1

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION (PR) NOTICE 2016-X

(May 2016)

Draft Document for Public Review – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of public review and comment. This 

draft document is not now, and has not yet been, formally disseminated by EPA. This 

document is not being used for current Agency determinations. Please submit comments 

to Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0814 at www.regulations.gov.

NOTICE TO MANUFACTURERS, PRODUCERS, FORMULATORS, AND 

REGISTRANTS OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTS

NOTICE TO: Manufacturers, Producers, Formulators, and Registrants of Pesticide 

Products and Devices; U.S. and State Departments of Agriculture; 

Commodity and Grower Groups, Growers 

ATTENTION: Persons Responsible for Initial and Continuing Registration of Pesticide

Products

SUBJECT: Determination of Minor Use under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 2(ll)

I. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY

This PR Notice is to clarify and revise the EPA’s interpretation of “minor use” under 

FIFRA section 2(ll) as it applies to the registration of pesticides. Section 2(ll)(1) of 

FIFRA defines a minor use of a pesticide as a use on a crop grown on 300,000 acres or 

less in the United States. Section 2(ll)(2) of FIFRA defines a minor use of a pesticide as 

one that lacks sufficient economic incentive to seek or maintain a registration in addition 

to meeting one of four other criteria regarding the value of the use. To date, EPA’s 

interpretation of an economic minor use in section 2(ll)(2) has been shaped by guidance 

provided in PR Notice 97-2 (PRN 97-2)

1

. Given the importance of minor use status to be 

eligible for many types of registration incentives, EPA is clarifying and updating its 

interpretation of how economic minor use status under FIFRA section 2(ll)(2) can be 

determined. The revised policy will ultimately benefit growers and other pesticide users 

by providing more safe and effective tools to control pest problems.

This PRN describes the revised approach to interpreting economic minor use based on 

the concept of the registration of a pesticide as an investment. The registrant incurs costs 

associated with applying for a registration while the registration once granted allows the 

 

1 See Appendix A or http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr97-2.pdf
2

pesticide product to be sold, generating a stream of revenue in the future. This approach 

provides several measures by which EPA can assess whether there are sufficient 

incentives for the registration of a pesticide use. These measures include the net present 

value of returns, the benefit-cost ratio, and the internal rate of return, each of which 

provides insight into the magnitude of the incentive to register or maintain the 

registration of a pesticide. In developing the methodology, EPA consulted with the Office 

of Pest Management Policy and the Office of the Chief Economist of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA).

This PR Notice revises the method and criteria used by EPA for evaluating “sufficient 

economic incentive” under FIFRA section 2(ll)(2). It also clarifies that minor use under 

FIFRA section 2(ll)(1) is based on acreage reported in the USDA Census of Agriculture. 

This PRN supersedes Section 5 of PRN 97-2 with respect to minor uses. 

Designation as a minor use is intended to identify situations where registrants of

potentially useful pesticide products may not apply for registration because the potential 

returns are low. Based on discussions with stakeholders (see Section III.C, below) 

concerning the approach defined in PRN 97-2, EPA applied the methodology to two 

recent requests for minor use designation in order to qualify for exclusive use over data 

submitted to support a new registration after the original exclusive use period expired. 

These two analyses, “Minor Use Determination of Fluridone on Cotton under FIFRA 

2(ll)(2)” and “Minor Use Determination of Deltamethrin as a Mosquito Adulticide under 

FIFRA 2(ll)(2)” are available in this docket. Based on these examples, the Agency 

concluded that evaluating whether a registrant has insufficient economic incentive using 

the standard in PRN 97-2 does not consider all relevant factors which affect the 

incentives of a registrant to apply to register a minor use. If the current practice is not 

revised, use of that outdated approach could prevent applicants from obtaining the 

incentives for registration that should be available to them. In turn, this could limit the 

availability of pesticides to control certain pests, because the uses do not create sufficient 

financial incentive for applicants to seek and then maintain registration. Therefore, EPA 

believes it is important to revise the method used to determine when a potential minor use 

does not present a sufficient economic incentive for the registrant to pursue. 

The revised method applies to agricultural uses for crops grown on more than 300,000 

acres. Such uses may be related to livestock protection, and non-agricultural uses of 

pesticides such as commercial and residential pest control, public health, and other uses 

where an estimate of acres grown is not appropriate. Further, the approach can be applied 

to biopesticides and antimicrobials, whereas the criteria in PRN 97-2 only applied to 

conventional pesticides.

II. EFFECTIVE DATE

Effective immediately upon issuance of final policy.
3

III. BACKGROUND

Section 31 of FIFRA requires EPA to “assure coordination of minor use issues through 

the establishment of a minor use program within the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP).” OPP is responsible for “coordinating the development of minor use programs 

and policies...” The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended FIFRA and 

added the definition of a minor use. The amended FIFRA section 2(ll) now defines a 

“minor use” as “the use of a pesticide on an animal, on a commercial agricultural crop or 

site, or for the protection of public health where:

(1) the total United States acreage for the crop is less than 300,000 acres... or

(2) ...the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support the initial 

registration or continuing registration of a pesticide for such use and– 

(A) there are insufficient efficacious alternative registered pesticides available for 

the use; 

(B) the alternatives to the pesticide use pose greater risks to the environment or 

human health; 

(C) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in managing pest 

resistance; or;

(D) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in an integrated pest 

management program.”

A “minor use” is defined under FIFRA section 2(ll) as meeting either of two criteria. The 

first definition under FIFRA section 2(ll)(1) specifies a numeric threshold of 300,000 

acres or less in the United States. The second definition under FIFRA section 2(ll)(2) 

requires a finding of insufficient economic incentive to support a registration. PRN 97-2 

provided guidance for a use to be designated as an economic minor use under FIFRA 

section 2(ll)(2). The standard defined in PRN 97-2 is that a use was minor under FIFRA 

2(ll)(2) if gross revenues at full market potential did not cover the costs of registration. 

Section B explains why this revision of that guidance better reflects economic incentives 

and applies to a wider variety of pesticide use sites.

A. Applications of Minor Use Status in Registration of Pesticides

FIFRA provides certain incentives for the registration of products that are important to

growers (e.g., products which aid with resistance management, etc.) or to the 

environment (e.g., products which have lower risk to human health or the environment)

but which may have low expected returns for the registrant. Such uses may be important 

to growers but without the economic incentive to seek or maintain registrations an 

applicant may not apply for these uses. 

The most common reason registrants request EPA to determine a pesticide use to be 

minor is to receive increased data protection rights:

 Extension of exclusive use of data [FIFRA section 3(c)(1)(F)(ii)] – For each 3 

minor use registrations of a pesticide (within a specified time period), a registrant 

can receive one additional year of exclusive use data rights. The registrant can 
4

gain up to 3 additional years of exclusive use by registering 9 minor uses. To be 

eligible, each minor use must meet one of 4 biological criteria: 

(I) there are insufficient efficacious alternative registered pesticides available for the 

use; 

(II) the alternatives to the pesticide use pose greater risks to the environment or 

human health; 

(III) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in managing pest 

resistance; or;

(IV) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in an integrated pest 

management program.

These criteria are the same as those specified in FIFRA section 2(ll) (A-D). 

 Exclusive use of data to add a minor use to an existing registration after the initial 

exclusive use period has expired [FIFRA section 3(c)(1)(F)(vi)] – A registrant can 

request (at the time of application for the minor use) exclusive use protection of 

data submitted solely for the registration of a new minor use after the initial data 

exclusivity period has expired. 

In general, exclusive use protection of data limits competition for a period of time, 

providing the registrant more assurance of future revenue to recoup the costs of 

registering the use, and thereby encouraging applicants to apply for these types of minor 

uses. 

B. Rationale for Revising Pesticide Registration Notice 97-2

The current guidance for defining minor use, PRN 97-2, listed crops exceeding the 

300,000 acre threshold and specified that an applicant could demonstrate a lack of 

economic incentive for a registration by showing that the costs of data generation exceed 

gross revenue from sales at full market potential for that use. (Appendix A contains the 

full text of the section of PRN 97-2.) For the following three reasons, EPA has decided to 

revise the policy on determining minor use. 

First, PRN 97-2 is outdated regarding the crops that would meet the definition of a minor 

use under FIFRA section 2(ll)(1). Cropping patterns change over time and the list of 

crops grown on more than 300,000 acres provide in PRN 97-2 is no longer accurate.

Second, the method in PRN 97-2 does not accurately measure economic incentive to 

register pesticides. Gross revenue will overstate the registrant’s true return on the cost of 

registration while reliance on a single year of sales will understate the total stream of 

revenues. The direction of bias is unknown. Most importantly, it does not account for 

the difference in timing between costs of registration and future returns. In 2012, OPP

conducted an analysis, “Minor Use Determination of Fluridone on Cotton under FIFRA 

2(ll)(2),” available in this docket comparing several methods for evaluating economic 

minor use in consultation with USDA. With respect to the method in PRN 97-2, the 

analysis showed that gross revenues at full market potential greatly exceeded registration 

costs for a particular use. However, the net present value (NPV) measures of returns to 
5

investment, considering reasonable estimates of net revenue over a five to ten year time 

horizon, indicated that registration of the use was only marginally profitable. The 

pesticide in this case represented specifically the type of registration that FIFRA section 

2(ll)(2) was designed to encourage: a registration for a biologically important use (in this 

case, a pest which had developed resistance to all other alternatives) that did not provide 

sufficient return for an applicant to incur the registration costs. A second example, 

“Minor Use Determination of Deltamethrin as a Mosquito Adulticide under FIFRA 

2(ll)(2),” also available in this docket, applies to a pesticide use that cannot be measured 

in acres of a crop.

Third, PRN 97-2 applies only to registration actions on conventional pesticides. The 

notice specifically states that it does not apply to registrations of biopesticides and 

antimicrobials (e.g., disinfectants). The method described in this PRN may be used to 

evaluate the registration incentive for all types of products registered by each of OPP’s 

registering divisions. 

C. Stakeholder Input

During the development of this PR Notice, EPA discussed the new approach with 

stakeholders, including registrants and USDA, which helped to inform its decision to 

employ the net present value method for determining economic minor use. EPA first 

consulted with USDA about the draft method in February 2012. In May 2012, EPA 

presented a draft method at a meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

(PPDC) (http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatorypartners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee-materials). In June 2012, EPA met with 

registrants to learn more about factors that affect registration decisions. 

More recently, EPA presented a draft of the PR Notice to USDA’s Office of Pest 

Management Policy (OPMP) for review and presented the method to members of the 

PRIA Coalition at the PRIA 3 Quarterly Stakeholder meeting in March 2014. Discussion 

with private sector stakeholders and USDA provided important insight into how 

registration decisions are made by pesticide producers, and indicated that the proposed 

EPA approach is appropriate.

IV. GUIDANCE

A. Minor Use under FIFRA 2(ll)(1)

For minor uses defined under FIFRA section 2(ll)(1), EPA will rely on the most recent 

Census of Agriculture, conducted every five years by the USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS), to determine if the crop is cultivated on less than 300,000 

acres. This supersedes the list of agricultural crops grown on more than 300,000 acres in 

PR Notice 97-2, which is no longer accurate.

Upon consultation with the USDA, EPA agreed that the Census of Agriculture is the best 

source of information to determine the acreage of crops grown in the U.S. USDA and 

EPA also considered the annual Crop Production Summary reports but determined that 
6

the Census provided more complete data. The Crop Production publications rely on a 

sampling of states. Although the states sampled typically comprise at least 90 percent of 

the production area, it will undercount the number of acres in most crops. USDA and 

EPA also considered whether to average reported acreage, whether across multiple 

Census or multiple Crop Production reports, as reliance on a single year (observation) can 

be problematic. However, USDA and EPA agreed that reliance on the most recent 

Census provides an accurate accounting of crop acreage and the most simple and 

transparent source of information.

The Census is publicly available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/.

B. Minor Use under FIFRA 2(ll)(2) 

1. Economic Theory and Methodology 

Under FIFRA section 2(ll)(2), a minor use is defined as one that “does not provide 

sufficient economic incentive to support the . . . registration.” EPA interprets this to mean 

that the registrant would not obtain sufficient revenues from sales of the pesticide to 

justify the cost of registration. Registration costs are incurred before a pesticide may be 

marketed while revenues accrue over a period of time. This makes the registration 

decision similar to an investment decision in which there are initial costs followed by 

periodic payments. Like many investments, the magnitude of future payments is subject 

to uncertainty.

To account for the difference in the timing of costs and revenue, economists typically 

calculate the net present value (NPV) in which investment costs are subtracted from the 

sum of discounted future revenue2. Discounting is appropriate because people (and 

firms) value money now more than the same amount of money at some future time.

The NPV of the investment (in registration) is calculated as: 

NPV = ∑[

NetRevt

(1 + r)

t

]

T

t=1

− C0

where,

Net Revt = Net revenue (revenue from sales minus cost of production) at time t

C0 = Initial cash investment (registration costs)

r = Discount rate 

t = Time of the cash flow (e.g., one year)

T = Time at the end of analysis 

 

2 See Chapter 6 of the EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf
7

This approach lends itself to several measures and potential ways of determining whether 

registration of a pesticide product provides sufficient returns including the calculated 

NPV, the benefit-cost ratio, and the internal rate of return (IRR). All of the measures can 

be useful to characterize the value of the investment. The NPV provides an estimate of 

the absolute magnitude of value. The benefit-cost ratio, which can be calculated as 

B

C

⁄ =

NPV

C0

+ 1, provides some context to the absolute value by comparing it to the 

magnitude of investment and can be helpful to determine how uncertainty in the future 

revenue stream influences the likelihood of an overall positive outcome. Both of these 

measures require a predetermined discount rate (r), which can strongly influence the 

result; the higher the discount rate, the lower the NPV or benefit-cost ratio. The IRR, in 

contrast, measures the return on the investment as an annual average percentage growth; 

it is calculated as the discount rate that results in NPV = 0. This measure can be useful to 

compare the value of the registration investment to other potential investment 

opportunities based on the rate of return over time.

The cost of applying for registration can be viewed as an investment toward the eventual 

marketing of a registered product. Applying for registration is the final step in the 

process of developing and marketing a pesticide. The costs of applying for registration 

include the costs of generating data that EPA requires for registration, the registration 

fees, and the cost of paperwork burden from the registration process. In terms of 

“economic incentive,” the main question to answer is whether the investment in 

registration of a particular use is worthwhile to the registrant, that is, whether future 

returns from sales are sufficiently high to justify the cost of obtaining/maintaining a 

registration. 

To estimate the NPV and the benefit-cost ratio, EPA is proposing to use a discount rate of 

seven percent. This is the rate suggested in the EPA guidelines3for economic analysis, 

based on OMB’s estimates

4

. It reflects the rate of return or opportunity cost of private 

capital, which is the relevant measure for private sector investment, in contrast to a three 

percent discount used to represent the social cost of resources.

2. Application and Data Needs

This section describes how to conduct a quantitative analysis to estimate NPV, B/C, and 

IRR and is organized around four primary components: the cost of registration (C0), the 

net revenues from sales of the pesticide (Net Revt), the discount rate (r), and the time 

horizon (T). More detailed instructions for how an applicant should request the economic 

 

3

 See the EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf

4

 See the OMB Circular A-4: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/
8

minor use designation and what information to submit are provided in Section V of this 

notice. 

In general, EPA is balancing the need for a rigorous and informative analysis with one 

that is simple and transparent. Simplicity is desirable because these uses, at least 

purportedly, offer low incentives to registrants; a burdensome process to demonstrate the 

fact would simply be an added deterrent to registration. Transparency is needed so that 

stakeholders can review all decisions and help to ensure regulatory consistency. To this

end, the analysis will rely on several simplifying assumptions and set parameters, about 

which EPA seeks comments. The analysis will depend largely on publicly available data 

and, as necessary, third-party proprietary data such as reputable market surveys.

EPA will consider qualitative information, described below, to select appropriate 

parameters of the analysis. In addition, EPA will consider other, qualitative factors that 

the registrant considers relevant on a case-by-case basis to make a final determination as 

to whether the use meets the definition of minor use under FIFRA section 2(ll)(2).

Data needs for an NPV analysis include at least the following: 

 costs of data generated for registration 

 registration fees (i.e., PRIA fees)

 anticipated revenues from the proposed use (e.g., expected acres or sites 

treated, application rate, price per unit, etc.)

Examples of additional qualitative data which may be useful to the analysis are:

 information about the likelihood of pest resistance developing

 information about the life of the investment (e.g., basis for expecting fast 

resistance development, new competing technologies, etc.)

 firm-specific information with documentation about the targeted IRR for 

investments

The quantitative analysis will be based on publicly available data and/or third-party 

proprietary data available to EPA, but EPA will rely on applicants to submit sufficient 

information about the use for the Agency to conduct an appropriate analysis and make a 

final determination. This section outlines how these data will be applied to the net 

present value analysis. 

a) Cost of Registration (C0)

For this analysis, the initial cash investment (C0) is the cost of registration which 

includes: 1) the cost of generating data necessary to show the product can be used safely 

for the proposed use, 2) the fee for applying for registration (i.e., PRIA fees), and 3) the 

costs to prepare and submit the application. 

The data required for registration are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 
9

Part 158) and requirements may be refined (and additional data may be required) in 

consultation with EPA during the registration process. Only those incremental data 

required to support the purported minor use should be included in the analysis. Thus, the 

context of registration of the purported minor use should be defined since some data, 

such as basic toxicity data, may support multiple uses. If the use in question is one of 

many, such basic data should not be claimed to be part of the cost of registering an 

additional use. EPA maintains a database of test costs for most studies listed in the CFR. 

The test costs are obtained by EPA from independent laboratories and the averages of the 

costs are publicly available and should be used for the purpose of estimating the cost of 

generating the data required for registering the purported minor use. The use of this cost 

information will ensure consistency and transparency.

PRIA fees are determined by the type of action (e.g., registration of a new, conventional 

active ingredient (a.i.) on a terrestrial food crop). A full list of PRIA fees is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/fees/. 

Finally, the cost of preparing and submitting the application is estimated in the 

Information Collection Request (New or Amended Registration, EPA ICR Number 

0277.16. If the registration is associated with other actions, only a portion of the 

preparation and submission costs should be included.

The costs for research into chemical compounds and development of particular pesticides 

(R&D) are not included in this analysis for both theoretical and practical reasons. Such 

costs are difficult to document accurately and there is no practical way to allocate R&D 

costs to a particular pesticide. Further, the minor use definition is not chemical-specific, 

but refers to the use(s) of a registered active ingredient. Finally, R&D expenses are 

‘sunk’ costs, i.e., costs already incurred, and, theoretically and empirically, costs incurred 

in the past are not relevant to today’s decisions.

b) Net Revenues (Net Revt)

The returns to an investment in a pesticide registration are the net revenues from sales of 

the pesticide for the registered use. Annual net revenues will be total sales (the unit price 

of the chemical times units sold) less the costs of producing and distributing the pesticide 

each year, which may include variable and fixed costs.

NetRevt = Pt∙ qt − c(qt

) − γt

Where NetRevt is net revenue in time t, Pt is the price of the pesticide per unit, qt is the 

quantity sold, c(qt) is the cost of manufacturing and distributing the pesticide and depends 

on the quantity sold, and γt are other costs that do not depend on the amount sold such as 

the registration maintenance fee, legal fees, and advertising costs. 

Considering net revenue differs from the current approach, which only considers gross 

revenue. Estimating net revenue over time is more appropriate, because it better reflects 

the returns to the registrant, but does add to the complexity and uncertainty of the 

analysis since these costs may not be observable. EPA is proposing to use several 
10

simplifying assumptions to develop quantitative estimates and to use qualitative factors to 

interpret the results.

Gross revenue, or total sales, is calculated as Pt times qt. Quantity (qt) could be estimated

differently depending on the type of use. In the case of agricultural pesticides, total sales 

could be estimated as the cost per acre for a treatment (cost per pound times the 

application rate in lbs per acre) multiplied by the acres treated. Both application rate and 

acres treated are likely to depend on the pest being targeted. Suggested application rates 

are typically provided on pesticide labels and would be public knowledge. Market survey 

data may be available to registrants and EPA to make and verify estimates of acres 

treated. For non-agricultural pesticides, estimates of sales might use another unit of 

measurement such as volume or row-foot, depending on the standard application rate. 

For example, there might be an important use of a pesticide for postharvest pest control 

(e.g., control of pests in flour mills) that cannot be designated as a minor use through the 

acreage definition. However, information on volume treated or even the number of mills 

treated per year could be used to estimate sales. In the analyses conducted by EPA, the 

Agency estimated future sales of a pesticide using estimates of the acreage infested by its 

target pest and the suggested application rate and data on existing sales of ground-applied 

insecticides for mosquito control. To estimate quantity, EPA will expect the applicant to 

identify the target pest(s), appropriate application rate(s), and a description of the extent 

of the pest problem (e.g., its range and/or life stage) to provide some basis for estimating

use or projected use of the pesticide.

The price of a pesticide (Pt) or cost per acre may be readily and publicly available, 

especially in cases where the pesticide is currently on the market, which would typically 

be the case for registrants seeking either extension of exclusive use over data or a new 

exclusive use period. Applicants may need to provide EPA with pricing data, such as 

web-based distributor price lists, to establish the typical or average sale price. Pricing 

information for a new use (i.e., new exclusive use period) may have confidentiality 

claims, but when this applies to pesticides already on the market, current sales price 

would be appropriate. For a new active ingredient, applicants could provide a proposed 

sale price of the product or identify alternative products used to control the target pest 

with which they will compete in order to establish a range for a reasonable sales price. 

The costs of pesticide manufacturing and distribution, c(qt) + γ, are also likely to be 

subject to confidentiality claims. Moreover, costs may be difficult for applicants or 

registrants to estimate and would be nearly impossible for EPA to verify. Rather than ask 

applicants and registrants to submit data on production costs, EPA is proposing that all 

cases be evaluated using values for costs that range from 60 to 85 percent of gross 

revenue. Qualitative information can be used to characterize which end of the range is 

likely. For example, if the potential minor use accounts for a large proportion of total 

sales of an active ingredient relative to existing uses, the marginal cost of production is 

likely to be the higher percentage of revenue (85 percent) because it represents a larger 

movement along the marginal cost (supply) curve. Qualitative considerations include

aspects that increase the unit production cost, c(qt), such as particularly costly raw 

materials, or that affect fixed costs, γ, for example, the development of a new distribution 

channel associated with the potential minor use. 
11

EPA welcomes comments and suggestions on the appropriate parameters to use as well as 

other factors that can be considered qualitatively.

c) Discount Rate and Time of Investment

The discount rate used in the analysis will affect the net present value of the investment; a 

higher discount rate will yield a lower present value of future cash flows. EPA’s 

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses recommend using seven percent to 

represent the opportunity cost of private capital. For simplicity and consistency, EPA 

suggests that seven percent be used for the calculation of NPV and the B/C ratio. 

Theoretically, the time frame of the investment, T, is the life of the pesticide. The useful 

life could be short, if for example, the target pests develop resistance or competing 

products are registered. In general, data protection lasts about 10 years. Moreover, the 

longer the time frame, the greater the uncertainty over important values such as future 

sales. EPA suggests conducting the analysis using time horizons of five and 10 years. As 

with the costs of production and marketing, qualitative information can be provided to 

show that an emphasis be placed on one end of the range when results are interpreted.

3. EMU Determination

Typically, a positive NPV indicates that an investment is worthwhile because it means 

that the present value (i.e., the discounted value) of future revenue is greater than the cost 

of registration. The benefit-cost ratio is a similar measure which shows the benefits as a 

proportion of the costs, where NPV shows only the amount of total net present value. If 

the benefit-cost ratio is greater than one, an investment is considered worthwhile. 

Calculating the internal rate of return (IRR) gives the discount rate that will make the 

present value of future cash flows exactly equal to the initial cash investment (NPV = 0 

and B/C = 1). The IRR for a particular use can be compared to IRRs of other registered 

uses to provide another measure of the incentive to register a chemical for a particular 

use.

In general, if a use of a pesticide has a negative NPV, a B/C ratio < 1, and IRR that is 

lower than average for a particular sector, it will be considered to have insufficient 

economic incentive to pursue registration. EPA is not setting a firm threshold, however, 

since registrants have competing uses for capital, and other market uncertainty may 

require a potential investment in registration to reach a higher threshold. EPA currently 

has limited examples from which to set thresholds and would appreciate any feedback 

from stakeholders regarding the establishment of thresholds. At this time, EPA plans to 

consider all three measures, using a range of plausible assumptions based on the 

qualitative factors identified in this section (e.g., additional investments costs, factors 

influencing costs of production and distribution) to make a determination of ‘minor use’ 

on a case-by-case basis. Typically, a positive but small NPV and a B/C slightly > 1 could 

still be considered evidence that there is insufficient economic incentive to pursue or 

maintain a registration. 
12

4. Biological Criteria

In addition to lacking sufficient economic incentive, a pesticide use must meet one of the 

four criteria at FIFRA section 2(ll)(2)(A-D) to be considered an economic minor use: 

(A) there are insufficient efficacious alternative registered pesticides available for the 

use; 

(B) the alternatives to the pesticide use pose greater risks to the environment or human 

health; 

(C) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in managing pest 

resistance; or

(D) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in an integrated pest 

management program. 

While the evaluation of whether there is sufficient economic incentive to register a minor 

use is a relatively new initiative, EPA has a history of evaluating the value of the pesticide 

to the user, society, and the environment. The same criteria are evaluated to determine if 

the minor uses for which the pesticide is registered help to qualify the registrant for an 

extension of the period of exclusive use over the data (See FIFRA section 3(c)(1)(F)(ii)). 

To determine whether a use meets one the three agronomic criteria (criteria A, C, or D), 

OPP reviews information submitted by the registrant (e.g., comparative efficacy, role in 

resistance management, or integrated pest management). The information is verified by 

consulting crop profiles and pest management strategic plans (often developed by USDA 

or university extensions), if available. OPP also consults technical literature in scientific, 

peer-reviewed publications, extension service literature from land-grant universities, and 

publications by various USDA offices including Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

and USDA Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS). Criterion B is 

evaluated in similar manner to evaluating whether a pesticide qualifies for ‘reduced risk’

status.

V. IMPLEMENTATION

A. Process 

The process as to when an applicant should submit a request for minor use designation 

will depend on why the designation is being sought. For example, if an applicant seeks to 

extend the period of exclusive use over data under FIFRA section 3(c)(1)(F)(ii), it must 

list the sites that meet the criteria, including the criterion that the site be a minor use5. 

For crops that meet the acreage definition of minor use, the applicant should cite the most 

recent Census of Agriculture. If the applicant wishes to claim an ‘economic’ minor use 

for one of the listed sites, it should also include the information to substantiate that claim. 

 

5 For information on exclusive use data protections, see 

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/exclusive-use-questions.pdf.
13

B. Information to be Submitted

For a use that the applicant requests a designation of minor use under the acreage 

definition under FIFRA section 2(ll)(1), the applicant should cite the most recent Census 

of Agriculture to support their claim of minor use.

For a use that the applicant requests a designation of economic minor use under FIFRA 

section 2(ll)(2), the applicant should include the following types of information in writing 

with the application. 

 The type of registration action for the specific site/use.

 A list of the registration data requirements for the specific site/use. 

 Information to inform future sales, which might include the target pest(s), the 

application rate, the extent of the pest problem.

 Information to inform the sales price of the pesticide, which might include the 

price of relevant competitors.

 A narrative addressing at least one of the criteria described in FIFRA section, 

2(ll)(2)(A-D). This summary should contain, at least, a brief description of how 

the pesticide will be used including the target pest(s) and alternatives.

Applicants may also wish to include the following to improve EPA’s understanding of the 

incentives they face in producing and/or registering a pesticide for the specific use,

 A narrative describing any relevant factors that influence the cost of manufacturing 

and, therefore, the net revenue from product sales.

 A narrative describing any relevant factors that influence the fixed costs of 

registering and marketing the pesticide.

 A narrative describing any aspects of the market that might limit or enhance sales.

 A narrative describing any other factors which affect the economic incentive to 

register this use.

C. Expected Impact of the Revised Method

EPA expects that revising the method and criteria for determining sufficient economic 

incentive will have a positive net impact on pesticide registrants, users, as well as 

providing better pest control options. In some cases, there may be a small burden to the 

applicant to provide additional information to the agency about the reasons that the 

proposed use lacks economic incentive or how it meets one of the biological criteria, but 

this burden is expected to be small since the information needed to conduct an analysis is 

readily available to the applicant. EPA plans to rely on simplifying assumptions for 

certain parameters (e.g., projected revenues, production costs) in order to reduce the 

burden, maintain transparency, and provide a better method for determining economic

sufficiency.

It is important to note that seeking minor use designation is not required as part of the 

registration process. It is an optional designation that will be sought as a matter of 

obtaining certain incentives associated with minor uses. EPA is issuing this PR Notice to 
14

clarify and revise the process for achieving such a designation in an effort to make the 

program incentives that are available for minor uses (e.g., exclusive use of data) more 

accessible to applicants. The intent of this clarification and revision is to inform potential 

applicants of our new guidance that may result in more important, niche uses of 

pesticides being requested or maintained. The revised policy will ultimately benefit

growers and other pesticide users by providing more safe and effective tools to control 

pest problems.

The revised method for determining sufficient economic incentive in no way affects 

EPA’s assessments of risks. Regardless of whether a use is considered minor or not, the

FIFRA registration requirements must be met before a pesticide can be registered and 

these requirements are not being changed by this guidance.

VI. SCOPE 

This PR Notice provides guidance and clarification to pesticide applicants. While the 

requirements in FIFRA and agency regulations are binding on EPA and applicants, this 

Notice is not binding on EPA personnel, pesticide registrants and applicants, or the 

public. EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without 

prior notice. Likewise, pesticide applicants may assert that the guidance is not 

appropriate generally or not applicable to a specific pesticide or decision. Registrants and 

applicants may propose alternatives to the guidance provided in any application to the 

Agency.

VII. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE

Under the PRA, “burden” means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by 

persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. The information in this Notice is generally a revision and clarification of 

information already listed in PR Notice 97-2 and is not expected to impose any additional 

data generation or record-keeping on the part of the registrant. The registrant may incur 

additional burden from the following activities associated with this PR Notice: 1) reading 

and understanding this PR Notice, and 2) additional time to clarify the nature of the use 

and why it does not provide sufficient incentive to register. Reading and understanding 

this PR Notice is not expected to be a recurring burden for applicants. The additional 

time that may be needed in some cases to describe the basis for sufficient economic 

incentive is expected to occur as part of the section 3 registration process. As stated 

above, the intent of this PR Notice is to reduce existing burden on applicants to make 

incentives in FIFRA for registering minor uses more accessible. 

The information collection activities associated with the activities described in this PR 

Notice are already approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The corresponding Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document for the Application for New and Amended Pesticide 

Registration has been assigned EPA ICR Number 0277.16 and is approved OMB control 

number 2070-0060. The annual average reporting and recordkeeping burdens for a 
15

registration applicant respondent are estimated to range from 14 hours to 840 hours, 

depending upon the type of activity. Estimates for the annual applicant respondent 

burden for collection of information average 194 hours per application for “Type A” 

activities, which include new active ingredients and new uses and 14 hours per 

application for “Type B” activities, which include amendments and notifications. The 

burdens estimate for “Type C” reduced risk products, which are handled only by the 

Registration Division, is an average of 646 hours per product. However, reduced risk 

products require both “Type A” and “Type C” for a total of 840 hours for both 

applications. 

A copy of the most recent version of EPA ICR # 2070-0060 is available under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0886 which may be accessed at www.regulations.gov. 

VIII. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

If you have questions or need further information about this notice, please contact Derek 

Berwald, berwald.derek@epa.gov, 703-308-8115.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

Dated: ___________________

_____________________________________

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
16

APPENDIX A – MINOR USE DEFINITION FROM PR NOTICE 97-2 

Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 97-2 (Dated April 18, 1997)

SUBJECT: New Chemical, New Use, EUP, Non-Fast Track Amendments and Inert Ingredient Registration 

Priorities for Conventional Pesticides

VII. MINOR USE DEFINITION 

For the purpose of addressing the Food Quality Protection Act in this PR notice, the 

legislation defines "minor use" to mean the use of a pesticide on an animal, on a commercial 

agricultural crop or site, or for the protection of public health where--

(1) the total United States acreage for the crop is less than 300,000 acres, as determined by the 

Secretary of Agriculture; or 

(2) the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support the initial registration or 

continuing registration of a pesticide for such use and --

(A) there are insufficient efficacious alternative registered pesticides available for the use; or 

(B) the alternatives to the pesticide use pose greater risks to the environment or human health; or 

(C) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in managing pest resistance; or 

(D) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in an integrated pest management 

program. 

The Food Quality Protection Act defines "minor use" of a pesticide on an animal, a 

commercial agricultural crop or site, or for public health purposes in two different ways. The first 

definition identifies minor use crops as those with less than 300,000 total U.S. acres. The second 

definition requires an economic determination that a registrant does not have the market revenues or 

sufficient economic incentive to support pesticide registration for a use site.

MINOR USE CROPS 

A pesticide use on a crop with less than 300,000 acres of total U.S. production is a minor use. 

This definition applies to numerous fruits, vegetables, spices, and horticulture and nursery crops. As 

an alternative to listing all minor use crops, a list of crops with more than 300,000 acres of U.S. 

production is provided below. Pesticide uses on commercial agricultural crops that do not appear on 

the list will automatically be considered minor uses. Because the first definition applies only to crop 

uses of less than 300,000 acres, non-crop uses or sites (such as animal uses, aquatic weed control, and 

rights-of-ways) are not evaluated under the first definition. 

Agricultural Crops Grown on More Than 300,000 Acres 

Almonds Pecans 

Apples Popcorn 

Barley Potatoes 

Beans, dry Rice 

Beans, snap Rye 

Canola Sod Farms 

Corn (sweet & field) Sorghum 

Cotton Soybeans 

Cottonseed Sugarbeets 

Grapes Sugarcane 

Hay (alfalfa & other) Sunflower 

Oats Tobacco 

Oranges Tomatoes 
17

Peanuts Turf

Wheat 

MINOR USE ECONOMIC DEFINITION

A pesticide use on an agricultural crop grown on more than 300,000 acres or on a nonagricultural site may qualify as a minor use, provided the registrant can demonstrate that the use does 

not provide sufficient economic incentive to support registration. For purposes of this PR notice this 

economic determination can be made by using the equation: 

(a) costs > gross revenues for 1 year for the specific site. 

where: 

Costs = incremental costs to register the site which are the costs of the additional data 

requirements to register the specific site. If registration costs are shared by more than one registrant, 

the costs should represent the registrant's share of the data requirement. 

Revenues = registrant's gross sales which are the additional sales projected at full market 

potential for the specific site. EPA, in consultation with USDA, will make this determination based 

on the following information provided by the registrant: 

Registrants that choose to submit priorities based on the economic definition for a minor use 

must provide the following: 

1. A list of the registration data requirements and the estimated cost to generate the data for 

the specific site. 

2. The Annual Domestic Sales or Revenues for the Specific Site: Provide the actual, annual 

value and quantity of domestic sales of the pesticide for the specific site. This value should be 

calculated as the average of the most recent 3 years. For the registration of a new site, annual 

revenues should be projected on the basis of full market potential. 

3. A written summary addressing at least one of the criteria described in section VII(2)(A-D). 

For a minor use priority that is determined to be a minor use as a result of the economic 

criteria specified above, the one year time frame for completion of reviews does not begin until after 

the economic determination has been completed.