation distinguis hed farms with annual revenue of $750,000 or 3160 less. The number of small farms and averag e revenues for each category are consistent over 3161
time. 3162

Table 5.7-2. Number and Average Revenue of Small Farms. 3163

All Small

Farms 1 Small-Small ($1,000 - $10,000/year) MediumSmall ($10,000 - $100,000/year) LargeSmall ($100,000 - $750,000/year)

2012, Number of Farms 1,521,271- 1,598,833 716,505 567,438 237,328- 314,890

Average Revenue $52,775- $85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948- $359,877 2007, Number of Farms 1,622,838 771,855 566,898 284,085 Average Revenue $67,093 $4,072 $34,182 $301,182
Source: USDA NASS, 2008b and 2014c. 3164

1 The criterion for small farm is that sales are le ss than $750,000 per year. The lower bound is for 3165 farms with sales less than $500,000 and the upper bound includes farms with sales less than 3166 $1,000,000. Does not include operations with less than $1,000 in total sales. 3167

Not all farms utilize pesticides every year, how ever; thus some farms may not need a private 3168 applicator. EPA obtained a speci al tabulation of data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture to 3169 identify those farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2008b). The likelihood that a farm will use 3170 pesticides is inversely related to size; around eighty percent of large and large-small farms use 3171 pesticides while only about 25 percent of small- small farms use pesticid es. Overall, about 53 3172 percent of small farms used pesticides in 2007. Assuming a similar proporti on used pesticides in 3173 2012, about 820,000 small farms might be affected by this rule. Use of RUPs will be even 3174 lower. According to proprietary market data, RUPs account for less than 20 percent of pesticide 3175 treatments, by acreage. Data of use by farm is not available, however. Many farms, even small 3176 farms, use pesticides occasionally and may, theref ore, obtain and maintain certification in order 3177*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

34 to have the capacity to use a RUP if needed. Thus, EPA assumes that most small farms would be 3178 affected by changes to the certific ation requirements at some point. 3179

Costs per Small Entity, Private Applicators 3180

In Section 5.6, EPA estimated the total incremental cost to private applicat ors of changes in the 3181 Certification requirements would average $38.50 per private applicator per year. This includes 3182 the costs associated with requirements for cer tification, recertifica tion, and for noncertified 3183 applicators under the direct supe rvision of the certifie d applicator. This cost per private 3184 applicator is also a reasonable estimate of the cost per small entity, as it would represent the 3185 owner/operator of a small farm or animal ope ration who may, at least occasionally, employ or 3186 use a family member to apply a pesticide under his or her supervision. See Table 5.6-1. 3187

We also considered, in more detail, a farm in Kentucky, which has the highest average estimated 3188 cost per applicator, that may n eed to use a RUP and therefore needs to employ a certified private 3189 applicator. A similar scenario could describe a small farm where the owner or operator is the 3190 certified applicator, but turnover in ownership is likely to be much lower than the 20 percent 3191 assumed for the employment scenario. A ten percent likelihood of obtaining an initial 3192 certification is still highly conser vative, given that a generation may be 20 to 30 years. For a 3193
farm that does not need certifi cation in one of the new applic ation-specific categories, the 3194 incremental costs are estimated to be about $102 pe r year. If an applica tion-specific certification 3195 is needed, for example, non-soil fumigation for fumi gating grain in storage, the cost of a certified 3196 applicator is estimated to be about $157 per year. If the fa rm also has someone noncertified, 3197 whether a family member or employee, who appl ies RUPs under the direct supervision of the 3198 owner/operator, the incremental cost for tr aining and other supervisory requirements are 3199 expected to cost another $20 per ye ar. Note that the overall average cost per private applicator in 3200 Kentucky was estimated to be $125 per year. 3201

Impacts per Small Entity, Private Applicators 3202

Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small farms and the revenues of these farms, 3203 EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of an nual sales revenue. Results are shown in Table 3204 5.7-3. Note that it is highly unlikely that a small-small operation would need to obtain 3205
certification in one of the new application-specific categories (aerial application or non-soil 3206 fumigation) or rely on a noncerti fied applicator. A medium-s mall operation may have someone 3207 noncertified, likely a family member, apply a RUP under the direct supervision of the 3208 owner/operator. A large-small operation is more likely to have someone noncertified working 3209 under the direct supervision of th e certified applicator and could need certification in non-soil 3210 fumigation for on-farm grain storage. 3211*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

35 Table 5.7-3. Impact per Small Entity, Private Applicator. 3212

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%

Source: EPA calculations. 3213

As shown in Table 5.7-3, the impact on the average small crop farm would range from 0.04 to 3214 0.34 percent of average revenue, even for very hi gh impacts. The average impact of $38 would 3215 exceed three percent of revenue for very small farms making $1,250 or less per year. High 3216 impacts, which could occur in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, states that currently require 3217 only two hours of training for initial certification, would be greater than one percent of sales 3218 revenue for only the smallest types of enterprises, i.e. , those with revenues averaging less than 3219 $4,200 per year. 3220

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c), there are 236,500 farms with 3221 revenues of $1,000 to $2,500 per year or less, averaging about $1,660 annually. Assuming a 3222 uniform distribution of farms within this range , about 39,400 farms would have revenues of less 3223 than $1,250 per year. A conservative estimate for the proportion of farms us ing pesticides, based 3224 on farms with revenue up to $10,000 per year, would be 25 percent (NASS, 2008b), or fewer 3225 than 10,000 farms. Of those, perhaps 20 percent would use RUPs, based on the percent of acres 3226 treated, or about 2,000 farms. In the high-impact states of Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 3227 there are another 23,500 farms with annual re venue of $2,500 to $5,000, a range where impacts 3228 could be over two percent of annual revenue. Of those, an estimated 1,200 might use RUPs. In 3229 total, around 3,200 farms many face im pacts of two percent or more of annual revenue. These 3230 farms comprise less than one-fourth of one percent of all small farms and about 0.4 percent of all 3231 small farms that use pesticides, wh ich may be affected by the rule. 3232

In the case of the high-impact states, most of the impact is a result of increased requirements for 3233
initial certification. It should be noted that private applicat ors in other states are currently 3234 obtaining certifications u nder requirements very similar to those proposed. 3235*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 An additional factor to consider is that EP A has proposed changes to the Worker Protection 3236 Standard (WPS), which sets requir ements that agricultural estab lishments hiring labor must meet 3237 when pesticides are used on the establishment. Hired labor are persons outside the immediate 3238 family who receive compensation for their wo rk. The WPS imposes requirements include 3239 providing pesticide safety training for employees th at will be entering trea ted fields and notifying 3240 employees when applications have been made so th at they can take proper precautions. A subset 3241 of the farms using RUPs, who are impacted by re visions to the certification requirements, will 3242 also employ workers and will also be impacted by revisions to the WPS. 3243

EPA estimated that, on average, small farms would face costs of about $125 to $140 per year 3244 from proposed changes to the requirements of the WPS. These costs would essentially be 3245 additive to the estimated costs of changes to th e certification requirements for farms that have a 3246 certified applicator and hire la bor to work in the field. When considering the two proposals 3247 together, the focus remains on the small-small fa rms. Because smaller farms generally employ 3248 fewer workers, the impacts of changes in the WP S are also smaller. EPA estimates that the 3249 proposed changes to the WPS would cost small-small farms between $65 and $80 per year, 3250 implying that the average small-small farm a ffected by both proposals would face combined 3251 incremental costs of about $120 per year and our example establishment in Kentucky would have 3252 combined costs of around $180 per year with impacts of around th ree to four percent of gross 3253 revenues from farm products. 3254

The number of small-small farms aff ected by both rules is likely to be small. According to data 3255 from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were about 316,000 small-small 3256 farms that used any kind of pesticide. Of t hose, fewer than 60,000 farms also employed labor, or 3257 less than 20 percent, and might bear some impact s from proposed changes to the WPS. If, as 3258 above, about 20 percent of farms using pesticides use RUPs and rely on a certified applicator, 3259 then perhaps around 12,000 small-small farms in th e U.S. might face impacts from changes to 3260
both the WPS and to the certificat ion requirements. This is ar ound 0.8 percent of all small farms 3261
in the U.S. and less than f our percent of small-small farms that use pesticides. 3262



### 5.7.2 Commercial Applic ator Establishments 3263

Commercial pesticide applicator s are employed by businesses th at service a broad array of 3264 activities, including agricultural sites, urban and resi dential sites, and industrial sites. The Small 3265 Business Administration (SBA) uses a variety of criteria in sizing commercial applicator 3266 establishments depending on a firm’s primary in dustry (as classified by its NAICS code). The 3267 relevant criterion for small business designa tion may include revenue or the number of 3268 employees. 3269

Table 5.7-4 presents the SBA large-business thre sholds, by NAICS code, used to determine the 3270 size of each firm in the commercial applicator establishment portion of the small business impact 3271 analysis. 3272*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

37 Table 5.7-4. Commercial Applicator Establishment Small Business Thresholds 3273

NAICS Code NAICS Sector De scription Sizing Criterion Small Business

Threshold

115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating Revenue $7,500,000

115210 Support Activities for Animal
Production Revenue $7,500,000

221121 Electric Bulk Power
Transmission and Control Employees 1,000

221210 Natural Gas Distribution Employees 500

221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems Revenue $27,500,000

221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities Revenue $20,500,000 321114 Wood Preservation Employees 500

325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing Employees 500

424690 Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers Employees 100

424910 Farm Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers Employees 100

561710 Exterminating and Pest Control
Services Revenue $11,000,000

561730 Landscaping Services Revenue $7,500,000

Source: SBA, 2014. 3274

Existing category certifications c over different sites. In additi on to agricultural certifications, 3275 there are categories, such as ri ghts-of-way, which is relevant to power transmission industries; 3276 aquatic sites, which is relevant to water supply and irrigation systems and other activities; and 3277 ornamental/turf sites, which would be required for landscaping services. The new certification 3278 categories are more application focused and woul d be required by different types of services. 3279 For example, power transmission systems may need to hire applicators with aerial certification to 3280 reach some of their rights-of-way and exterminator s would likely need certification in structural 3281 fumigation. 3282

Profile of Commercial Applicator Establishments 3283

For this analysis, EPA focuses on en tities providing pest control se rvices, rather than the broader 3284 array of entities that may require pest control services. In partic ular, we narrow the analysis to 3285 Agricultural Pesticide Services, within NAICS codes 115112 and 115210, Exterminating and 3286 Pest Control Services (561710), and Landscaping Services (561730) . Table 5.7-5 presents the 3287
number of small establishments and financia l and employee information, based on information 3288 obtained from the Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) data base of U.S. commercial establishments. 3289 Compared to the small business size thresholds of the Small Business Administration, which 3290 range from $7.5 million to $11 million annually, th e average annual revenues shown here would 3291 seem to represent some of the smallest of the small firms. 3292*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 Table 5.7-5. Size Distribution of Establishments that Employ Commercial Applicators 3293

Entity Number of small
establishments Average Revenue Average Number of Employees

Agricultural
Pesticide Services 17,562 $139,000 3

Exterminating and
Pest Control
Services 25,179 $178,000 4

Landscaping
Services 95,466 $159,000 4

Total 138,297 $159,816 4 Source: Dun and Bradstreet (2010) 3294

Costs per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators 3295

In Section 5.4, EPA estimated the total incremen tal cost of the proposed rule to commercial 3296 applicators to be $25.6 million annually. Th e rule would impact an estimated 414,000 3297 commercial applicators for a per-applicator co st of $61.73 per year. Th is includes the costs 3298 associated with requirements on noncertified a pplicators under the direct supervision of the 3299 certified applicator, assuming that most certifie d applicators supervise two or three others. 3300

Per-applicator incremental costs va ry across the different states a nd jurisdictions of the country, 3301 depending on the baseline certific ation and recertification requ irements of the jurisdiction, 3302 including category certifications . See Table 5.6-2 for estimates of the total incremental cost, 3303
number of commercial certified applicators, and average per-app licator cost, by region. Costs 3304 range from essentially zero in Iowa, where th e current state requirements meet or exceed the 3305 proposed federal requirements and noncertified a pplicators are not allowed to apply RUPs, to 3306 $211 per year in Rhode Island, which does not current ly have an aerial cert ification category and 3307
where EPA estimates that there are about five noncertified applicator s for every certified 3308 applicator. As explained in Chapter 3, the num ber of noncertified applicators is subject to 3309 considerable uncertainty. In the case of Rhode Island, the number of noncer tified applicators is 3310 estimated by taking BLS employment figures for t hose involved in ‘pest co ntrol’ and subtracting 3311 the number of certified commercial applicators. 3312

Given the average number of employees shown in Table 5.7-5, small entities providing pesticide 3313 application services could have one to two certi fied applicators, including the owner of the 3314 service, with two to three noncer tified applicators working under th eir direct supervision. Thus, 3315 EPA anticipates the cost to be $62 to $123 per ye ar for the average small entity and from $98 to 3316 $188 for a small entity in a state such as Rhode Island. These estimates include the costs of 3317 supervision, but for two noncertifi ed applicators under their direct supervision in Rhode Island 3318 rather than the average estimate of five. 3319*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 Impacts per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators 3320

Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small firms and the revenues of these firms, 3321 EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of an nual revenue. Results ar e shown in Table 5.7-6. 3322

Table 5.7-6. Impact per Small Entity, Commercial Applicator. 3323

Entity Average Revenue Average Impact ($62-123/year) High Impact ($188/year) Agricultural Pesticide
Services $139,000 0.04-0.09% 0.14%

Exterminating and Pest
Control Services $178,000 0.03-0.07% 0.11%

Landscaping Services $159,000 0.04-0.08% 0.12%

Source: EPA calculations. 3324

The impacts to commercial pesticide applicati on services are estimated to be less than one 3325 percent of average revenues for both the average a nd high cost scenarios. For impacts to exceed 3326 even one percent of annual revenue, the enterp rise would have to make less than $12,000 to 3327 $18,000 per year. A firm of that size would likely consist of a single app licator, in which case 3328 the expected cost of the proposal would be ar ound $30 per year, well under one percent of annual 3329

revenue. 3330



### 5.7.3 Conclusion 3331

On the basis of this analysis, EPA concludes th at there would not be a significant impact to a 3332 substantial number of small entities. For priv ate applicators, averag e impacts of the rule 3333 represent less than one percent of annual sales revenue for the av erage small farm and even to 3334 small-small farms with sales of less than $10,000. Im pacts to the smallest farms, especially in 3335 high-impact states, could exceed two percent of annual sales revenue but the number of farms 3336 facing such impacts is small relative to the num ber of small farms affected by the rule. 3337

For commercial applicators, aver age impacts of the rule represen t less than 0.1 percent of annual 3338 revenue for the average small firm. The impact s are expected to be around 0.1 percent of annual 3339 revenue even for the high cost scenarios. This is well below the one percent threshold that EPA 3340 set for significant impact. 3341

3342
3343*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule 3344

3345 Certification standards for applicators ensure that certified applicators are competent in the use 3346 of restricted use pesticides. The key goals of the proposed changes are to: improve the 3347 competency of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides; implement better protections for 3348 noncertified applicators who apply restricted use pesticides unde r the direct s upervision of a 3349 certified applicator; and reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment from the 3350 use of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Comp etent applicators possess the skills and knowledge 3351 necessary to apply pesticides properly to avoid unintended exposures to people and the 3352
environment. 3353
3354 EPA anticipates that the proposed changes would produce benefits to the applicator, the public, 3355 and the environment. The proposed rule change s would ensure that certified applicators are 3356 competent in the application of restricted us e pesticides, and that noncertified applicators 3357 working under the direct supervis ion of certified applicators are well supervised and protected. 3358
When used in accordance with label restrictions , RUPs can be safely applied; however, if the 3359 applicators are not competent, then RUPs have the potential to pose unreasonable risks of 3360 damage to humans, terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems, non-target animals, plants, and surface 3361 water. Ensuring that applicat ors are competent would prevent these unwarranted exposures. 3362
3363 The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to certified 3364 applicators, their families and employees, and the public at large. Chapter 2 provided a summary 3365 of the individual proposals consid ered by the Agency in developing this rule, while the preamble 3366 to the proposed rule describes in detail the proposed requirements. 3367
3368
3369



### 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified? 3370
3371 EPA expects the proposed changes would result in benefits by reduced exposure to RUPs. 3372 However, not all benefits from reduced pestic ide exposure can be quantified. This section 3373 provides a brief overview of the estimated benef its that can be quantified (from reduced acute 3374 occupational exposures) a nd those that cannot. 3375
3376 Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by: 3377

 avoiding RUP incidents resulting in acute pe sticide exposure to ce rtified applicators, 3378 noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of a certified applicator, 3379 and others, such as farmworkers or byst anders who could be exposed to RUPs. 3380

 avoiding non-occupational incidents by reducing exposures to the public. 3381

 reducing chronic pes ticide exposure to certified a pplicators and their families. 3382
3383 Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pe sticide exposures that 3384 have been reported to databases that count poiso ning incidents; these only represent a portion of 3385
the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 3386 as developmental effects resulting from acute ex posures to pregnant women or to children and 3387*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small expos ures over time are unlikely to 3388 appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databa ses, including the ones we use for developing 3389 the benefit estimates in this chapter. 3390
3391 Effects of longer term exposure and exposure to fa milies are unlikely to be recorded. If they are 3392 reported, they may enter the database with uncer tain causes, with little confidence that the 3393 incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Th erefore, it is impossible to quantify improvements 3394 in health from reduced pesticide exposure. Thes e potential health benefits, which include those 3395 related to chronic pesticide expos ure, and the effects of residues transported home, are described 3396 but cannot be quantified. 3397
3398 In addition to the harm to human health, misu se of RUPs has the potential to harm the 3399 environment, causing damage to non-target animal s and plants, including agricultural crops, and 3400 pollinating insects, such as bees. Although there is some information on incidents of this nature 3401
which are described in th is chapter, the benefits of reducing incidents like these are difficult to 3402 quantify. 3403 3404
The next section discusses who is at risk from RUP exposure, followed by a discussion of the 3405 possible effects of acute exposur e and chronic exposures to cert ified applicators and to their 3406 families. Section 6.4 provides information on the benefits from reduced ecological damage from 3407 RUPs, Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of re duced pesticide exposure to the extent these 3408 benefits can be quantified. Sec tion 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 3409 from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 3410 surveillance databases, but are potentially importa nt to human health, and may be reduced by the 3411 proposed rule. 3412
3413
3414



### 6.2. Who is at Risk? 3415
3416



### 6.2.1. Occupational Exposure 3417

3418 Certified pesticide applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of 3419 certified applicators, agricultural workers, and pesticide handlers may be occupationally exposed 3420 to pesticides and pest icide residues. EPA estimates th at there are about 900,000 certified 3421 applicators in the United States (See Chapter 3), and about 1 million noncertified applicators 3422 working under the direct supervisi on of a certified applicator. A small number of adolescents are 3423 certified applicators, and ther e are about 14,000 adoles cents under 18 estimated to be working 3424 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (See Chapter 3). All of these people face 3425 harm from occupational exposure to RUPs. 3426
3427 RUPs are commonly used in agriculture, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is 3428 potentially exposed. This includes the approxima tely 2.3 million farm wo rkers that are hired by 3429 agricultural establishments , who are potentially exposed to th e risks of advers e health effects 3430 from pesticide exposure (EPA, 2014a) if they wo rk on farms that use RUPs. Agricultural 3431 workers do not handle RUPs directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides 3432*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 either through contact with resi dues on treated plants, soil, or wa ter or through accidental contact 3433 from drift or misdirected application. The ag ricultural workforce occupationally exposed to 3434 restricted use pesticides and pesticide residu es can potentially face significant long and short 3435 term health risks. However, as a result of an ex tensive review of the data from incident reporting 3436 systems and epidemiologic evidence published in th e peer-reviewed literature, there is evidence, 3437 which EPA regards as strong, that pesticide e xposure contributes to adverse human health 3438
outcomes. This evidence is discussed and refere nced in detail in the sections that follow. 3439
3440



### 6.2.2. Children and Families 3441

3442 Young and unborn children may be particularly sens itive to pesticide exposure. Children may 3443 experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the 3444 floor and putting objects into their mouths (EPA, 2008b), and they can be more sensitive to these 3445 exposures because their organ systems are s till developing, and they have relatively low body 3446 weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the 3447 families of certified applicators may be incident ally exposed to pesticides and there is the 3448 potential for negative health effects from this pe sticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (discussed 3449 below) may be particularly importa nt for long-term development. 3450
3451
Children and adolescents at vari ous stages in development offe r “windows of vulnerability” for 3452 chemical exposures to have particularly signifi cant effects on growth and development, which 3453 means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 3454 lesser health impacts. Because children’s meta bolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 3455 continue to develop thro ugh childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 3456 developmental stages, children metabolize pestic ides and chemicals differently than adults 3457 metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008b). The proposed changes to the 3458
certification rule include enhanced worker training to reduce in cidental, take-home exposures by 3459 workers to their families. The proposed changes to the certification ru le also cover direct 3460 exposures by including restrictions on allowing adolescents to work with RUPs. These changes 3461 are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, 3462
which is also discussed below. 3463
3464 Non-occupational exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift 3465 from nearby agricultural areas, or from pesticide residues taken home on the clothing or in the 3466
cars and trucks of certified and nonc ertified applicators. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm 3467 and 25 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. 3468 Although not a study strictly of certified applicat ors, the pesticides for which they tested 3469 included RUPs. When compared with non-fa rm households, they found significantly higher 3470
levels of atrazine and metolach lor (which only have agricultural uses) in farm households. The 3471 distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher leve ls in the agricultural 3472 worker changing area and the laundry area) sugg est that the pesticides are being transported 3473 home on farmers’ clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in 3474
home vehicles for farm families. 3475
3476
3477*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 3478
3479 Adolescents face more risks from pesticide e xposure than adults, a problem EPA addresses by 3480 proposing a minimum age for certified applicat ors and noncertified app licators working under 3481 the direct supervision of a certified applicator. There is ev idence that adolescents and children 3482 do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 3483 to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 3484 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Inst itute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 3485 context, adolescents working on farms have show n awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 3486 risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 3487 risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during work 3488 time (Rowntree et al. , 1998). As reported in Reed et al . (2006), “young agricultural production 3489 workers were 3 times more likely to die on the jo b than their nonagricultura l counterparts.” This 3490
statistic includes deaths from a ll work related causes, and sugg ests that younger workers take 3491
more risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older work ers. In a study of adolescents 3492 engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi, teens were surveyed on 3493 their use of protective equipmen t, work exposures, and symptoms related to farm work that 3494 included injuries (Reed et al ., 2006). When teens were asked whether they used personal 3495 protective equipment when it wa s required, the median self-re ported frequency for use of 3496 respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the la st ten occasions when its use 3497 was required. According to the auth ors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 3498 teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 3499 attributed to that exposure. The authors also s uggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 3500 leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006). 3501
3502 The cognitive development of adol escents affects behavior, particul arly in the areas of judgment, 3503 risk-taking and decision making ab ility (Steinberg, 2005). The pa rts of the brain going through 3504 these maturation processes in adolescents are impor tant for the perception of risk, evaluation of 3505 risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international 3506 setting, Abdel-Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an associati on between cognitive deficits, 3507 neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure am ong child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 3508 applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not refl ect use patterns or regulations 3509 in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adoles cents are exposed at high levels 3510 of pesticides. 3511 3512 According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveilla nce data shows that working 3513 youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupationally related pesticide illness, 3514 attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater se nsitivity to pesticide 3515 toxicity. The literature shows th at adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than 3516 adults. Therefore, it is more di fficult to be certain that they wi ll make prudent risk management 3517 decisions. It is not certain why higher risk ta king behavior is more common among adolescents, 3518 but it is a consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are awar e of risks and tradeoffs between 3519 behaviors and consequences, and pr ocess the information available to them in ways very similar 3520 to adults, but take greate r risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). 3521 The cognitive changes that occur during a dolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, 3522 which indicates that emotional development a nd surroundings are important parts of the risk 3523 taking process for adolescents. Th is picture of the adolescent de velopment and behavior implies 3524*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, would 3525 not protect adolescents to the degree they wi ll protect adults. Thes e potentially at risk 3526 adolescents do not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, 3527 such as the establishment of minimum age for cer tain activities are warranted to ensure their 3528 safety. 3529
3530



### 6.3. What are the Risks? 3531

3532 This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 3533 exposure, including pesticide exposures that ha ve reproductive effects or effects on children. 3534 Some of these effects may be lif elong, although they may be a result of either acute (in the case 3535 of developmental effects) or chronic exposures . A discussion of illnesses associated with 3536 chronic occupational pes ticide exposure is provided in Section 6.6. 3537
3538
3539



### 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Hu man Health Effects 3540

3541 The use of most pesticides, substances usually de signed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some 3542 pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have 3543 effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, in cluding humans. Exposures to some pesticides 3544
can result in a wide ra nge of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from overexposure to 3545 pesticides vary widely, and can range from mild sk in irritation to death. Severity of symptoms 3546 depends largely on the dose and route of e xposure. Exposure to organophosphate (OP) 3547 pesticides, for example, can result in headach es, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and 3548 diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Severe acute exposures can 3549 result in seizures, respiratory depression and lo ss of consciousness (Reiga rt and Roberts, 2013). 3550 In rare cases, unintentiona l pesticide exposures resu lt in death. These are just a few of the wide 3551 range of symptoms that can be cau sed by acute pesticide exposure; the Recognition and 3552 Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different symptoms that a medical 3553 professional could expect to see following an acute exposure to various pe sticides (Reigart and 3554 Roberts, 2013). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, certified applicators 3555 also may suffer chronic exposur es that are associated with many diseases, including several 3556
forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 3557
3558 Evidence that adverse effects of pe sticide exposure occur is that pe sticide-related i llnesses can be 3559 observed. Although illness resulting from pesticid e exposure is underreported (see below), there 3560 are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that 3561 show evidence of illnesses. Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide 3562 poisoning incidents in th e agriculture industry “c ontinues to be an important problem.” This 3563 study looked at pesticide pois oning incidents among agricultur al workers from 1998-2005, and 3564 analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied ac ross time, age, and regi on, but for ag ricultural 3565 workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magn itude higher than for non-agricultural workers 3566 (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness 3567 cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveill ance program with 3568 mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide 3569*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 related illness cases in the Californi a surveillance system were agricu ltural (the rest were in other 3570 industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying 3571 pesticides. The most common symptoms were de rmatological (about 44%), neurological (about 3572 39%), and gastrointestinal (a bout 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin 3573 contact, followed by inhalation and eye contact. 3574
3575 Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 3576 high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 3577 period were low severity (87%), 12% were medi um severity, and 0.6% we re high severity, with 3578 one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 3579 is important to note that the severity categorie s can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 3580 can reflect significant morbidity, w ith the exposure resulting in h ealth care treatment and the loss 3581 of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pes ticides database used for the Calvert study (and 3582 which we use for the analysis in Section 6.5), at least two post-exposur e symptoms must have 3583 been reported. Symptoms categorized as “l ow severity” include a bdominal pain, cramping, 3584 nausea, vomiting, and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe eno ugh to result in missing 3585 up to three days of work or hospitalization for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases 6

. 3586
3587



### 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families 3588

3589 This section discusses potential risks to families of certified applicators, as well as the families of 3590 others who may be exposed to RUPs . These are just a subset of dis eases that have an association 3591 with pesticide exposure to families; many ot hers, including some cancers also have an 3592 association with pesticide expos ure. The discussion of chroni c occupational pe sticide exposure 3593 and cancers is in Section 6.6, because most of th e epidemiological research on the links between 3594 pesticides and cancer has been based on occupational exposure. 3595
3596

Reproductive Risks 3597
3598 Certified applicators, noncertifi ed applicators working under the di rect supervisi on of a certified 3599 applicator, farmworkers and women with pest co ntrol activities near their homes face exposure 3600 to RUPs when they are pregnant. Reviews ha ve been conducted examining the effects of 3601 pesticide exposure during pregnanc y on reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al . (2007) found 59 3602 peer-reviewed studies that examined the rela tionship between pestic ides and reproductive 3603 outcomes between 1992 and 2003. A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 3604

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 Asso ciation between Pesticide Exposure and Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al. , 2007

Outcome Examined Number of Papers Found Number of Papers Found that Display an Association Between

the Outcome Examined and Pesticide Exposure* Birth Defect 15 14 (+) Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) Fertility** 14 7 (-) Altered Growth 10 7 (+) Fetal Death 11 9 (+) Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

*The direction of the associa tion is shown in parentheses. ** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality an d infertility.
3605 As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen st udies that were reviewed reported an association 3606 between maternal pesticide exposure and an increa sed risk of birth defects. The specific birth 3607
defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 3608 nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 3609 studies showed an association between pest icide exposure and fetal death, which includes 3610 “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 3611 preconception exposure was associat ed with early first-trimeste r abortions and post-conception 3612 exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most 3613 effects, half or more of the studies evaluate d by Sanborn show an associ ation between pesticide 3614 exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. Thes e authors note several limitations of each of 3615 the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 3616 publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Ther efore, while these results are 3617 suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 3618
3619

Potential Health Effects in Children 3620
3621 There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 3622 pregnant women may affect child ren. Pre-natal exposure may ha ve effects on the neurological 3623 development of children (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) studies have found an association 3624 between pre-natal exposure to the mother and futu re childhood leukemia. As an example, there 3625 are agricultural pesticides in use that are regul ated on the basis of developmental toxicity ( i.e.

, 3626 structural abnormalities, functional deficienci es, altered growth and fetal loss). These 3627 developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker during 3628 windows of susceptibility of feta l development during pregnancy. Possible effects from an acute 3629 overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain tissue outside the skull), 3630 hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), micropht halmia (abnormal eyes often resulting in 3631 blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to on e of these pesticides could occur, for example, 3632*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated ar ea too soon after an appl ication or through drift 3633 of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field. 3634
3635 Children and adolescents are going through import ant developmental changes, and pesticide 3636 exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiol ogical systems than on 3637 the systems in adults. Although adolescents’ systems are more fu lly developed than those of 3638 younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood. In 3639 particular, brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of th e cerebral cortex through 3640 synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron 3641
connections in the brain and encl oses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases 3642 the efficiency of information processing (G olub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 3643 during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 3644 particularly harmful (Golub, 2000) . Adolescents may be subject to incidental exposures by 3645 being in proximity to areas where pesticides are applied or from take hom e exposures via parents 3646 who work with pesticides, all of which can re sult in adverse health effects. In addition, 3647 adolescent workers can be subj ect to direct occupational expo sure, which is a concern due 3648 because acute exposure at important stages of de velopment may cause significant health effects 3649 and also because employment at a younger age in creases the chance and likelihood of chronic 3650 exposure, which may result in delayed health effects that are debil itating over a longer 3651
timeframe. 3652
3653 Several studies have investigated pesticide e xposure and children, in both rural and urban 3654 settings, although not the children of certified app licators. These studie s show the effect of 3655 prenatal or early-life pesticide exposure from occupational exposure to the family or incidental 3656 exposure in the home. These have reported dela yed mental development associated with an 3657 increased exposure to organophos phate pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, 3658 Engel et al ., 2007). Studies with rural and urban cohorts report asso ciations between 3659 organophosphate pesticide exposure and a bnormal reflexes in children (Engel et al ., 2007, 3660 Young et al ., 2005), and increased developmental disorders were reported in both the 3661 CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Lovasi, et al

., 3662 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). 3663
3664
Several recent studies have shown an associ ation between organophosphate pesticides and the 3665 development of behavior relate d to attention defic it/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 3666 hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from a rural c ohort concluded that in utero 3667 levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a le sser extent, postnatal levels were associated 3668
with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al ., 2010). Similar associations are 3669 seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pestic ide, chlorpyrifos and 3670 attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive 3671 developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, Lovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel 3672
et al ., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (2010), found an 3673 association between organophosphate metabolites a nd ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared 3674 to children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample 3675 median had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. 3676
3677*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 The biological mechanisms to cause such ne urodevelopmental findings reported in these 3678 epidemiology studies are not well understood and t hus far causality has not been established. 3679 However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 3680 between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 3681 that children exposed to OPs ma y be at a higher risk of a dverse neuro-developmental and 3682
neurobehavioral outcomes than ch ildren with lower exposures. 3683
3684
3685



### 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding RUP Incidents 3686
3687 In Section 6.5, a quantified estimate of the benef its from reduced human health incidents due to 3688 the rule changes is provided, but these quan tified estimates are base d only on the value of 3689 reduced illness from acute occupational RUP expos ure. The quantified estimates are limited to 3690
these effects because sufficient data on illne ss from acute RUP exposure exists to make a 3691 reasonable estimate. The estimates, however, do not quantify many real health benefits that may 3692 result from the rule, but for which sufficient data are not available to estimate the monetary value 3693 of these benefits. For that reason, non-quantif ied benefits, both to human health and the 3694 environment, are discussed here. The human health benefits that can be quantified are presented 3695 in Section 6.5. Other non-quantifiable benefits from reduced chronic exposures are presented in 3696
Section 6.6. 3697
3698 The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects describe d in the prior section 3699 that are not easily observed and reported. Becaus e of insufficient information on the rates of 3700 illness, the reduction in exposure that would result from the rule changes, and the dose/response 3701 relationship between exposure and illness, the value of reducing pesticide exposure that may 3702 have reproductive effects for women is difficult to quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women 3703 or chronic exposure to families could result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and 3704 behavioral effects in children, and it is challe nging to quantify the benefits from the proposed 3705 rule changes that may reduce these effects. 3706
3707 There are also non-quantifiable eco logical benefits, from reduced RUP exposure to non-target 3708 plants and animals. These are discussed in Section 6.4.1. 3709
3710



### 6.4.1. Non-Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents 3711

3712 In addition to the benefits to human health, th e proposed changes would also be expected to 3713 reduce environmental damage associated with RU P use by reducing the incidents of RUP misuse 3714
and other errors. This section will discuss the ha rm that RUP misuse and other errors can cause 3715 to non-target animals, wild plants and crops, and the ways which the proposed changes would 3716
reduce the environmental costs of misuse and other errors. 3717
3718 It is difficult to get an accurate picture of how much damage to plants, animals and crops is 3719 caused by RUP misuse and misapplication. Al though EPA maintains databases of pesticide3720 related incidents, these data are insufficient to reliably estimate the number of incidents that may 3721 be prevented by the rule. In a ddition, the available information is generally insufficient to 3722*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 reliably estimate the cost of incidents, even wh en they have been repo rted. Because of these 3723 inadequacies, we will use the available data to provide a qualitative discussion of the kind of 3724 environmental incidents that are caused by misuse of RUPs, and whether the incidents can be 3725 prevented by the rule. 3726
3727

Data 3728 Ecological incident data are us ed by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as a line of 3729 evidence (in a weight-of-evidence approach) for making risk conclusions in pesticide risk 3730 assessments. Incident data can provide important information on what can happen to non-target 3731 plants and wildlife when a pesticide is used in the ‘real world’, and they can help support or 3732 refute risk predictions based on laboratory data. 3733
3734 The primary sources of ecological incident information available to EPA for this analysis are the 3735 Incident Data System (IDS) and the Ecologica l Incident Information System (EIIS), both 3736 databases that are maintained by EPA 7 . These databases contain information from pesticide 3737 incident reports from a variety of sources. Some are submitted directly to OPP by pesticide 3738 registrants, the public, and state, federal, and local government agencies, and others are from 3739 information available through other sources, such as the United States Geological Survey’s 3740 Contaminant Exposure and Effects – Terrestrial Vertebrate Database, the American Bird 3741 Conservancy’s Avian Incident Monitoring System, the open liter ature and media accounts. 3742
3743 The IDS database includes all pesticide incide nts involving humans, wild life, pets, and other 3744 domestic animals of which OPP is aware. IDS is primarily used by OPP to track the total 3745 number of all incidents (human, wildlife, etc.) that may have be en caused by a pesticide. The 3746 EIIS database contains information on pestic ide incidents involvi ng primarily plants, non3747 domesticated birds and mammals, fish, and honey bees. Information from ecological incident 3748 reports is only included in the EIIS if the reports contain, at a minimum, information on a 3749 specific pesticide, the effects, and the identity of the wildlife or pl ants involved in the incident. 3750 For this analysis, EPA uses the EIIS database, because information on the specific pesticide (and 3751 whether it was an RUP) and the specific events are essential to understanding the circumstances 3752
of an incident and whether or not it would be preventable. 3753
3754 Incidents in the EIIS are given a certainty index classification [i.e., ‘unrelated’, ‘unlikely’, 3755 ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘h ighly probable’– and the relatively new classifica tion of ‘exposure only’ 3756 (residues detected but no effect s noted)]. The certainty level indicates the lik elihood that a 3757 particular pesticide cause d the observed effects. In general, “highly probable” incidents require 3758 residues and/or clear circumstances linking the ex posure to the effects. “Probable” incidents 3759
include those where residues are not available and/ or circumstances are sl ightly less conclusive 3760 than for “highly probable.” “Possible” incident s are those where there was exposure to multiple 3761 chemicals, and it is not clear which one was the primary causal factor, although circumstances 3762 surrounding the incident and toxico logical properties of the pes ticide suggest a possible causal 3763 relationship. “Unlikely” incidents are those for which evidence suggests that another pesticide or 3764 another stressor was the primary cause of the effect, but contribution by the given chemical 3765

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 cannot be completely ruled out. Finally, “unr elated” incidents are those in which evidence 3766 clearly indicates that another st ressor besides the given pestic ide caused the effects. Each 3767 incident in the EIIS is also gi ven a legality of use classificatio n [‘registered use’ (the label 3768 directions were followed), ‘misuse’ [label di rections were not followed; for example, the 3769 application involved (accidental or intentional) higher than labele d rates, non-labeled application 3770 sites, or the intentional target ing on non-labeled species], or ‘ unknown’ (it is not known whether 3771 or not the label directions were followed)]. 3772
3773 As with most reporting of pesticide incidents, ec ological incidents are subj ect to under-reporting. 3774 Ecological incident data are not systematically collected, and, thus, they may not be 3775 representative of unreported inci dents. The collection of incide nt data is largely opportunistic, 3776 and reported incidents represent a very small por tion of the actual incide nts that likely occur 3777 (Vyas, 1999). The following steps typically need to occur for OPP to receive information on a 3778 pesticide incident involving wildlife: 3779
3780 Step 1: Seeing an Incident: 3781
3782 For one, damage from misuse of an RUP, such as a dead animal or plant damage, must be seen to 3783 be reported. Many animals that are sick and/or dying will hide as a predator-avoidance response, 3784 making it more difficult to find their remains if they die while hidden. If an affected animal is 3785 killed by a predator, it is often consumed imme diately. Carcasses of animals not killed by a 3786 predator and not consumed immediately can be removed fairly quickly from the environment 3787 (within hours of death) by scavengers and/or more slowly (within days of death) via 3788 decomposition. Therefore, it can be surprisingly difficult to find dead animals and most animals 3789 that die (for any reason), are likely not ever s een by someone before they are scavenged or they 3790 decompose. Carcass recovery efficiency rate s, even for trained i ndividuals searching for 3791 carcasses in a known, limited ar ea, are often well below 100% (Madrigal et al., 1996 reported 3792 recovering only about two-thirds of bird carcas ses placed in the study zone). Although plants do 3793 not move or disappear from the environment th e same way that animals do, any damage to non3794 target plants must be noticed, which may be rare . Damage to crop plants is more likely to be 3795 noticed, since they are monitored by farmers. 3796
3797 Step 2: Reporting an Incident: 3798
3799 Even when an incident is noticed, it is unlikel y to be reported to anyone. There are several 3800 reasons why incident reporting is unlikely. For example, the inci dent observer may not realize 3801 the importance of reporting the incident or they may not know to whom to report it. Motivation 3802 can be an important consideration for someone re porting an incident. People may be more likely 3803 to report an incident if the e ffects impact them economically (e .g., if the incident involves crop 3804 damage or a bee kill) or persona lly (e.g., it involves a pet or plan ts in their ya rd) than if it 3805 involves a wild animal. Additionally, if only one or two dead animals are found, it may be 3806 assumed that the animals simply died from natural causes. 3807
3808*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

12 Step 3: Linking an Incident to a Pesticide: 3809
3810
For an incident to be considered a pesticide incident, it must be linked to a pesticide exposure. 3811 Incidents are most likely to be associated with a pesticide if the effect is close in time and space 3812 to an application. For slower acting chemicals, affected animals may move from the site of 3813 exposure and likely will not die near the pestic ide application site (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), 3814 making it difficult to link the deaths to a specific pesticide. Typically, only severe acute toxic 3815 effects are observed (principally mortality) and chronic effects (e.g., effects to reproduction or 3816 growth) usually are not observed. Weakened a nd sick animals may be preyed upon, hit by cars, 3817 die of disease, etc., and their deat hs may not necessarily be attributed to a pesticide, even if it is a 3818 major factor in their deaths. Additionally, with the exception of honey bees and crayfish, effects 3819
to invertebrates are not typically reported. Because incident investigations can be very complex 3820 and resource intensive (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), even if a dead animal is reported, and the 3821 death is suspected to be caused by a pesticide, th e incident may not be investigated due to limited 3822

resources. 3823
3824 Step 4: Submitting an Incident Report to OPP: 3825
3826 Incidents reported to local or m unicipal authorities or independent wildlife rescue organizations 3827 are unlikely to ever be forwarded to OPP. Some state agencies and some wildlife rescue 3828 organizations routinely report in cidents to OPP (for example Calif ornia and New York), but most 3829 do not. Therefore, even if a carcass is f ound and reported to local authorities, and an 3830 investigation concludes that the death was due to a pesticide, the incident report may not be 3831 submitted to OPP. Reporting by non-registrant s is completely voluntary and information on 3832 ecological incidents can be gathered by a wide variety of government agencies (e.g., federal, 3833 state, and local) and privat e organizations (e.g., toxicol ogy laboratories and wildlife 3834 rehabilitation centers). Not all of these agen cies/organizations may know to submit information 3835 on ecological incidents to OPP; may not know how to submit the information to the OPP; or may 3836 simply choose not to submit the data to OPP (especially if it involves a case going through 3837 litigation or some enforcement action). 3838
3839 Although pesticide registrants are required to report adverse ef fect incidents under FIFRA, a 3840 registrant cannot report incidents it is unaware of, or that do not appe ar related to its pesticides. 3841 Furthermore, the reporting re quirements defined in FIFRA 8 allow registrants to aggregately 3842 report all ‘minor’ ecological in cidents. Incidents that can be aggregately reported include 3843
incidents that involve fewer than 200 birds or 5 mammals. The aggregate incident reports lack 3844 details including information on effects, specif ic taxa involved, and descriptions of use; 3845 therefore, aggregate incident re ports are not included in the E IIS, but they are included in the 3846
IDS. 3847
3848 Overall, because of the many ways th at reporting of an incident to OPP can fail, it is likely that 3849 only a small fraction of the pesticide ecological in cidents that occur are ever recorded. Because 3850 the incident data in the EIIS are not systemati cally collected and likely represent a very small 3851

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 fraction of the incidents that ac tually occur, these data are li kely an underestimate of damage 3852 from misuse and other errors by ce rtified applicators. For these reasons, no attempt is made to 3853 quantify the benefits from reduced ecologica l damage caused by RUPs for the rule; the 3854 discussion here will be qualitat ive. Incident data, however, do provide evidence that exposure 3855
from misuse of RUPs can result in field-observable effects. 3856
3857
Method 3858
3859 To characterize the potential va lue of reduced RUP incidents, even qualitatively, requires 3860 classifying the EIIS data to retain only thos e incidents that the propos ed rule changes would 3861 prevent. First, a team of OPP staff compiled a list of all RUP pestic ides products and active 3862 ingredients. Many active ingred ients have some pesticide products that are RUPs and others, 3863 with different use patterns or c oncentrations that are not. The EIIS database was searched for 3864 incidents in which one of the RUPs active ingred ients was identified as the causal agent for the 3865 years 2009 - 2013. In some cases, the pesticide product was identified, so a definite 3866
determination about whether the incident involved a RUP could be made. If the causal agent 3867 was only identified as an active ingredient, the incident was in cluded if a majority of the 3868 products containing it were RUPs, if information about the intended use made it clear that the 3869 product used was an RUP, or if the pesticide was applied by a certifie d applicator. Once the 3870 incidents related to RUPs were identified and available information gathered, EPA staff 3871
reviewed the cause of the incide nts and by consensus determined whether they would have been 3872 likely or probably prevented by the rule. The main reason EPA expects the rule to prevent 3873 incidents like these is that raising the standards fo r initial certification and more frequent training 3874 would ensure that applicators and those under their supervision would mo re carefully follow 3875 pesticide label instructions, take proper care to prevent harm, and generally have a higher level 3876 of competency. The team of O PP staff classified the RUP- a nd certified app licator-related 3877 incidents into the following categories: 3878
3879

 Preventable incidents: Incidents wher e there was a clear link between the 3880 application/applicator and th e effect and the information demonstrated an error by the 3881 applicator or applicator incompetency. 3882

 Possibly preventable incidents: Incident s where there was a cl ear link between the 3883 application/applicator and the effect and there was a signific ant impact so an applicator 3884 error seemed likely but the available informati on did not identify any applicator errors. 3885

 Incidents where there is not enough informati on: Incidents where there was a clear link 3886 between the application/applicator and the eff ect and an applicator error was possible but 3887
the available information did not id entify any applicator errors. 3888

 Not preventable incidents: Inci dents that did not meet any of the above criteria, such as 3889
incidents where there was no clear link between the application/applicator and the effect, 3890 incidents where there was no evidence of applic ator error or if ther e just was not enough 3891
information. 3892

Only incidents that were definitely related to RUP use and considered preventable or possibly 3893 preventable are reported below. The incidents often do not have sufficient information to 3894 quantify the damage. For example, some of the in cidents reported damage to a crop from misuse 3895 or misapplication, but the information is insuffici ent to determine the actual loss to growers. 3896*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

14 Even when damage to crop plants may result in to tal yield loss, the response by the grower to the 3897 problem has not been identified. They could choo se to accept the yield lo ss, or replant the crop, 3898 or to plant another crop, which might reduce the lo sses below those of total yield loss. In the 3899 narrative about the incident, the crop damage is described (e .g. stunting, reduced yields, 3900 bleaching, leaf burn, etc.), but even when the information has been confirmed by agronomists or 3901 other experts, the actual yield loss has not been quantified. 3902
3903 For the non-crop damage, such as the deaths of w ild animals, in addition to the difficulty in 3904 identifying the numbers of animals affected, it is very difficult to provide a value for the 3905 potential losses. For example, if a substantial nu mber of bald eagles are killed in a preventable 3906 incident (as we see in the data), to quantify the value of preventing that incident, we would need 3907 to know the value of those eagles to societ y, which is difficult to determine. 3908
3909 Loosely speaking, environmental amenities can have multiple sources of value. Economists 3910 often categorize some of these as a “use value, ” where people gain value from somehow using or 3911 interacting with the resource, su ch as visiting a beach, catching a fish, or observing wild birds. 3912 Another category is “non-use value,” because th ese environmental goods have value to society 3913 beyond their use to people. These non-use valu es for the preservation of environmental goods 3914 have several sources, including that people may wa nt the option to have the goods available in 3915 the future, or the value that people place on mainta ining the good for future generations, or value 3916 placed by society for the mere existence of envi ronmental goods. Non-use values may comprise 3917 a substantial fraction of total values for some wildlife species – especially for charismatic 3918 species, threatened or endangered species, or spec ies that are not popular targets for hunting or 3919 wildlife viewing – that have been harmed by misu se of RUPs, and these values are difficult to 3920 estimate. A standard approach would be to use a stated-preference method, like contingent 3921 valuation (EPA 2010a) to estimate the societal wi llingness to pay to preserve the animals or 3922 plants that were harmed in preventable RUP incide nts. This is not done for this analysis because 3923 a high-quality contingent valuation study is ve ry time consuming and expensive, and more 3924 importantly, the environmental damage here is ve ry diffuse, involving different types of plants 3925 and animals in all parts of the country, whereas the most reliable cont ingent valuation work 3926 involves very concrete choi ces in a specific location. 3927
3928 An alternative is benefits transfer, where the benefits of preserving environmental goods have 3929 been estimated in one context, and we can adjust or apply those benefit estimates for the relevant 3930 context. In our case, we are unable to find specific values for the many incidents that can be 3931 used for benefits transfer. As an example, cons ider the loss of a bald eagle. There are estimates 3932 of the societal value of preserving bald eagles. Two studies from the literature (Stevens et al

., 3933 1991, or Boyle and Bishop 1987) report household estimates that range from $21.11 to $42.21 in 3934
2006 dollars. This indicates subs tantial societal value for eagles, and aggregated across 3935 households in a region or the United States would result in a very large number ($34 billion for 3936 the 115 million households in the US). However, the values that are reported, and which were 3937 estimated using the underlying cont ingent valuation studies was a willingness to pay to maintain 3938 the existence of eagles in a specific state; no attempt was made to estimate the value of 3939 protecting indivi dual eagles, as we have here. 3940
3941*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15 However, we could use these estimates, after adju sting them to transform estimates for eagles as 3942 a whole into estimates for individual eagles. The non-use value for eagles could be defined as: 3943
3944

Non-use value = ∆ܰ ∗ ∆௉

∆ே ܹܶܲ ∗ ௑ ܪ ∗ ௡௢௜௚௘௥ 3945

3946
Where ∆ N is the number of eagles saved per year, ∆ P/ ∆ N is the change in extinction probability 3947 for the population per the numbe r of saved eagles per year, WTP X

is the willingness to pay to 3948 prevent the (local) extinc tion of the species, and H Region is the number of households in the 3949 region. Incident reports may shed light on ∆ N, but of course the ability to account for under3950 reporting is important, and we have no information on under-reporting. WTP X

for eagles and a 3951 handful of other species in the incident data may be gleaned from the literature, but estimates 3952
∆ P/ ∆ N would be at best speculative. 3953
3954 Because of the challenge of providing reliable estimates of the value of preventing ecological 3955 damage from RUP incidents, we make no attemp t to quantify them here. Below we provide 3956 information on the types of incidents that can be prevented by changes to the Certification 3957 standards, based on the incident data that are available. 3958
3959
Incidents 3960
3961 The EIIS data were queried in two passes, the first for the period 2009 – 2010, because it 3962 matched the period used for the human incident data, and later for 2011 – 2013, to see whether 3963 the data were similar, and to have a larger samp le if the incidents varied significantly from year 3964 to year. There were total of 245 incidents return ed when the EIIS was queried for incidents that 3965 were probably related to an RUP. The incidents that are describe d here are those that EPA staff 3966 determined were related to an RUP (some ac tive ingredients have RU P and non-RUP products), 3967 and the incident was deemed “preventable” or “ possibly preventable” by the rule changes using 3968 the above criteria. As shown in Table 6.4-1, ther e were a total of 68 RUP incidents recorded in 3969 EIIS deemed preventable or likely preventa ble. There were 16 pr eventable or possibly 3970 preventable incidents involving fish or other aquatic animals, such as crayfish, 5 involving birds, 3971 12 involving mammals (dogs, coyot e, and fox), 7 incidents invol ving damage to bee colonies, 3972 and 28 involving crop damage. The table also sh ows the number of organisms affected by the 3973
incidents. There were more incidents relate d to RUPs available, but these were either 3974 determined to be unlikely to be prevented by the rule, or there was not enough information to 3975 make a determination. It is worth mentioning th at these are the incidents remaining after the 3976 screening process, and that there is likely significan t under-reporting of ecological incidents. 3977
3978*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

16 Table 6.4-1. Preventable Incident s from the EIIS Database, 2009 -
2013

Affected Organism Number of
Incidents Reported Quantity Affected Fish and Aquatic Animals 16 23,633 Killed

Birds 5 504 Killed

Mammals 12 23 Killed

Bees 7 394 Colonies Killed

Crops 28 6,637 Acres Damaged

Source: EPA EIIS Database; EPA staff determined preventability.
3979 As shown in Table 6.4-1, there were 28 reported preventable or possibly preventable incidents 3980 involving crop damage. As mentioned above , because we do not know how the damage 3981 ultimately affected yield, we are unable to determine the value of preventing incidents like these. 3982 These crop incidents typically involve applicat or error that more fr equent training on the 3983 importance of following label requirements would be able to prevent. The type of errors found 3984 include applying pesticides when weather condi tions are not appropriate for the pesticide, 3985 contamination or improper cleaning of applicati on equipment, the wrong active ingredient is 3986 applied to the crop, incorrect rate or timing of the application. The crops involved were mostly 3987 corn, including sweet corn. Five of the incident s involve a popcorn crop, all in 2011, and four of 3988 them occurred in two adjacent counties in Indiana. 3989
3990 Although we are unable to estimate the damage caused by these preventable incidents, it is 3991 possible to put an upper bound on some of them, as an example. If we were to assume the crops 3992 were a total loss, then in some cases we coul d multiply the expected yield by the price growers 3993 received that year to find an estimate of the tota l revenue lost to the grower. For example, a total 3994 for 367 acres of popcorn were reported damaged in Indiana. If the 367 acres of popcorn were to 3995 achieve the 2011 average yield for Indiana of 4,000 pounds per acre (NASS, 2012) at the 2011 3996 average price (NASS, 2012) of $0.258 per pound ( 2011 was a relatively high value year) would 3997 have netted a grower $1,032 per acre (over $378,000 for the total ar ea), which would be the lost 3998 revenue in Indiana. Of course, if the crop were lost, there would be so me savings in unneeded 3999 harvest activities, etc., but this is a substantial loss to growers. If yield were reduced somewhat, 4000 rather than fully, the losses would be somewhat lower. 4001
4002 Similarly, for field corn, the average incident involved 238 acres. At 2013 yields and prices 4003 (158.8 bushels per acre (NASS, 2014a) and $4.50 per bushel (NASS, 2014b)), preventing the 4004 average incident could save revenue to the grower of up to $170,000. These example numbers 4005 show that misuse incidents involving RUPs can be very costly, and avoiding the incidents 4006 potentially has substantial value. 4007
4008 As shown in Table 6.4-1, the EIIS data show 7 reported preventable in cidents involving RUPs 4009
that killed colonies of bees. In two of the incidents, there was insufficient information to 4010 determine how many colonies were harmed, a lthough the beekeeper reported mortality (reported 4011 as 50% mortality in one case). These two incide nts are included in the count of 7, but not the 4012*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

17 count of colonies harmed. In all cases, the bees were killed by misappli cation of RUPs, when the 4013 applicator applied the pesticide to the area wh ere bees were actively foraging or allowed the 4014 pesticide to drift into areas where significant numbe rs of bees were present. It is difficult to 4015 know the value of the colonies destroyed in the preventable incidents that show up in the EIIS 4016 data. The value of a bee colony can be thought of in several ways, all of which are incomplete. 4017 One is the replacement cost for the colony, which includes purchasing of new bees, and possibly 4018 new hives and frames, if the beekeeper is con cerned about past contamination. According to 4019 Rucker and Thurman (2012), the cost of a new p acket of bees which includes a queen is about 4020 $50. This could be considered th e rough cost of replacing a colony, but it ignores the lost value 4021 of ecosystem services. The first of these is the loss of honey production for the beekeeper. 4022 Depending on how late in the year the new colo ny is established, there may be a substantial 4023 reduction in the honey produced by the bees. Av erage yield per colony in the US for 2012 was 4024 56 pounds, with a value of about $1.99 per pound, or about $112 per colony, which could be lost 4025 if the colony could not produce enough honey to maintain itself and allow harvesting (Rucker 4026 and Thurman, 2012). Another important service that bees provide is pollinat ion services, critical 4027 to U.S. agriculture. Beekeepers are contracted to provide bees for pollination for some crops, 4028 and the price they are paid for this service va ries by the crop. Among the more valuable crops 4029 that depend on pollination services are almonds, which in recent years paid beekeepers about 4030 $140 per colony (Rucker et al. , 2012). This represents a reve nue source for beekeepers, but it 4031 may not reflect the losses to growers if pollination is not available during the essential time when 4032 plants are flowering. At a very conservative estimate of $100 pe r hive, the reported loss of hives 4033 would have a value of over $39,000. 4034
4035 The remainder of the preventable incidents from the EIIS data are anim als, generally counted 4036 after they have died. The mammal incidents incl ude the killing of 14 dogs, at least six coyotes 4037 and two fox. Five of the coyotes were killed in one incident, due to im proper disposal of RUP 4038 containers, but it is possible that they were kill ed intentionally, which w ould be a misuse of an 4039 RUP. The other coyote incident involved a farm er baiting for raccoons to protect a corn crop in 4040 Connecticut. The farmer used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the d eaths of the coyote and 4041 a dog, and severe injury to another dog. This was a case where the RUP was mishandled several 4042 ways, including off-label use and distributed to no ncertified applicators. There were substantial 4043 fines in this case, of $55,000 to the distributor and $15,000 to the farmer, although the fines to 4044
the distributor also included distri bution to other noncertified applicat ors. In a similar incident in 4045 Missouri, a man baiting for coyote used an RUP inse cticide, which resulted in the death of three 4046 crows, a red-tailed hawk, three dogs, a gr ay fox, a skunk and “several” coyotes. 4047
4048
The remainder of the mammal incidents were the k illing of dogs and one fox. In all cases, they 4049 were killed by predacides. In most cases, th ese incidents were cause d by applicators not 4050 following the label instructions, which have clear use restrictions to protect dogs. One of the 4051 cases involves a landowner lacing d eer meat with predacides to protect deer from coyote, but 4052 where a dog actually consumed the poison. In this case, the RUP compound was distributed 4053 illegally, and applied by someone wit hout following label instructions. 4054
4055 Most of the deaths of aquatic animals came from the application of RUPs to control lamprey. 4056 These events typically resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-target fish, because the 4057 conditions of the application were insufficiently monitored or the application rate was too high. 4058*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

18 One case from California was a result of confusion in the appropriate rate of application, which 4059
allowed the chemical to move downstream at high concentration beyond the irrigation canal 4060 targeted for treatment, resulting in the deaths of several hundred fish, along with crayfish and 4061 tadpoles. Because of the vague description of the numbers killed, these were not counted in 4062 Table 6.4-1, although the incident wa s. The final case with aquatic impacts involves non-aquatic 4063 applications of RUPs that ende d up killing aquatic animals. Th e disposal ran into an adjacent 4064 creek, resulting in the deaths of approximately 6,000 fish, 600 crayfish, and four aquatic snakes. 4065
There are some estimates in the literature that provide a starting place for valuation for fish, but 4066 these typically provide estimated values for maintaining populations of well-known fish, like 4067 salmon, rather than individual aquatic animals fr om these RUP incidents. A 2006 meta-analysis 4068 of willingness to pay per fish based on recreatio nal fishing reported a mean value of about $17 4069 per fish protected, but the range of estimates in the underlying st udies, even after outliers were 4070
removed was from under five cents to over $300 per fish (Johnston et al. , 2006), which 4071 highlights the amount of uncertainty in estimates of aquatic valuation. 4072
4073 For birds, there are five incidents involving bird fatalities, one of which was already described 4074
above that resulted in the death of three crow s and one hawk in addition to several mammals. 4075 Two of the remaining incidents, both in 2009, stem from a rodenticide being applied in a faulty 4076
and careless manner which resulted in the deaths of a total of 30 dead geese in Oregon. Fifty 4077 Brewer’s blackbirds and grackles were killed in an urban area of Sacramento, California in 2010. 4078 Although the pesticide was ta rgeting these types of bi rds, it is designed to frighten rather than 4079 kill most of the birds, and the application was in an inappropriate area. The final bird kill was 4080 substantial, and very well documented. An RUP was used for a rat eradication project on an 4081 island in Alaska, and misuse resulted in the deat hs of 420 birds, of which 219 were identified. 4082 The birds were killed because, a lthough the label requires picki ng up spilled bait and any animal 4083 carcasses to prevent killing of non-target animals, this was not done until months after the 4084 application. There were many birds killed in this incident: 157 gulls, 41 bald eagles, one 4085 peregrine falcon, along with many others. As with the other species involved in RUP incidents, 4086
it is difficult to find estimates of the value of individual birds, but it is clear that they have 4087 substantial societal value, both among recreationa l bird observers and th e general public. There 4088 are available estimates for protec ting populations of birds, and they confirm the substantial value 4089 for protecting these animals. Kotchen and Re iling (2000) report a mean annual willingness to 4090 pay per household (in Maine) of about $26 (1997 do llars) to protect the po pulation of peregrine 4091 falcon. Richardson and Loomis (2009) report annua l mean willingness to pay per household in 4092 their meta-analysis of contingent valuation studi es. These include bald eagles, which were one 4093 of the species in the above incidents, for which they reported the mean values for maintaining the 4094 population of bald eagles: studies that repor t an average value of $39 (2006 dollars) per 4095 household per year, and studies that report a lump sum, or an average value of $297 (2006 4096 dollars) per household per year. These estimates ar e based on protecting populations of birds at 4097 a regional level, so it is difficult to translate lo sses of individual birds into extinction probabilities 4098
that these estimates reflect. 4099
4100 In all the cases involving wildlife, EPA is una ble to estimate the valu e of these preventable 4101 losses described above, although they could be substantial. The pr ovisions to the proposed rule 4102 could help to prevent in cidents like these. 4103
4104*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

19 These incidents likely represent a small percentage of the actua l ecological incidents caused by 4105 certified applicator errors. In addition to th e reasons for under-reporting mentioned earlier, the 4106 approach used to search the EIIS database onl y captured the incidents that occurred from 2009 4107 through 2013. An example of unde r-reporting involves deaths of geese in Oregon from zinc 4108 phosphide poisoning. EPA’s search of 2009 – 2013 incidents identified two of these cases 4109 during 2009. By limiting ourselves to that time period, this analysis did not capture a number of 4110 similar incidents. A paper published in the Jo urnal of Veterinary Di agnostic Investigation 4111 discussed investigations of ten goose mortal ity events in Oregon from 2004 to 2008. The 4112 number of birds impacted in these incident s ranged from 5 to over 300 birds (Bildfell, et al

., 4113 2013). 4114
4115
4116



### 6.5. Quantified Human Health Benefits of Reduced Acute Illness from 4117 

### Restricted Use Pesticides 4118

4119 EPA expects the proposed changes to the certification standards to result in benefits by reducing 4120 exposure to certified pesticide a pplicators, their families and the public. EPA estimates that the 4121 benefits from reduced acute RUP exposure to be up to $77 million a nnually, although important 4122 non-quantifiable human health benefits are disc ussed later in the ch apter, and important 4123 ecological but unquantified benefits were discu ssed in the previous section. This section 4124 quantifies benefits from the reduc tions in adverse health effects associated with acute pesticide 4125

exposure. 4126
4127



### 6.5.1. Methodology and Data 4128

4129 We use a two-step process to estimate the benef its of the proposed ru le that accrue through 4130 avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates th e number of acute pes ticide poisoning incidents 4131 that will be avoided through provisions in the pro posed rule. This is done by evaluating a sample 4132 of pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate cause s of the exposure. EPA then 4133 determines whether the provision s of the proposed rule addre ss the causes to estimate the 4134 proportion of pesticide incidents that would be a voided. This proportion is applied to the total 4135 number of reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained 4136 in Section 6.5.2, under-reporting is likely large, whic h will lead to a downward bias in the 4137
estimated benefits. This downward bias coul d be eliminated, if the amount of under-reporting 4138 was known. A discussion of under-reporting and the effect on estimated be nefits is provided at 4139 the end of Section 6.5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event 4140 Notification System for Occupati onal Risks – Pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides), administered by 4141 the National Institute for Occupational Safety an d Health. SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance 4142 program that monitors occupational illnesses relate d to pesticide exposure. EPA also reviewed 4143 its own Incident Data System and annual report s from the Poison Control Centers to document 4144
unintentional deaths from RUPs over time. 4145
4146 The second step is to estimate the value of avoide d incidents, given the seve rity of the effects. 4147
The estimates here are based on avoided medical co st and avoided productiv ity loss and thus will 4148*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

20 underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 4149 valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL). 4150
4151
The value of avoided incidents is measured as av oided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 4152
Information on medical costs comes from two sources . Cost of inpatient care comes from the 4153
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 4154 related software tools and produc ts developed through a Federal- State-Industry partnership and 4155 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 9 . HCUP databases bring 4156 together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital as sociations, private data 4157 organizations, and the federal government to crea te a national information resource of patient4158 level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 4159 the United States, with all-payer, encounter-l evel information beginni ng in 1988. Outpatient 4160
costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedur e Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 4161 for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classi fication system used for identifying medical 4162 services and procedures furnished by physic ians and other health care professionals 10

. 4163
4164 Finally, data to estimate the value of productiv ity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 4165
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4. 4166
4167



### 6.5.2. Under-reporting of RUP Incidents 4168

4169 There is concern that pesticide incidents in ge neral are underreported. At least four steps are 4170 necessary before a pesticide-related illness can be recorded by any c ounting system: (1) the 4171 exposed person must perceive th at they have treatable symptoms; (2) the person must seek 4172 medical attention; (3) th e physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related; and 4173 (4) the physician or the injured person must report the incident to the correct recordkeeping 4174 system, and the incident must be recorded as pe sticide related. A breakdown at any of the steps 4175 would prevent a pesticide pois oning case from being tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al

., 4176 2001). 4177
4178 (1) The exposed person must perceive that th ey have treatable symptoms of an illness. 4179 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 4180 uniquely indicative of pesticide e ffects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 4181 rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 4182 common pesticides results in flu-like or cold- like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 4183 dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory 4184 problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or de rmatologic effects similar to those caused by 4185 exposure to poison ivy. When fa rmworkers or bystanders are exposed, they may not perceive 4186 that their symptoms are related to pesticide expo sures because they are not working directly with 4187 pesticides and may not real ize that they were exposed to pesticide residues. 4188
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 Health care Common Procedure Code system and codes is available here : http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

21 (2) The person must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, many 4190 pesticide-related acute health e ffects will gradually disappear w ithout medical intervention. For 4191 example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhi bited by pesticide exposure, causes some of the 4192 more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this inhibition will gradually 4193 (depending on the family of pesticide, severit y, and repetition of exposure) recover without 4194 treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophtha lmologic effects will gradually disappear when 4195 exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Th erefore, many people w ith treatable symptoms 4196 may not seek physician care. A survey of Calif ornia workers whose illnesses had been reported 4197 to a surveillance system showed that in 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same 4198 incidents did not seek medical treatment (Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are 4199 underreported. 4200
4201 (3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 4202 treatment is sought, the treating medical personne l may not specifically diagnose the illness or 4203 injury as being caused by an occupational exposu re to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 4204 such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 4205 drawn. It is unknown how often physicians mistak e pesticide poisonings for other causes, but 4206 physicians may not associate vague symptoms w ith pesticide poisonings. The person seeking 4207 care may not know or identify the cause of the poi soning as a pesticide. In addition, there may 4208 not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide ex posure, and physicians may be more 4209 concerned with treating symptoms rath er than confirming the causes. 4210
4211 (4) The physician must report th e incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 4212 recorded as pesticide related. Occupational dise ases in general are more likely to be under4213 reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and sa fety in the State of 4214 Washington says: "Frequently, occupational dise ases simply do not appear in workers' 4215 compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disi ncentives and inherent 4216 difficulties in health care provi ders recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington State 4217 Department of Labor and Industries, 1991) 4218
4219 Barriers to accurate reporti ng by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 4220 requirements and opportunities, relu ctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 4221 bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constrai nts on physicians that may prevent them from 4222 completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For 4223 example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 4224 healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because health care professionals fear 4225 becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational inju ry claim in which they might have to defend 4226 an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 4227 statement" (Arizona, 1990). 4228
4229 If any of the four steps needed for accurate r ecording of an occupationa l pesticide incident are 4230 not completed, then it will not appear in surv eillance databases. There is evidence in the 4231 literature that occupational medical incidents, es pecially exposures to po isons, are underreported, 4232 although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 4233 to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). Exposures that do not cause immediate symptoms 4234 are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is common, 4235*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

22 both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of under-reporting 4236 ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summari zed in Table 6.5-1, and a discussion of the 4237 importance on benefit estimates is given in Section 6.5.4. 4238
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 PoisonInformation Center (ChafeeBahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a poison information center by hospital staff over a two-year period “Sufficiently Large” b

1987 Interpretation and Uses of
Data Collected in Poison
Control Centers in the United States (Veltri et al

., 1987) Identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of the American
Association of Poison Control
Centers National Data Collection System 67%

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 relaye d to the regional PCC; resulting in underreport of 74%

b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospi tal’s poisoning reports and the hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of O ccupational Injuries and Il lnesses, conducted by BLS
4240
The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of O ccupational Injuries and Illnesses 4241 (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser (2008) 4242
estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 4243 70 percent. Although attempting to record injuri es and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII 4244 omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers 4245
are not recorded in the SOII. The BLS reali zes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many 4246 conditions, notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are of ten difficult to associate to 4247 the workplace. 4248
4249
The House Committee on Education and Labor estimat es that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 4250 injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 4251 According to experts, a major cause of under-repo rting may be due to the fact that employers 4252 may have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries 4253*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

23 and illnesses are less likely to be inspect ed by the Occupational Safety and Health 4254
Administration. 4255
4256
There have been three studies on undercounts in volving poison control data. The studies each 4257 focus on a specific region and compare cases re ported to poison control centers with those 4258 poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a 4259 substantial under-reporti ng of poisoning incidents. Note th at these studies only estimate the 4260 under-reporting by physicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – 4261 poisoned people not seeking medical care or wher e the cause is misdiagnosed would not be 4262
counted in these studies. 4263
4264
Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Po ison Control Center s (PCC), of actual 4265 toxic exposure results do cumented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 4266 470 exposures that were observed by the em ergency department, only 26% were ever 4267 documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 4268 exposure on the part of the potenti al callers are probably the majo r cause for non-reporting. 4269
4270
Chafee-Bahamon et al . (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 4271 similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identificati on of poisonings 4272 among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 4273 hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 4274 hospitals or hospitals far from poison control cen ters were identified as being less likely to call 4275 poison control centers, so the cases were less lik ely to be recorded in poisoning databases. 4276
4277 The third study, by Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 4278 illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only under-reporting but misreporting may 4279 occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a region al medical center could 4280 be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and injuries 4281 are believed to be a frequent occurrence, wh ich indicates that exis ting data on pesticide 4282 poisonings may be consistently low. 4283
4284
There are several reasons to thi nk that pesticide incidents spec ifically are unde rreported. The 4285 OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 4286 incidents to be underreported, most of which ar e consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 4287 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 4288
4289

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents; 4290

 No central reporting point for all incidents; 4291

 Symptoms associated with pesticide pois onings often mimic symptoms from other 4292

causes; 4293

 Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects; 4294

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 4295 effects; 4296

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects; 4297

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; and 4298

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. 4299*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

24 4300 The limited available data for pesticide poisoning s by RUPs are consistent with the conclusion 4301 that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likel y to lead to medical 4302 attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this section estimates of acute benefits from avoided 4303 pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of under4304 reporting on those estimates is prov ided at the end of Section 6.5.4 4305

4306



### 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided 4307

4308 For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use a database from the National 4309 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) called the Sentinel Event Notification 4310 System for Occupational Exposure (SENSOR-Pesticid es). This database contains detail on the 4311 exposures that led to the incident report, their severity and thei r causes, although the data are not 4312 national in scope. SENSOR-Pesticides is a su rveillance program that monitors occupational 4313 illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a two-year period, 2009 to 2010, 4314 during which time nine states (California, Florid a, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, 4315 Oregon, Texas, and Washington) reported incidents involving RUPs to SENSOR-Pesticides 4316 (Fortenberry and Calvert, 2014). SENSOR-Pesticides reports generally contain sufficient detail 4317 to identify the type of pesticide involved in the incident to determine if it was an RUP and to 4318
evaluate the circumstances of the incident. Th ese data are used to es timate the proportion of 4319 incidents that would be avoided under the propo sed rule. Although SENSOR-Pesticides data are 4320 available for earlier years, only data from 2009 – 2010 are used here. 2009 and 2010 are the 4321 most recent years for which the reporting states ar e consistent. In addition, for these two years 4322 SENSOR-Pesticides reports any contributing factor (also known as the “prevention code”) 4323 identified for each incident. EPA initially focuse d this query on cases with prevention codes to 4324 draw upon the training and expert ise of NIOSH and the SENSOR-P esticides state surveillance 4325 coordinators who investigate and code these cas es. However, while investigating deaths and 4326 high severity cases over time in SENSOR, EPA real ized that some releva nt incidents were not 4327 captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or “unknown.” 4328
4329
To ensure that all relevant cases were cons idered, EPA took a second step while querying the 4330
SENSOR-Pesticides data to iden tify cases to support the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). 4331 The WPS-relevant cases involve the use of agri cultural pesticides used in the production of 4332 crops. For the WPS-cases, EPA identified whethe r the incident involved a RUP and compared 4333 the list to the initial query for 2009 – 2010 certifi cation rule incidents that was based solely on 4334 prevention codes. About 20 additional incidents involving the use of RUPs were identified that 4335
were added to the list of cases that were reviewed. 4336
4337 EPA reviewed pesticide incident cases re ported to SENSOR-Pesticides from 2009-2010 that 4338 involved a pesticide ingredient commonly associated with RUPs. There were initially 197 cases, 4339
but 55 were removed from consideration. Fift een were removed because they were either 4340 intentional exposures, because st ate follow-up investigation concl uded that the symptoms were 4341 unlikely to be related to pesticide exposure, or because EPA determined that a certified 4342 applicator was not involved in the incident. Another 30 were eliminated because they were 4343 more relevant to the protections for worker s and handlers under the agricultural Worker 4344 Protection Standard. EPA is finalizing changes to the Worker Protection Standard, which will 4345*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

25 also prevent acute pesticide pois oning incidents, and these incide nts were removed to eliminate 4346 potential double-counting under both rules. Finall y, ten incidents were eliminated because they 4347 were related to fumigant exposures. Recent ch anges to fumigant labeling requiring increased 4348 training and safety equipment w ould probably have prevented t hose incidents. The proposed 4349 new fumigant category in the changes to the cer tification standards codi fies the current label 4350 requirements, so we do not include those incide nts (which occurred before the label changes) 4351
here. 4352
4353 Using the pesticide incident reports from SE NSOR-Pesticides along with the NIOSH assigned 4354 prevention codes, EPA was able to identify th e proximate causes of the exposure causing the 4355 incident. EPA reviewed the narrative description of these cases, the information identified in the 4356 SENSOR-Pesticide database and, additional informa tion from the state if it was available for the 4357
cause of the incident and determined whether th e provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 4358 the exposure that caused the incident. Cases we re categorized as “pre ventable” or “possibly 4359 preventable” by the rule amendments. Categorie s were assigned using the following guidelines: 4360
4361

 Preventable Incidents: incidents wher e there was a clear link between the 4362 application/applicator and th e effect and the information demonstrated an error by the 4363 applicator or applicator incompetency. 4364

 Possibly Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the 4365 application/applicator and the effect and an applicator erro r was possible but the available 4366 information did not identify a ny specific applicator errors. 4367

 Incidents where the proposed changes would not have prevented the incident, or where 4368 there is not enough information to make a de termination: incident s with a clear link 4369 between the application/applicator and the eff ect and an applicator error was possible but 4370
the available information did not identify any applicator errors. 4371
4372
The review of the SENSOR-Pestic ides data identified 100 cases that were preventable under the 4373 proposed revisions to the rule. Another 20 cases were possibly preventable. Cases deemed 4374 “preventable” were used to calculate the lo w-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 4375 unintentional pesticid e incidents. Table 6.5-2 pr esents the results of th e review of the SENSOR4376 Pesticides data. EPA concludes that 70 to 85 pe rcent of RUP incidents would be preventable or 4377 at least possibly avoidable th rough the proposed changes. Th e lower estimate is based on 4378 avoiding only cases similar to those deemed preventable due to the proposed changes, as 4379 discussed above. The higher estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibly 4380 preventable after the proposed changes. 4381
4382

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR-Pesticides Ca ses Avoided under the Proposed Changes, 2009
- 2010

Likelihood of being avoided by Proposed Rules Number of
Cases Avoided,
2009 - 2010 Percent of
RUP Cases (142 Cases) Annual
Avoidable
Incident rate

per 1,000
certified applicators National
Estimate of
RUP Cases

Avoided Annually

Preventable 100 70% 0.177 159*** 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
Also shown in Table 6.5-2 are the estimated annua l avoided cases per 1,000 certified applicators, 4384
and the national estimate of annua l avoided cases. To estimate the annual national number of 4385 pesticide incidents avoided by this rule, we need to scale the da ta from the SENSOR-Pesticides 4386 states that reported RUP incidents to the national level. If we let PI s,l

be the number of 4387 preventable incidents in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, and APP s be the number of certified 4388 applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticid es states, then we can define RP s,l

= PI s,l

/APP s , which will be 4389 an estimate of the number of preventable incide nts per certified applicator, which is done for 4390 each level of likelihood for the incident being avoided. We will assume that the rate of 4391 preventable incidents pe r applicator nationally, RP n,l , is equal to RP s,l . Therefore, we can 4392 estimate the national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RP n,l by the number of 4393 certified applicators nationally. 4394
4395
The SENSOR-Pesticides data that we are using is from the y ears 2009 – 2010. Over those two 4396 years, the CPARD data on the number of certifi ed applicators show the average number of 4397 certified applicators as 282,323.5. This numbe r includes existing ce rtified private and 4398 commercial applicators plus the number of new certified applic ators in the SENSOR-Pesticides 4399 states, averaged for 2009 and 2010. RP s , the rate of preventable incidents per applicator, is 4400 estimated by taking the number of avoided in cidents annually, and dividing it by the average 4401 number of certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pes ticides states, and then scaling the result into 4402 preventable incidents per 1,000 certified applicators. 4403
4404 The number of incidents avoided annually is half what is shown in the second column of Table 4405 6.5-2, because the prevented incidents shown there are for both years, 2009 and 2010. These 4406 estimates are presented for both preventable and po ssibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the 4407 table. For every 1,000 certified applicators in the SENSOR-Pesticides states, there are an 4408
estimated 0.213 RUP incidents that are preventable or possibly preventable by the rule. The 4409
final column in Table 6.5-2 shows the nationa l estimate of avoided RUP incidents. The 4410 estimates in this column were calculated by multip lying the annual preventable incident rate per 4411 applicator ( RP n,l = RP s,l ) times the number of certified applicators nationally. Nationally the 4412 average number of certified applicators for 2009 and 2010 was 896,496, which includes new and 4413 existing private and commercial applicators. Th ese calculations yield an estimate of annual RUP 4414 incidents prevented by the rule of 159 on the low end, and 191 on the upper end. This estimate 4415 accounts only for reported incidents, which are likely to be a small proportion of the total 4416 number of incidents. In Section 6.5.4 below, we consider other sources for unreported deaths. 4417
4418
4419*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

27 

### 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided 4420

4421 As explained in Section 6.5.1, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 4422 medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoi ded, and the reduction in premature mortality. 4423 These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; ot her, unquantifiable benefits are 4424
discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of a voided incidents depends on the severity of the 4425 effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 4426 require more treatment, including hospitalization. People suffering from more severe effects are 4427 more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, a more severe effect is lik ely to result in a longer 4428 period of recovery during which th e victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. 4429 Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to 4430
estimate the value of a reduc tion in premature mortality. 4431
4432 Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable source s of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 4433 given the severity of effect s. For each severity level i , the value of an avoi ded case is given by 4434
4435

ܸ ௜ ௩஺ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௜ ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ ௜ 4436
4437
where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] is the expected medical cost for the case, 4438
and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We use the four severity levels 4439
described in the SENSOR-Pesticides database as described below: Lo w Severity, Moderate 4440 Severity, High Severity, and Death. 4441
4442 The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 4443
4444

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ 4445
4446
where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed vi sits a health care facility given the 4447 severity of the effect, OutPtnt i is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 4448

InPtnt i is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self4449

treatments. 4450
4451 The value of lost productivity is 4452
4453

VPL i = ( ω w ·work + ω H ·housekeeping + ω L ·leisure)·DUR i 4454
4455
where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 4456 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 4457 activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 4458
4459 The value of a reduction in premature mortality, is simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). 4460 The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortality risk 4461 experienced by a large number of people. VSL es timates are derived from aggregated estimates 4462 of individual values for small changes in mortal ity risks. For example, if 10,000 individuals are 4463 each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in ri sk of 1/10,000, then the value of saving one 4464 statistical life equals $500 times 10,000 – or $5 m illion. Note that this does not mean that any 4465*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

28 identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate value of reducing a 4466 collection of small individual risks is worth $5 mi llion in this hypothetical case. This analysis 4467 uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This value is based on a 4468 distribution of values in 26 publis hed estimates of VSL, and then adjusted from the base value 4469 ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010a). 4470
4471

Probability of Effect 4472
4473
The SENSOR-Pesticides data on RUP illnesses cont ains information about the severity of the 4474
illness for each incident. As shown in Table 6.5-3, considering only the preventable and possibly 4475 preventable incidents, about 61% of the acute cases considered resulted in “low severity illness 4476 or injury”, over 32% percent in “m oderate severity illness or injury ,” 5% in “high severity illness 4477 or injury,” and under 2% in death. The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of low 4478 or moderate severity. 4479
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 severi ty illness or injury 39 32.50% Category S-2:High severity il lness or injury 6 5.00% Category S-1: Death 2 1.67%

Total 120 100.00%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 - 2010

4481 The four severity categories in the SENSOR-Pesticides data ar e defined as follows (NIOSH, 4482 2001): 4483
4484

 S-4 Low severity illness or injury 4485 This is the category of lowest severity. It is often manifested by skin, eye or upper 4486 respiratory irritation. It may al so include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically 4487 the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is mi nimal lost time (<3 days) from 4488
work or normal activities 4489
4490

 S-3 Moderate severity illness or injury 4491 This category includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving systemic 4492 manifestations. Generally, treatment was provi ded. The individual is able to return to 4493 normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from work or 4494 normal activities (3-5 days), co mpared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual 4495 impairment is present (although effects may be persistent) 4496
4497*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

29  S-2 High severity il lness or injury 4498 The illness or injury is severe enough to be considered life threatening and typically 4499 requires treatment. This level of effect commonly involves hospitalization to prevent 4500 death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal 4501 failure and/or respiratory depr ession. The individual sustains substantial loss of time (> 5 4502 days) from regular work (this can include as signment to limited/light work duties) or 4503 normal activities (if not employed). This leve l of severity might include the need for 4504
continued health care followi ng the exposure event, prolong ed time off of work, and 4505
limitations or modification of work or norma l activities. The individual may sustain 4506 permanent functional impairment 4507
4508

 S-1 Death 4509 This category describes a human fatality re sulting from exposure to one or more 4510 pesticides. 4511
4512 Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 4513
the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5-2, EPA estimates the distribution of 4514 preventable RUP incidents across the four severity levels. Table 6.5-4 shows the estimated 4515 number of national incidents that may be preven ted by the rule for each severity level, based on 4516 the high and low estimates of cases prevented from Table 6.5-2. The estimates, except for 4517 “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 4518
4519

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prev ented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of
Cases Prevented Annually

Clinical Effect Share of Total Low End
Estimate

(70%) High End
Estimate

(85%)

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 60.8% 97 116

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 32.5% 52 62
Category S-2:High severity il lness or injury 5.0% 8 10
Category S-1: Death 1.7% 2.65 3.18

Total 100.0% 158.77 190.53

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3.

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbe rs, except for “Death” and the total. Death estimates are later revised based on further investigation, as shown in Table 6.5-10 and 6.5-11.
4520
4521*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

30 6.5.4.1 Additional Sources for Counting Preventable Deaths 4522

4523 Because deaths from pesticide exposure are such infrequent events, there is concern that only 4524 using two years of data from one data set that covers only a subset of states will not be 4525 representative of the actual risk and benefit from preventing deaths . In addition to the estimates 4526 of preventable deaths presented in Table 6.5-4, there are other data sources available that can be 4527
used to document the number of unint entional fatalities over time. 4528
4529
In addition to the SENSOR-Pestic ides data, there were two othe r sources with information on 4530 deaths from pesticide exposure: Annual reports prepar ed by the American Association of Poison 4531 Control Centers (AAPCC) and the EPA’s Incident Data System (IDS). SENSOR-Pesticides data 4532 are also available beginning in 1999, although the states where data were collected were 4533 inconsistent, and incidents prior to 2009 were not evaluated by NIOSH staff to determine 4534 possible causes of incidents. 4535
4536 The National Poison Data System (NPDS) is the AAPCC’s database management system used to 4537 compile poisoning information gathered by the AAPCC-certif ied poison centers 11 . There are 4538 currently 57 certified poison cente rs. Poison center staff are hea lth care professionals and are 4539 available for advice about poisonings free of char ge, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In addition 4540 to responding to calls from the ge neral public, staff also field calls from health care professionals 4541 and the public health agencies. The poison cen ters collectively receive over 3.6 million call 4542 encounters annually. These are primarily consum er oriented incident calls rather than 4543 occupational “work related” incident calls (Bronstein et al ., 2011). EPA does not have access to 4544 the raw data from the NPDS, and only summary in formation on pesticide events is available for 4545
incidents that did not result in d eaths. However, for poisoning inci dents that did result in deaths, 4546 including pesticide incidents, the AAPCC annual reports include an appendix of case abstracts 4547 that provide more information on deaths, with a description of the scenario in which the 4548 poisoning occurred and the treatment received (A merican Association of Poison Control Centers, 4549 1999 – 2012). These descriptions in the annual reports are not a full list of deaths reported to the 4550 AAPCC, because only a subset of fatal cases are chosen for reporting. Case abstracts presented 4551 in the annual reports meet a number of criteri a by AAPCC report authors (e.g., completeness of 4552 therapy details, educational value of the incident, et c.). Therefore, the cases gathered from this 4553 source, while limited, provides EPA with a number of compelling incidents. 4554
4555 EPA/OPP’s Incident Data System (IDS) contains reports of alleged human health incidents from 4556 a variety of sources, including mandatory Federa l Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 4557 (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, reports from other federa l and state health and 4558 environmental agencies and individual consumers. Case reports or “narratives” may be provided 4559 for the reported incidents, with varying levels of detail; however, there is no effort at validating 4560 or assessing how likely it is th at the reported exposure is causally related to the reported 4561 outcome. This system receives information pert aining to occupational and consumer oriented 4562 incidents. OPP focused on incidents categori zed at the highest severity level (death). 4563
4564
4565

11 More information about the data available from the NP DS is available here: http://www.aapcc.org/data-system/*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

31 These two sources were investig ated to determine if there wa s information that would shed 4566 additional light on the frequency of preventable deaths from RUPs . The data from the AAPCC 4567 annual reports was available from 1999 – 2012, and there were 13 deaths that EPA staff 4568 determined were a result of a preventable expos ure to an RUP. The EPA IDS was queried from 4569 2008 – 2014, and showed a total of six deaths that EPA staff classified as preventable. A 4570 summary of the information about deaths from th ese different databases is provided in Table 6.5- 4571
5. EPA considered several methods for combin ing the additional inform ation from AAPCC and 4572 IDS to better estimate the number of deaths pr evented by the rule annually , without any potential 4573 double counting of the information already availa ble from SENSOR-Pesticides, or from earlier 4574 years of SENSOR-Pesticides data. 4575
4576 When using the SENSOR-Pesticides data se t from 2009 – 2010 to cr eate Table 6.5-4, we 4577 extrapolated from the SENSOR-Pesticides states to the national level by creating an index of 4578 incidents per certified applicator, which yielde d an estimate of 2.65 to 3.18 preventable deaths 4579 per year. The simplest way to estimate the number of deaths prevented by th e rule is to look at 4580 the total number of preventable deaths across all the data sets for the years in which all are 4581 available, without any scaling to the national level for SENSOR-Pes ticides data. By using three 4582 different data sets and only using unique incide nts, a reasonable estimate can be obtained without 4583 double counting. There are onl y three years for which all three da ta series were available, from 4584 2008, 2009, and 2010. There were a total of six unique preventable deaths for those three years, 4585 or two preventable deaths per year. Three were from SENSOR-Pesticides (one each in 2008, 4586 2009, and 2010). The AAPCC data reported three prev entable deaths, one for each year, but the 4587 deaths for 2008 and 2009 were duplicates of the deaths reported in SENSOR-Pesticides, leaving 4588 one unique death. There were th ree preventable deaths reported in IDS for 2010 (none for other 4589 years), one of which was a duplicate to a repo rt in SENSOR-Pesticid es, leaving two unique 4590 deaths. This suggests that our extrapolati on from the SENSOR-Pesticides data in 2009 – 2010 4591 yielding 2.65 to 3.18 deaths per year may be an overestimate. This approach is not much of an 4592 improvement on the initial approach using SENS OR-Pesticides data, however, because it only 4593 uses three years of data, rather than two. The relative rarity of deaths gives an important reason 4594 to look beyond the thr ee years available for all three data sets. 4595
4596 Another possible approach is using the maxi mum years available, from 1999 – 2014, over which 4597 time there were 21 unique preventable deaths, or 1.31 per year. The problem with this approach 4598 is that the correct number of years is not obvious, because none of the data sets spans the entire 4599 range. That would not be of concern if most of th e incidents appear in all the data sets, but that 4600 is rare – there is surprisingly little overlap (3 cases), even for this most severe of outcomes. 4601
4602
To use the data available without double countin g the incidents, one option is to combine the 4603
initial SENSOR-Pesticides estimate for deaths with new estimates from AAPCC and the IDS. 4604
The estimated rate for the nation estimated from SENSOR-Pesticide s is between 2.65 and 3.18 4605 preventable deaths per year. We exclude any deat hs that were reported in AAPCC that were also 4606 reported in the SENSOR-Pesticides data from 2009 – 2010; there were two, leaving 11 unique 4607 preventable deaths reported by AAPCC between 1999 and 2012, or 0.786 per year. Finally, we 4608 consider the IDS cases reported from 2008 – 2014. There were five unique preventable deaths 4609 from IDS, or an estimated 0.714 per year, althou gh data for 2014 are incomplete. Because these 4610
estimates from the three different data sources on ly consider unique preven table deaths, they can 4611*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

32 be added together, which would yield between 4.15 and 4.68 estimated preventable deaths per 4612

year. 4613
4614 However, the estimate based on SENSOR-Pesticid es data from 2009 – 2010 was extrapolated to 4615 the national level, and hypothetica lly, one of the cases from AAPCC or IDS could have been one 4616 of the cases accounted for by the ex trapolation. For that reason, in stead of using the estimate of 4617 preventable deaths from Table 6.5-4 as our st arting point, we use only the reported estimates 4618 from SENSOR-Pesticides, not the extrapolated figures. Two preventable deaths from RUP 4619 exposure were reported in SE NSOR-Pesticides from 2009 – 2010, or one per year. This is a 4620
conservative estimate because SENSOR-Pesticides onl y covers a few states, but we use it here. 4621 Combining that number with estimates from th e unique incidents from AAPCC and IDS yields 4622 an estimate of 2.50 preventable deaths per year. 4623
4624

Table 6.5-5: Summary of Pesticide Deat hs from Additional Data Sources

SENSORPesticides
2009 - 2010 AAPCC
1999 - 2012 EPA
Incident Data System
2008 - 2014

Preventable RUP Deaths 2 13 6 Total Deaths Reported 3 267 49 Preventable RUP Deaths per Year 1 0.9 0.9 Total Deaths per Year 1.5 19.1 7.0

Sources: EPA estimates from SENSOR-Pesticides data ; EPA analysis of the AAPCC Annual Reports; EPA queries and analysis of the Incident Data System

Note: The EPA IDS data for 2014 are not complete

4625 Deaths from applicator errors involving RUPs occur for a variety of reasons. These include 4626 people accidentally ingesting an RUP that was improperly transfe rred to a beverage container, 4627 misuse of RUPs in or around homes, faulty equi pment and failure to wear appropriate protective 4628 equipment, and failure to confirm a living space is empty before fumigating. 4629
4630

Valuation of Effect 4631
4632 The value of the illnesses prevented is pres ented below (in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11). The 4633 estimates presented are almost surely underestim ates for two reasons. First, the estimated 4634 number of cases prevented is ba sed on the estimated number of re ported cases annually, which is 4635 likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 6.5.2. 4636
4637 Second, the estimates are based solely on the co st of medical care and lost wages to those 4638 affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 4639 illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 4640 for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particul ar, these estimates do not: (1) address the value 4641 of avoiding pain and suffering; (2 ) include costs that individual s incur to avoid the illness ( i.e.

, 4642 defensive or averting expenditures) ; (3) reflect aversion to risk (t he fear of becoming ill); (4) 4643*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

33 consider person’s anticipated value of preventing illness values (they are based on ex post costs); 4644 and (5) consider whether treatment returns in dividuals to their original health state ( i.e. , is 4645 equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely). 4646
4647 In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 4648 rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 4649
are estimated here. These costs include avoi ded outpatient physician visits and inpatient 4650 hospitalizations, lost productivity, and prematur e mortality. For each severity level except 4651 “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, ba sed on the probability that medical treatment is 4652 sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each se verity level except “death,” the value of lost 4653 productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 4654 illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 4655 For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 4656 work, household activities, and leisure. 4657
4658

Direct Medical Costs 4659
4660 As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by 4661
4662

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ 4663
4664
where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of vis iting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 4665 treatment costs, and i indicates the level of se verity of the effect. 4666
4667 In order to determine the probability of visiting a h ealth care facility for each severity level, we 4668
used the SENSOR-Pesticides information for thos e cases which deemed preventable or possibly 4669 preventable for 2009 - 2010. The SENSOR-Pesticid es data has a variable which indicates 4670 whether medical care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a physician’s 4671 office, an emergency room, or admitted to a hosp ital. Table 6.5-6 presents the number of cases 4672 that were seen at a health care facility, the tota l number of cases over these years, as well as the 4673 each category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure 4674 of the probability of treatmen t at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i) , we use the share of cases 4675
from that were treated at a heal th care facility, in the final co lumn of Table 6.5-6. It is not 4676 surprising that the shar e receiving medical care is so hi gh, because to be included in the 4677 SENSOR-Pesticides database requi res at least two reportable symp toms of pesticide exposure, 4678 and because the cases treated by medical profe ssionals are more likely to be reported to 4679
SENSOR-Pesticides. 4680
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 il lness or injury 5 6 83%

Source: SENSOR-Pesticides data, 2009 – 2010. Incidents from Category S-1, death, are not included, so the total number of preventable cases is 118.

4683 Inpatient costs were obtained from the Hea lthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 4684 specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, average 4685 for 2009 and 2010. For Diagnosis Related Grou p 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) 4686 the average charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $29,970 in 2007. 4687
4688 Outpatient unit costs were estimated using da ta from physician visit benchmark fees for 4689 evaluation and management cost s by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 4690
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 4691 medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other hea lth care professionals) 12

. 4692 Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service re quired for both new and 4693 established patients. Outp atient unit costs are obtaine d for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 4694 describes a patient visit with an evaluation a nd management based on a focused problem. For 4695 2009 - 2010, the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC 4696 category was $68.72 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $75.61 for new 4697 patients. Given an equal chance that the person e xposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, 4698 the average cost of an outpatient visit is estima ted to be $72.17. That cost seems low, but the 4699
data reflects the maximum allowable reimburseme nt that Medicaid has authorized for those 4700 services. This may be an underestimate, whic h would imply that the outpatient cost is 4701 underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 4702
4703 Expected medical costs, based on th e probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 4704 treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-7. 4705
4706

12 The average facility charge for all providers in 2009 - 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

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

The Value of Lost Productivity 4709
4710 The value of lost productivity is estimated as th e value of various activities in which a person is 4711 typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 4712 As noted above, we calculate this value as 4713
4714

E ሾ ܸܲܮ ௜ ሿ ൌ ሺ߱
௪ ݎ݋ݓ݇ ൅ ߱ ு ݄ݏݑ݋݁݇݁݁݌݅݊݃ ൅ ߱ ௅ ݈݁݅ݎݑݏ݁ሻ ൈ ܦܷܴ ௜ 4715
4716
where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 4717 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 4718 activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 4719
4720 BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 4721 leisure for a typical working a dult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2013d), 4722 an employed person works an average of 38.6 hours per week or 5.51 hours per day over a 4723 seven-day week. According to the American Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2013e), the average 4724 time spent by those over 16 in housekeeping is 1.78 hours per day. Leisure is calculated as the 4725 remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 8.71 hours per day. 4726
4727 The hourly value of work is measured as the we ighted average wage rate for adult private and 4728 commercial certified pesticide applicators, weighted using the number of cer tified applicators of 4729 each type in 2014 (see Section 3.3.2 of this economi c analysis), or $38.41 per hour. This is an 4730 assumption made for simplicity, but the affected person may not be a cer tified applicator, and 4731 wages vary by occupation. This analysis assu mes that workers work 40 hours a week. The 4732 value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $11.23 4733 (BLS, 2013f). This labor category was chosen as most closely repr esentative, given the 4734 occupations available, for the value of housekeepi ng activities if an injured worker had to hire 4735 outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the after-tax wage rate for 4736 certified applicators, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work and 4737*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

36 leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 29.4 percent (Tax 4738 Foundation, 2013), which leaves an after-ta x return of $27.12 per hour for leisure. 4739
4740 Table 6.5-8 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 4741 in the equation for VPL, including work, housek eeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 4742 Table 6.5-8 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day 4743 week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 4744 estimated to be $467.87 per day. 4745
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 $38.41 c $211.80 Housekeeping 1.78 a $11.23 d $18.07

Leisure 8.71 b $27.12 e $236.08

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $467.86

Sources:

a BLS, 2013d, Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times and subtracting the time known for work and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

c EPA Estimates – see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2013f CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($449) and assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $11.23 per hour.

e Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (29.4%).
4747 The SENSOR-Pesticides data do not report the duration of illness from the RUP incident, 4748 although the bounds of the duration can be inferred by the severity category. The definitions of 4749 the severity categories contain ranges of time lost from work 13 . For the lowest severity category, 4750 time lost from work is less than three days, while for moderate severity incidents, between three 4751 and five days of work are lost. For high severity incidents, time lost from work is greater than 4752 five days, although the description of the category cautions that “[t]his le vel of severity might 4753
include the need for continued health care follo wing the exposure event, prolonged time off of 4754 work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 4755 permanent functional impairment.” This descri ption indicates that the damage from an RUP 4756
incident could last substantia lly longer than five days. As shown in Table 6.5-9, for the 4757 moderate severity category, we use the low end (three days) and the high end (five days) of the 4758 range as the estimate of the time lost from the RUP exposure. For the low severity category, the 4759 high end (three days) is defined, but the low end is not, so we use the midpoint of the range 4760 between zero and three days, or 1.5 days. For the high severity categor y, the low end of the 4761 range is defined as five days, but the upper end is not defined, and could be permanent. For this 4762 analysis, we assume that the upper end is 30 days, which is somewhat arbitrary. 4763
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 Table 6.5-9 shows the estimated av erage duration of clinical eff ects at each level of severity, 4765 with a high end and a low end estimate, as discu ssed above. The time of effects, measured in 4766 days, is multiplied by the value of a full da y of productivity ($467.86) to yield high and low 4767 estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 4768
4769 Table 6.5-9: Average Clinical Effect Durati on and Value of Lost Productivity by
Clinical Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Duration of
Clinical Effect (Days) E[VPL i ] a
Category S-4: Low severity illn ess or injury Low-End 1.5 $701.79

Category S-4: Low severity illn ess or injury High-end 3 $1,403.58

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury Low-End 3 $1,403.58

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury High-end 5 $2,339.31

Category S-2: High severity illn ess or injury Low-End 5 $2,339.31

Category S-2: High severity il lness or injury High-end 30 $14,035.83

Sources: EPA calculations

a The unit cost for lost productivity day by sever ity category was calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($467.86).

4770

The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 4771
4772 The value of reduced premature mortality is simp ly the value of a statistical life, which EPA 4773 (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 4774 reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 4775 resulting in death, because any me dical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 4776 productivity is included in the VSL. 4777
4778

Annual Average Benefits, Avoide d Acute Effects of Incidents 4779
4780 The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-10 and 6.5-11. For 4781 each level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost pr oductivity costs, and the 4782 value of premature mortality multiplied by the numb er of cases avoided. We then sum across all 4783 severity levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-10 shows the low end 4784 estimates, which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the 4785 number of prevented cases, while Table 6.5-11 shows the high end estimates. 4786
4787*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

38 Table 6.5-10: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoided Aver age Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the
Certification Rule

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical Costs per
Case Lost Productivity

per Case Premature Mortality per Case Average Annual
Total Cost

Avoided

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 97 $54.37 $701.79 $0 $73,348

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 52 $72.17 $1,403.58 $0 $76,739

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 8 $25,035.14 $2,339.31 $0 $218,996

Category S-1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000

Total 159.50 $20,119,083

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as averag e annual costs are rounded.

4788 Table 6.5-11: “High-End” Estimate of Avoided Av erage Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the
Certification Rule

Clinical Effect Avoided Cases per

Year Medical Costs per
Case Lost Productivity

per Case Premature Mortality per Case Average
Annual Total
Cost Avoided

Category S-4: Low severity illness or injury 116 $54.37 $1,403.58 $0 $169,123

Category S-3: Moderate severity illness or injury 62 $72.17 $2,339.31 $0 $149,512

Category S-2:High severity illness or injury 10 $25,035.14 $14,035.83 $0 $390,710

Category S-1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000

Total 190.5 $20,459,344

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as averag e annual costs are rounded.

4789*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

39 The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from 4790 $20.1 to 20.5 million. Over a ten year period of anal ysis, the present value of these benefits is 4791 between $172 million and $175 million when a 3 per cent discount rate is applied and between 4792 $141 million and $144 million when a 7 percent discoun t rate is applied. Note that these 4793
estimates are based on the number of deaths us ing additional sources of information to the 4794 SENSOR-Pesticides data, as described in Sect ion 6.5.4.1. Therefore, the estimated number of 4795 preventable deaths per year, 2.50, is lower than e ither the low- or high-end estimates (2.65 or 4796 3.18 preventable deaths per year) based on SENS OR-Pesticides alone, which were shown in 4797
Table 6.5-4. The overall estimates of the benefits for the rule ar e lower than they would be if 4798 only the SENSOR-Pesticides estimates were used. If the estimates based on SENSOR-Pesticides 4799 data alone were used, the total benefit estimate would be between $21.4 and $25.9 million 4800 annually. 4801
4802
There are limitations to these estimates. Becau se of the substantial value associated with 4803 preventing a death from RUPs, the estimates ar e very sensitive to the estimate of deaths 4804 prevented, although we use the most conservative es timate available here. Also, as discussed 4805 above, we expect that a large proportion of acci dental (acute) pesticide poisoning never get 4806 reported or investigated for various reasons. All indications are that under-reporting is 4807 substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in th e poisoning surveillance databases 4808 and, hence, not included in this analysis. Th is under-reporting will bi as estimates of acute 4809
benefits downward. 4810
4811 In Table 6.5-12, we show the effect of under-re porting at different rates on our monetized 4812 estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings . With 100% reporting (or 0% under-reporting), 4813
the actual benefits of acute i llnesses are equal to the estimate d benefits. If there is under4814 reporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-12 shows a range of 4815 benefit estimates corresponding to different re porting rates (100%, 50% , 25%, 20%, and 10%), 4816 which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about under4817 reporting. As an example, if only 10% of cas es are reported, and unde r-reporting is equally 4818 likely in all poisoning cases across all severity levels, then the hi gh-end estimate of the value of 4819 prevented poisoning due to the rule would be over $204 million per year, substantially higher 4820 than those reported above, which assume 100% reporting. The distributi on of health effects 4821 associated with these unreported acute exposures are also not known. If reporting rates vary by 4822 severity, in such a way that more severe (and e xpensive) cases are more likely to be reported, 4823 then the effects of under-reporting would be co rrespondingly lower. A plausible estimate for 4824 under-reporting, based on the studies reported in Section 6.5.2 is 75%, which corresponds to 4825 25% reporting in Table 6.5-12. This would yield annual estimated benefits from reduced RUP 4826 exposure of between $81 and $82 million. 4827
4828
The estimated cost of the rule is between $47.2 million per year, based on a 3% discount rate 4829 (see Chapter 5). If we assume that there is no under-reporting of RUP inci dents, then the annual 4830
estimated benefits from the rule do not reach th at level. Annual benefits of $47.2 million per 4831 year corresponds to a reporting rate of about 43% for the high-end estimates, or 57% of incidents 4832 not being recorded in the survei llance databases. This is a low assumption for under-reporting, 4833 based on the information from the studies in Section 6.5.2. Also, we have made no attempt to 4834*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

40 measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be substantial; the 4835
estimates are based on the avoided costs in medical care and lost produc tivity to workers. 4836
4837
Table 6.5-12. Sensitivity of Annual Quanti fied Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about Under-reporting

Share of

Cases Reported Low-End
Estimate of

Prevented
Cases Low-End
Estimate of

Benefits High-End
Estimate of

Prevented
Cases High-End
Estimate of

Benefits

100% 159.5 $20,119,083 190.5 $20,459,344

50% 319.0 $40,238,165 381.0 $40,918,688

25% 638.0 $80,476,330 762.0 $81,837,377

20% 797.5 $100,595,413 952.5 $102,296,721

10% 1,595.0 $201,190,826 1,905.0 $204,593,442

Source: EPA Calculations

4838
The values shown in Table 6.5-12 assume that unde r-reporting is equal across all severity levels. 4839 It is plausible that deaths, for example, are less li kely to be underreported than less severe events, 4840 although the lack of duplication in the available databases discu ssed above suggests this may not 4841 be the case. Because such a large portion of the overall value is from prevented deaths, different 4842 assumptions about reporting rates are important. For example, if 100% of deaths were reported, 4843 even if we assumed that that only 10% of less severe incidents were reported would not yield 4844
annual benefits that exceeded the annual cost s – the estimated benefits would be about $27 4845 million annually at the high-end. For the estimated acute benefits of the rule to exceed the cost, 4846 the reporting rate for deaths is just under 50%, even when only 10% of less severe incidents are 4847 reported. 4848
4849 All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section incl ude only the effects of reduced 4850 illness from acute exposure – the effects of chro nic exposure are discussed in the next section, 4851 which will discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 4852 families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 4853
4854
4855



### 6.6. Risks to Human Health from Chronic RUP Exposure 4856
4857 In the previous section, estimates of reduced i llness from acute exposur es to pesticides are 4858 presented. Although these estimates are based on th e best available data, there are uncertainties 4859 reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 4860 are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generali zed pesticide exposure. 4861 EPA anticipates that benefits from reduced chro nic health effects would accrue primarily to 4862 commercial pesticide applicators, since they ar e most likely to face long-term minor exposures, 4863 but there may also be benefits from reduced exposure to applicators’ families and those working 4864*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

41 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. This sec tion will describe the potential 4865 chronic health effects to commercial pestic ide applicators from pesticide exposure. 4866
4867 It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 4868 outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. Available data do not establish a causal link 4869 between these exposures and the health outcome s. However, information finding correlations 4870 between pesticide exposure and illness is comp elling enough to suggest some of the observed 4871 statistical associations may at some point in fu ture be determined to be causal in nature. 4872 Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through changes to the certification rule may 4873
have substantial benefits that ca nnot be quantified at this time. 4874
4875 While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 4876 pesticide exposures and adverse ch ronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 4877
evidence of well-documented associations betwee n pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 4878
non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically, several 4879 epidemiology studies conducted over time, using di fferent study designs, and taking place within 4880 different study populations in addi tion to other streams of scientific evidence are required before 4881
researchers can move from a statistical associat ion to a causal determination. The environmental 4882 epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in te rms of both quantity a nd quality of pesticide 4883 epidemiology studies, and EPA expects additional causal links between pesticide exposure and 4884 adverse health outcomes in the human population w ill be provided over time. However, at this 4885 time, EPA is not making definitive causal conne ctions between any one specific pesticide 4886 exposure and a specific adverse health outcome. 4887
4888 Even though there have been rela tively few proven cause and eff ect associations between real 4889 world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposure4890
chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 4891 the scientific peer- reviewed lite rature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 4892 collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 4893 issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. There is a large body of epidemiological 4894 evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (s uch as cancer, neurological, 4895 respiratory, fertility, be havioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result from 4896 pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to 4897 specific pesticides, which highlights the importan ce of reduced general pe sticide exposure. 4898
4899 There are several ongoing studies with large agricultural cohorts funded by federal governments 4900 in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within thes e populations suggest se veral plausible hypotheses 4901 to link pesticide exposure to chronic health effect s. The most notable of these is the Agricultural 4902 Health Study 14 funded by the National Cancer Instit ute (NCI), National Institute of 4903 Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a nd co-sponsored by EPA, among other collaborating 4904 agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, including private 4905 and commercial pesticide applicators and th eir spouses. The nature of this powerful 4906 epidemiologic study design allows investigator s to examine many different adverse health 4907 outcomes within the study population, i.e. , pesticide exposure is asce rtained at the beginning of 4908

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 the study and updated periodically, while health information is continually updated and/or 4909 collected over time. Another study cohort in No rway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 4910
links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, 4911 Nordby et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underw ay to investigate the links between 4912 agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean 4913
Multi-Center Cancer cohort is co llecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 4914 as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factor s associated with cancer risk 4915 (Yoo et al ., 2002). These investigators ha ve initiated a collaborative effort, AGRICOH, which is 4916 designed to encourage internationa l collaboration. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine countries 4917 pooling data to study cancer and ot her disorders that can result fr om pesticide exposure and other 4918 causes (Leon, et al ., 2011). 4919
4920 A complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 4921 implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 4922 protective equipment, revised re -entry intervals, and at time s the cancellation of pesticide 4923 products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 4924 contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 4925 necessarily have curren t regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or 4926 withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, ch anges in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 4927 pesticide product formulation changes and other f actors may have resulted in significant changes 4928 in the use of pesticides over the last seve ral decades, which is the relevant period for 4929 investigating chronic eff ects with typically long latency period s such as cancer. As a result, 4930 studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with ca ution when applied to 4931 current use patterns. 4932
4933 Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 4934
linked to chronic health outcome s later in life. These early life exposures may occur from 4935 pesticides that are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pestic ide applicators and brought into 4936 the applicator home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take 4937 home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or an agricultural worker may bring pesticide 4938 residues home on their body or cl othing (see Section 6.2.2). 4939
4940 These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and ot her scientific information are evaluated to 4941 determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health effects in the 4942 applicator population and their families. EPA ta kes action to mitigate th e estimated risks of 4943 individual pesticides to human health. However, there are also instances in which there is cause 4944 for concern over generalized pe sticide exposure (be yond those that can be modeled using 4945 aggregate and/or cumulative risk assessment pr actices). The proposed rule changes are also 4946 designed to protect against commer cial pesticide applicator expos ures from all RUPs even when 4947
the causal link between individual pesticides and specific health outcomes is not demonstrated. 4948
4949 In this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic hea lth effects that result from 4950 pesticide exposure. These case study examples are selected for discussion here because they 4951 meet EPA data quality standards, and due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the 4952 hypothesized link, the number of studi es available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the 4953 health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings 4954*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

43 suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific research and 4955 measures of chronic exposure at this time, es timates of the quantitative benefits from the 4956 proposal are not possible. 4957
4958
4959



### 6.6.1. Cancer Risks 4960

4961 Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 4962 various peer-review bodies, ther e is a wide range of literatu re demonstrating statistical 4963 associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical ca ncer sites, with biological 4964 plausibility illustrated in expe rimental toxicology studies. Many studies have evaluated other 4965 possible links between pesticide exposure and can cer. While it is premature to state there is a 4966 causal association between the studied pesticid es and cancer in the applicator population, EPA 4967 presents this information to demonstrate the growing body of knowledge as to possible chronic 4968 health effects of pe sticide exposure. 4969
4970 Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticid e exposure, review 4971 articles and meta-analytic results indicate eviden ce of an association between various pesticide 4972 exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non -Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 4973 specifically); among solid tumors (brain and pros tate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 4974
cancer risk in associ ation with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 4975 exposure (Bassil et al .; 2007; Blair and Bean e-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010a; Van Maele 4976
et al .; 2011; Wigle et al ., 2009; Turner et al ., 2009; Alavanja and B onner, 2012; and Alavanja et 4977
al ., 2013). This section will disc uss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 4978 pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 4979
4980 Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a revi ew of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 4981 agricultural populations. They report that meta-a nalyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 4982 excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 4983 and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 4984 cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 4985 of studies of individual cancers show the importa nce of identifying specific exposures that lead 4986
to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these aut hors conclude factors other than 4987 pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 4988 engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009). 4989
4990
4991

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 4992
4993 Over time, evidence of a link between pesticid e exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 4994 example, since the 1980s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 4995 exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997). 4996
Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers ha ve increased between1973 -1990, a time period 4997 coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 4998
et al ., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair 4999*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

44 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal transl ocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 5000 as a result of pesticide exposure; however, this is not known with certa inty at this time. 5001 Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pes ticide applicators rela tive to the general 5002 population, Koutros, et al . (2010a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 5003 lymphoma. Eriksson et al . (2008) reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 5004 population-based case-control study in Sweden (Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link 5005 between pesticide exposure and these cancers; ho wever, additional research is necessary to 5006
understand whether the link is causa l in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and 5007 other farm related exposures may contri bute to the risk of these cancers. 5008
5009 In a review by Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 5010 leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies 5011 with statistically significant results. Several case- control studies looked at children that had been 5012 exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia for children whose 5013 parents used insecticides on th e garden and on indoor plants a nd from those mothers exposed 5014 while pregnant (Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies 5015 included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether publication bias 5016
was a factor in the resu lts of this review. 5017
5018
In the Bassil et al . (2007) review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 5019 examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 5020 the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 5021 associations were statistically significant. In one study that ex amined children’s exposure to 5022 pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 5023 pesticides were used most days for professiona l home extermination, when children had direct 5024 postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 5025
risks found were over several cl asses of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007). 5026
5027 Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 5028 exposure to pesticides and leukemia in farmwo rkers’ children. They found no evidence of a 5029
direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational ex posure, but they report 5030 an association between a mother’s occupational e xposure to general pesticides and insecticides 5031 and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly high er for farm and other 5032 related exposures. 5033
5034

Prostate Cancer 5035
5036 For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 5037 are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 5038 disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al. , 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 5039 prostate cancer, which may be explained by pes ticide exposure, or possi bly by other farm- or 5040 non-farm related exposures. Comparing the inci dence of prostate cancer in farmers with 5041 members of the general population, researchers ha ve estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 5042 increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010a). Case-control an alysis within the AHS 5043 suggest exposure to several organophosphate pestic ides may be related to prostate cancer, but 5044 only among men with a family hist ory of the disease (Alavanja et al ., 2003). Additional follow- 5045*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

45 up within the AHS cohort corroborat es this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007; 5046
Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate can cer with certain pesticide exposure 5047 varies by family history of pr ostate cancer, and molecular ep idemiology studies are underway 5048 that may shed light as to the pot ential role of genetic variation in the associ ation. This work is 5049 not yet complete. However, initial investigatio ns recently released indicate that a genetic 5050 variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the associ ation between pesticide exposure 5051 and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010b). Since these genetic va riations do not fully explain 5052 the cancer relationships within a family, other shared environmental exposures may play an 5053 important role. Overall, however , across studies published, results are not consistent, possibly 5054 due to differing study designs used. 5055
5056 Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 5057 this time focusing upon more aggressi ve cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the 5058 purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cance r was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 5059 outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poor ly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 5060
a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggr essive prostate cancer 5061 among those who reported using higher amounts of f our pesticides over thei r working lifetime. 5062 This work supports previous analyses noting li nks between specific orga nophosphate pesticides 5063 and prostate cancer. It also extends an understa nding of the possibility of a link with the 5064 aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 5065 slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 5066 to distinguish clear causal pathways. Howeve r, the study is supportive of previous work 5067 concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pe sticide applicators enrolled in 5068
the AHS. 5069
5070

Lung Cancer 5071
5072
There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al

. 5073 (2004), reported a positive associ ation between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 5074 AHS cohort. In this study, exposur e to these pesticides was associ ated with lung cancer risk in 5075 the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk fo r the cohort is lower than the 5076 population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an associat ion between pesticides and lung 5077 cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004). 5078
5079



### 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects 5080

5081 Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic hea lth consequence of pesticide 5082 exposure; however, none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 5083 investigations have identified elev ated risks of respiratory and neur ological effects; as these are 5084 preliminary investigations, other ex planations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 5085 However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 5086 and some neurological outcomes in adults su ch as Parkinson’s dis ease (PD) and general 5087 neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the pr oposed changes to the 5088 certification rule reduce chronic exposure to pest icides, they may reduce the incidence of these 5089
chronic health effects as well. 5090*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

46 5091

Neurological Function 5092
5093 The possible connection between pe sticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 5094 spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al . (2007), investigated the 5095 hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Stu dy participants included licensed 5096 private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 5097 contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 throug h 2003. They report a positive association of 5098 PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong associatio n” with PD for those 5099 who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative life time days of use was associated with a dose5100 response relationship in cases diagnosed afte r the beginning of the study, but there was no 5101 association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prio r to the study. This study has 5102 recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cas es of PD, as opposed to participant self5103 reporting of PD, and authors reported statistica lly significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if 5104 participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al ., 2011). 5105
5106 In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (2007) 5107 evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 5108 and reported a positive associati on in 15 out of the 26 studies re viewed. The authors conclude 5109 that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 5110 exposures of pesticides on the job.” 5111
5112
Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non-cancer health eff ects of pesticides in a review, and found 5113 most (39/41) studies displayed an increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 5114 association with pesticide expos ure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 5115 preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 5116 depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al . (2007), 5117 using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide 5118 exposure, with the greatest associ ation for organophosphate pesticides. 5119
5120 Research on the neurological eff ects of pesticide exposure continue s. Three recent studies (Rauh 5121
et al. , 2011; Engel et al. , 2011; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the relationship 5122 between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 5123 neurological effects in children through the ag e of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 5124
al ., 2011) reviews the possibl e relationship between adult occ upational exposure to pesticides 5125 and adverse neurological sympto ms. The authors acknowledge uncer tainties present in the data 5126 at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of 5127 action, among other stu dy characteristics. 5128
5129

Respiratory Function 5130
5131 Several studies have shown linkages with both perm anent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 5132 effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 5133 trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and sh ortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 5134 asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptibl e to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 5135
several studies have shown an association be tween pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et al

. 5136*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

47 (2008) reported an association be tween exposure to a range of pe sticides and asthma in farm 5137 women, despite the fact that grow ing up on a farm reduced the likeli hood of asthma attacks. This 5138 study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicat ors and may show an important effect from 5139 generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to fa milies, rather than exposure as a pesticide 5140 applicator. An association has been reported for children, as well. Salam et al . (2004) describe a 5141 range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and 5142 other farm exposures. The effects were larges t for children with early onset asthma. An 5143 international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al ., 2003) also 5144 reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms. 5145
5146 Studies have also reported an association betw een pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 5147 inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. Wh ile acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 5148 a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructiv e pulmonary disease that makes 5149 it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 5150 Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant a ssociation between eleven pesticides and 5151 chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an a ssociation that was stro nger among those with a 5152 high pesticide exposure event. 5153
5154



### 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 5155

5156 Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clea r cause-effect relation 5157 between specific pesticide exposur e and certain chronic health outco mes. However, the totality 5158
of national and international res earch efforts and initial resear ch results in conjunction with 5159 plausible hypotheses, taken toge ther, suggest that pesticide e xposure may result in chronic 5160 adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 5161
and standards. 5162
5163 The proposed changes to the cer tification rule are designed to reduce occupational exposure to 5164 all RUPs, as well as reduce non-occupational exposure to the families of certified applicators and 5165 the general public. There is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that 5166 reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public h ealth through reduced chronic 5167 illness (Section 6.6 above). In general, while ther e is sufficient evidence to suggest associations 5168 between exposure and illness, the literature doe s not provide sufficient data to quantify health 5169 effects of specific pesticides for use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the 5170 proposed rule changes are a way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an 5171
overall benefit to health. 5172
5173 The health effects potentially caused by occupa tional pesticide exposur e can have dramatic 5174
effects on the health and welfare of those who suffer from these diseases. These illnesses do not 5175 only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by family 5176
members or others. It is also important not to underestimate th e effects on those stricken with 5177
illness. 5178
5179
Because of the uncertainties in the number of chronic illnesses that may be caused by, and 5180 therefore prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to deri ve quantified estimates 5181 of pesticide-specific benefits from illness reducti on. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 5182*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

48 disease are high, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 5183 paragraph. As examples, the additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s 5184
disease have been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs 5185 have been estimated at over $5,800 monthly fo r aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for 5186 slower-growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. , 2006). For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment 5187 over 5 and half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al ., 2006). These costs are only 5188 treatment costs, which is an under-estim ate of the true cost of illness. 5189
5190 EPA’s preferred approach for valuation of reduced risk is to use an estimate of “willingness to 5191 pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (EPA, 2010). As described in Freeman 5192 (2003), this measure consis ts of four components: 5193
5194

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 5195

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 5196

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 5197 activities; and 5198

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 5199
5200 WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group woul d pay to receive the 5201 benefits resulting from a policy ch ange, without being made worse off. There are other values 5202 excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 5203 health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 5204
value the health of othe rs, and place some value on seeing others protected. 5205
5206
As with the estimated value of prevented acute illness in Section 6.5, we are unable to use the 5207 WTP to value prevented chronic illnesses, but the WTP for these serious chronic illnesses is 5208 surely much higher than the cost of illness es timates provided above. This indicates that 5209 prevention of these illnesses w ould have substantial value. 5210*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## Chapter 7 Information Requested – Paperwork Burden 5211 

## Requirements 5212

The information collection activities (ICR) for the current requirements for the certification of 5213 pesticide applicators are addre ssed in an information collection request document and approved 5214 under OMB Control No. 2070-0029 (EPA ICR No. 0155.10). The proposed rule contains some 5215
information collection activitie s that must be approved by OM B under the Paperwork Reduction 5216 Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in accord ance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. 5217 Therefore, EPA prepared a rule-related ICR document (EPA ICR number 2499.01; OMB 5218 Control No. 2070-NEW) to address the informa tion collection requirements contained in the 5219 proposed rule and the related to tal incremental burden related. 5220

The rule-related ICR addresses various the pa perwork requirements contained in the propose 5221 rule, including: 5222

 Annual reports required from States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies with EPA 5223 approved certification programs. 5224

 Pesticide dealer record keeping. 5225

 Commercial applicator records for both federal and state agencies. 5226

 Certified applicator training for both priv ate and commercial applicators including 5227
records and exams. 5228

 Noncertified commercial and private applicator training record keep ing including records 5229
and exams. 5230

 State plan revisions. 5231

The currently approved ICR for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators also includes 5232 paperwork burden estimates for anthrax related pr oducts which are ancillary to the Certification 5233 ICR and have not been changed. The burden es timates for anthrax products is due to the 5234 requirement for anthrax product registrants to de velop trainings, exams, and keep records of 5235 purchases of anthrax products. This annual burden is estimated to include 87 hours and $5,050 5236 in costs both of which are included respectively in the total estimates below. 5237

Because of the changes to existing requirement s as well as new requirements under the proposed 5238 rule, there will be an estimated increase d burden for information collection related 5239
activities. The total annual hours for the informa tion collection related activ ities associated with 5240 this action is estimated to be 1,853,117 hours for all respondents. This represents a 140 percent 5241
increase in the number of hours estimated in the currently-approved IC R, bringing the total 5242
burden of activities under this ICR to 3,173,371 hours. The total a nnual cost burden annualized 5243
at 3% for the information collection related activiti es associated with this action are estimated to 5244 be $57,363,250 for all respondents, an increase of 134 percent in paperwork costs over the 5245 currently-approved ICR. The total annual pape rwork cost of activitie s under this ICR is 5246 estimated to be $100,001,116. 5247*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

1 

## References 5248

5249
5250 Abdel Rasoul, GM, Abou Salem ME, Mechael AF, Hedy OM, Rohlman DS, Ismail AA, Effects 5251 of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides, NeuroToxicology 29 5252 (2008) 833–838 5253

Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubi n, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP 5254 Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and l ung cancer risk in the 5255 agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85. 5256

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupati onal Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A 5257 Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environm ental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 5258 Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220. 5259

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013 . Increased cancer bu rden among pesticide 5260 applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Ca ncer Journal for Clinicians, 5261 January 15, 2013. 5262

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, 5263 Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Bl air A., Use of agricu ltural pesticides and 5264 prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 5265 1;157(9):800-14. 5266

Anger WK, Patterson L, Fuchs M, Will LL, R ohlman, DS, Learning and Recall of Worker 5267 Protection Standard (WPS) Trai ning in Vineyard Workers, Journal of Agromedicine

, 5268 14:336–344, 2009. 5269

American Association of Poison Control Ce nters. 2000 – 2013. Annual Reports from 1999 – 5270 2012, available here: http://www.aapcc.org/annual-reports/ 5271

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health 5272 Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides. 5273

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness 5274 surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting. American Journal of Public 5275
Health , 92: 1421–1429. 5276

Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surv eillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in 5277 the United States: Current Perspectives and Fu ture Directions, Journal of Public Health 5278 Policy, Summer:9(2). 5279

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, a nd KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of 5280 pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11. 5281

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Brad man, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential 5282 Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Ti me Series." Environmental 5283 International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209. 5284

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blai r, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al . 2005. 5285 Cancer incidence among male pesticide appl icators in the Agricultural Health Study 5286 cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079. 5287*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

2 Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. 5288 Mortality among participants in the agricultural health st udy. Annals of epidemiology, 5289 15(4), 279-285. 5290

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemio logic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural 5291 Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine . 2009; 14(2): 125–131. 5292

Bildfell RJ, Rumbeiha WK, Schuler KL, Meteye r CU, Wolff PL, and Gillin CM. A review of 5293 episodes of zinc phosphide toxi cosis in wild gees e (Branta spp.) in Oregon (2004-2011). 5294 Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation , 2013 25: 162. 5295

Blondel, Jerome and Monica Spann. Review of the methyl parathion incident reports DP 5296 Barcode D242333, Chemical #053501, Reregistration Case #0153. 5297 http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/c leared_reviews/csr_PC-053501_5-Feb5298 98_039.pdf 5299

BLS. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed o ccupation and age, incl uding median age. 5300 Demographics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013). 5301 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor. 5302 http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm , accessed June 2014 5303

BLS. 2014b. OES Research Estimates by State an d Industry, various Sectors, May 2013. Bureau 5304 of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 5305 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes_research_estimates_2012.htm, accessed June 2014 5306

BLS. 2014c. O ccupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry-Specific 5307 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 999200 - State Government, 5308 excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation) . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 5309 Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/ current/naics4_999200.htm 5310

BLS. 2014d. O ccupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry-Specific 5311 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates , Sector 11 - Agriculture, Forestry, 5312 Fishing and Hunting . Bureau of Labor Statistics , U.S. Department of Labor. 5313 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_11.htm 5314

BLS. 2013b. Economic News Release: Table 2. Civilian workers, by occupational and industry 5315

group . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 5316 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm 5317

BLS. 2013d. Current Population Survey: Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural 5318 industries by hours of work. Bureau of La bor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 5319 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf 5320

BLS. 2013e. American Time Use Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 5321 Labor. June 18, 2014. http://www .bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf 5322

BLS. 2013f. Current Population Survey: Median w eekly earnings of full-time wage and salary 5323 workers by detailed occupation and sex. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 5324
Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf 5325

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright , and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attention5326 deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. 5327
Pediatrics . Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945. 5328*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

3 Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, 5329 Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and 5330 IQ in 7-year-old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95. 5331

Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wild life in Benefit-Cost Analyses: A Case Study 5332 Involving Endangered Species. Water Res ources Research 23(5): 943-950. 5333

Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta , D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S 5334 Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G 5335 Logroscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B 5336 Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 5337 2009. Meeting report: consensus statement- Parkinson's disease and the environment: 5338
collaborative on health and the environm ent and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE 5339 PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect . 117, 117–121 5340

Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum , C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M 5341 Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pestic ide-related illnesse s among working youths, 5342
1988-1999. Am J Public Health , 93:605-610. 5343

Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L 5344 Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Mo raga-McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide 5345 poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. American 5346 Journal of Industrial Medicine , 51(12): 883-898. 5347

Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 5348 Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983): 5349
396-400. 5350

Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides , chromosomal aberrations, and non-Hodgkin's 5351 lymphoma. JAgromedicine . 2009;14(2):250-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285; 5352
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329 5353

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blai r, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, 5354 and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos e xposure and incident cancer among male 5355 participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives

, 5356 118(1):92-6. 5357

CPARD. 2014. Certification Plan and Re porting Database maintained by the National 5358 Association of State Departments of Agri culture and EPA at the Washington State 5359 University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/

. 5360

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka , SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja. 5361
2005. Pesticide contamination insi de farm and nonfarm homes, . J Occup Environ Hyg

. 5362 2(7):357-67, July. 5363

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sande rson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and 5364 MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non5365 farmers, Environmental Research , Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315 5366

CTAG. 1999. Pesticide Safety in the 21 st Century: The Findi ngs and Proposals of the 5367 Certification & Training Assessment Group . January 1999. 5368 http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag/ pdf/1999_21stCentRpt.pdf 5369*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

4 Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harri son. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among 5370 migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303-312. 5371

Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain 5372 development, risk-taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology -Paris 5373 Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279-286. 5374

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Sur vey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and 5375 Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9 , Office of the 5376 Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Progr ammatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 5377
March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agwor ker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf 5378

Dun and Bradstreet. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and 5379 Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/ 5380

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbau m, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS 5381
Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and 5382 performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic 5383 pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol . 165(12):1397-404. 5384

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Ca nfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to 5385 organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ 5386 Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8. 5387

EPA. 2014a. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Ag ricultural Worker Standard Revisions

. 5388 Biological and Economic Analys is Division, Office of Pestic ide Programs, U.S. EPA. 5389 Available at regulations .gov, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184. 5390

EPA. 2014b. Personal communication with North Carolina, California, Indiana, Wyoming and 5391 Florida on the subject of communication betw een certified applicat ors and noncertified 5392 applicators under their di rect supervision. 5393

EPA. 2014c. National Assessment of the Pes ticide Worker Safety Program. Web page: 5394 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm 5395

EPA. 2014d. Proprietary data on pesticide use. 5396

EPA. 2012. Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FI FRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting 5397 held April 10 – 12, 2012 on Chlorpyrifos Health Effects. Memorandum, July 11, 2012. 5398 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/m eetings/2012/april/041012minutes.pdf 5399

EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benef its Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) 5400 Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. 5401 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida nce/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf 5402

EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection 5403 Agency. 5404 http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/page s/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf 5405

EPA. 2008a. EIIS Incident Report: I018678-001 . Report on fish kill from acrolein on the Cub 5406 River, Idaho, updated March 5, 2008. 5407

EPA. 2008b. Child-Specific Expos ure Factors Handbook. September 2008. 5408 http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimsco mm.getfile?p_download_id=484738 5409*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

5 EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline . Office of Pesticide Programs, 5410 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: 5411 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc /2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf

. 5412

EPA. 2006. EPA Interim National Program Guidan ce for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s 5413 Pesticide Applicator Certific ation Program (40 CFR Part 171 ). July 2006. 5414

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerma n. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 5415 non-Hodgkin lymphoma including hist opathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer

. 5416 123(7):1657-63 Oct 1. 5417

ERS. 2000. Farm Resource Regions. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 5418 Agriculture. September. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/926929/aib5419 760_002.pdf

. 5420

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Brad man, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 5421 2007. Environmental organophosphate pestic ide exposure and neurodevelopment in 5422 young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect . 115:792–798. 5423

Fortenberry GZ and Calvert GM, Identifying contributing factors associated w ith restricted use 5424 pesticides (RUPs), unpublis hed document, April 22, 2014. 5425

Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Envi ronmental and Resource Values: Theory and 5426 Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 5427

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives

, 5428 Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362. 5429

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic 5430 exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet 5431
Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April. 5432

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Dec line of the Increasing In cidence of Non-Hodgkin 5433 Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Pr eventive Measures?" 5434 Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706. 5435

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneber ger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP 5436 Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic a nd nonatopic asthma among farm women in the 5437 Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. At 5438 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376

. 5439

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al . 2007. 5440 Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among fa rmers in the Agricu ltural Health Study. Am 5441
J Ind Med 50:969–979. 5442

Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli-Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of 5443
illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders , 20(11):1449-54, Nov. At 5444 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641

. 5445

Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers . At 5446 http://www.iihs.org/research/fat ality_facts_2008/teenagers.html , accessed February, 24, 5447
2011. 5448*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

6 Johnston, R. Ranson, M.Besedin, E.Helm, E. “Wha t Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A 5449 Meta-Analysis of Recrea tional Fishing Values” Marine Resource Economics Vol 21:1- 5450
32 , 2006 5451

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M 5452 Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposur e and self-reported 5453
Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol , 165:364-74. 5454

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update , Economic Research Report No. 5455 60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June. 5456

Karpf, Elissa. Results of Assessments of Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl 5457 Parathion Sites, Repor t No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069 . September 23, 1997. 5458 http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ 900K1G00.PDF?Dockey=900K1G00.PDF 5459

Kotchen, Matthew J. and Reiling, Stephen D., Environmental attitudes, motivations, and 5460 contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species, 5461 Ecological Economics 32(1): 93-107. 5462

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler , JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE 5463 Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer in cidence in the Agricu ltural Health Study. 5464 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52(11):1098-105. 5465

Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G A ndreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K 5466 Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager , and MC Alavanja. 2010b. Pesticide use 5467 modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate 5468

cancer. Cancer Res , 70(22):9224-33. 5469

Koutros, S, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL He ltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, 5470 JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, an d MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and 5471 Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American 5472 Journal of Epidemiology , 177(1):59-74. Epub 2012 Nov 21, 5473 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882

. 5474

Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors 5475 of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ 5476
Health . 22(1):14-26, Feb. 5477

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Ar ning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs 5478 associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States duri ng the first two years 5479 of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544. 5480

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, a nd C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the 5481
Causes of Death and Cancer Inciden ce Among French Farmers and Agricultural 5482 Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology : Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov. 5483

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al . 2004. Cancer incidence 5484 among pesticide applicators exposed to chlo rpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J 5485
Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791. 5486

Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Ho ppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M 5487 Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Ba ldi, MA Dalvie, G 5488 Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P 5489*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

7 Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair. 5490
2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public 5491
Health . 2011 May;8(5):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29. 5492

Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andr ews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, 5493 Rundle A. Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environmen t characteristics as 5494 determinants of early childhood neurode velopment Am J Public Health. 2011 5495 Jan;101(1):63-70 5496

Madrigal, J.L., Glen C. Pixton, Bruce J. Collings, Gary M. Booth, and H. Duane Smith (1996). 5497 A comparison of two methods of estimating bird mortalities from field-applied pesticides. 5498 Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15(6): 878 – 885. 5499

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. 5500 Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health 5501 Perspect , 114:1838-42 5502

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppi n JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl 5503 exposure and incident cancer in the Agricu ltural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 5504 15;121(8):1799-805. 5505

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 5506 2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American 5507 children: the CHAMACOS study . Environ Health Perspect . 118(12):1768-74, Dec. 5508

NASS. 2014a. Crop Production: 2013 Summary . January, 2014. 5509 http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/c urrent/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-10-2014.pdf 5510

NASS. 2014b. Crop Values: 2013 Summary . February, 2014. 5511 http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/cur rent/CropValuSu/Cr opValuSu-02-14-2014.pdf 5512

NASS. 2014c. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Na tional Agricultural Statis tics Service, U.S. 5513 Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 5514

NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey data for number of farms and workers. 5515 http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ . Accessed July 2013. 5516

NASS. 2012. Indiana Special Agriculture Report , 32:1, April 2, 2012. 5517 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Stat istics_by_State/Indiana/Pub lications/Ag_Report/2012/agrS 5518 pecCrop.pdf 5519

NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 5520 States Department of Agricu lture. Updated December 2008. 5521 http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

. 5522

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012a. National 5523 Pesticide Applicator Certification Core 5524
Manual

. http://nasda.org/9381/Foundation/11379/11383/6684.aspx 5525

5526

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Resear ch Foundation. 2012b. 5527 Framework for the National Soil Fumigation Manual and Exam Item 5528
Bank

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=4185 5529*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

8 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Resear ch Foundation. 2011a . Aerial 5530 Applicator's Manual

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3786 5531

National Association of State Depa rtments of Agriculture Research 5532
Foundation. 2011b . National Right-of-Way Herbicide Applicator Test Plan and 5533 Training Syllabus

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3941 5534

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, 5535 Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011. 5536

National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma , NIH 5537 publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/c ancertopics/wyntk/non5538 hodgkin-lymphoma.pdf. 5539

NIOSH. 2001. Severity Index fo r Use in State-based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide-Related 5540 Illness and Injury. We b page revised 11/27/01. 5541 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pes ticides/pdfs/pest-sevindexv6.pdf 5542

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristens en. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure 5543 in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work 5544
Environ Health . 31(2):89-96, April. 5545

OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. 5546 http://www.whitehouse.gov/om b/circulars_a004_a-4

. 5547

Oregon Department of Agriculture . 2013. Bumblebee incidents resu lt in pesticide violations, 5548 Press Release, December 19, 2013. 5549 http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/ne ws/131219bees_pesticides.aspx 5550

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms 5551 Accessed August 4, 2011. 5552

Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang, 5553 and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment 5554 in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845-e1859 5555

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven-Year 5556 Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common 5557 Agricultural Pesticide, Environ H ealth Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201. 5558

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use 5559 and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents : Gender Differences and Predictors of 5560
Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health , 22: 314–320. 5561

Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings , Sixth Edition, 5562
available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pe sticide-worker-safety/recognition-and5563 management-pesticide-poisonings 5564

Richardson, Leslie and John Loomis. 2009. The to tal economic value of threatened, endangered 5565 and rare species: An updated meta-analy sis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548. 5566

Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pame la J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral 5567 Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, 5568 Neurotoxicology. 2011 Ma rch; 32(2): 268–276. 5569*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

9 Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sw eitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards 5570 and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural 5571 Safety and Health . Special Issue (1):159-169. 5572

Rucker, Randal R. and Thurman, Walter N. Colony Collapse disorder: The Market Response to 5573

Bee Disease , PERC Policy Series No. 50, 2012. 5574 http://perc.org/sites/default/files/ps50.pdf 5575

Rucker, Randal R., Thurman, Walter N., and Michael Burgett. “Honey Bee Pollination Markets 5576 and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benef its,” Am. J. Agr. Econ. (2012) 94 (4): 956-977 5577

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and 5578
Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32. 5579

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu-Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and 5580 Children's Health Study, Early-lif e environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from 5581 the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760–765. 5582

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory 5583 symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J . 22(3):507-12, Sept. At 5584 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143

. 5585

Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Ba ssil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non-cancer health 5586 effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam 5587 Physician 53(10): 1712-20. 5588

SBA. 2014. Table of Small Business Size Standa rds. U.S. Small Business Administration. At 5589 http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/ files/Size_Stan dards_Table.pdf . July 14. Accessed 5590 August 2014. 5591

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning

, 5592 University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97-2505-A. 5593

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and aff ective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive 5594
Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69-74, Feb. 5595

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors 5596 in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249- 5597
272. 5598

Stevens, T.H.; J. Echeverria; R.J. Glass; T. Hager; and T.A. More. 1991. Measuring the 5599
Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show? Land Economics 5600 67(4): 390-400. 5601

Stroud, Richard K., and Frank Kuncir (2005) . Investigating w ildlife poisoning cases. 5602
International Game Warde n, Winter 2005: 8 – 13. 5603

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok 5604 GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Rich ards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez 5605 HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and 5606 Parkinson's disease, Environ Heal th Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72. 5607*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

10 Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is Apr il 18, Five Days Later Than Last Year. 5608 April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/artic le/tax-freedom-day-2013-april-18-five-days5609 later-last-year 5610

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Re sidential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a 5611 systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41. 5612

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries 5613
and Illnesses . Committee on Education and Labor . Washington: Government 5614

Van Maele-Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Li son. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides 5615 and childhood leukaemia: a systema tic review and meta-analysis. Environment 5616
International . 37(1):280-91, Jan. 5617

Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher . 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data 5618
Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology : 389-97. 5619

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Expos ure Pathways among Children of Agricultural 5620
Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99. 5621

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Farm Worker Health and Safety in 5622 Washington State: A Look at Workers' Compensation Data. Olympia, WA: Safety and 5623
Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24-2-1991, 1991. 5624

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5625 childhood leukemia and parental oc cupational pestic ide exposure. Environmental Health 5626 Perspectives 117:1505-1513. 5627

Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in 5628 human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev . 11(3-4):242-59, Mar. 5629
Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555 5630

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody, 5631
and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pa ttern Comparison of Prostate Cancer 5632 Treatments, CANCER ; Published Online: December 21. 5633

WHO IARC. 1999. World Health Organization, Inte rnational Agency for Research on Cancer 5634 (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 5635 Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insect icide Application, a nd Some Pesticides: 5636 Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation. Available here: 5637 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf 5638

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking 5639 Carbofuran Tolerances . Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide 5640 Programs, U.S. EPA. 5641

Vyas, Nimish (1999). Factors influencing estima tion of pesticide-relate d wildlife mortality. 5642 Toxicology and Industrial Health, 15: 186 – 191. 5643

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center 5644 Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of 5645
Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92. 5646*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

11 Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Brad man, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE 5647 Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate 5648 pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209 5649

Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adam i. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes 5650
and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33. 5651

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pe sticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 5652 Suppl 3:893-908, June. 5653