View Rule

The EPA is developing a final rule to revise the federal regulations governing the certified pesticide applicator program (40 CFR part 171). In August 2015, the EPA proposed revisions based on years of extensive stakeholder engagement and public meetings, to ensure that they adequately protect applicators, the public, and the environment from potential harm due to exposure to restricted use pesticides (RUPs). This action is intended to improve the competence of certified applicators of RUPs and to increase protection for noncertified applicators of RUPs operating under the direct supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide safety training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators.

Statement of Need:

Change is needed to strengthen the protections for pesticide applicators, the public, and the environment from harm due to pesticide exposure.

Summary of the Legal Basis:

This action is issued under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. sections 136 to 136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w.

Alternatives:

The Agency has developed mechanisms to improve applicator trainers and make training materials more accessible. The Agency has also developed nationally relevant training and certification materials to preserve State resources while improving competency. However, these mechanisms and materials do not address other requisite needs for improving protections, such as requirements for determining competency and recertification. The EPA worked with key stakeholders to identify and evaluate various alternatives and regulatory options during the development of the proposed rule. These are discussed in detail in the proposed rule, and Economic Analysis that was prepared for the proposed rule.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:

The EPA prepared an Economic Analysis (EA) of the potential costs and impacts associated with the proposed rule, a copy or which is available in the docket, discussed in more detail in unit III of the proposed rule; and briefly summarized here. The EPA monetized benefits based on avoided acute pesticide incidents are estimated at $80.5 million/year after adjustment for underreporting of pesticide incidents (EA chapter 6.5). Qualitative benefits include the following: • Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost of treatment and loss of productivity. • Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure. • Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and farmworker families, including a range of illnesses such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. (EA chapter 6.4 & 6.6) EPA estimated total incremental costs of $47.2 million/year (EA chapter 5), which included the following: • $19.5 million/year for costs to Private Applicators, with an estimated 490,000 impacted and an average cost of $40 per applicator (EA chapter 5 & 5.6). • $27.4 million/year for costs to Commercial Applicators, with an estimated 414,000 impacted and an average cost of $66 per applicator (EA chapter 5 & 5.6). • $359,000 for costs to States and other jurisdictions, with an estimated 63 impacted (EA chapter 5). The EPA estimated that there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA estimated that the proposed rule may affect over 800,000 small farms that use pesticides, although about half are unlikely to apply restricted use pesticides. The estimated impact for small entities is less than 0.1% of the annual revenues for the average small entity (EA chapter 5.7). The EPA also estimated that the proposed rule will have a negligible effect on jobs and employment because most private and commercial applicators are self-employed; and the estimated incremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the cost of a part-time employee (EA chapter 5.6).

Risks:

Applicators are at risk from exposure to pesticides they handle for their work. The public and the environment may also be at risk from misapplication by applicators. Revisions to the regulations are expected to minimize these risks by ensuring the competency of certified applicators.