Addendum to the June 1, 2006, Economic Analysis of the 

Bulk Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal Standards

April 10, 2008

1.0	Introduction and Background 

On August 16, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the
Agency) promulgated a final rule titled “Pesticide Management and
Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment” (71 FR
47330) (Container and Containment Rule).  The Container and Containment
Rule established regulations for the safe storage and disposal of
pesticides as a means of protecting human health and the environment
pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.  This rule established requirements for pesticide
container design; procedures, standards, and label language to
facilitate removal of pesticides from containers prior to their being
used, recycled, or discarded; and requirements for containment of
stationary pesticide containers and procedures for container refilling
operations.   The requirements for pesticide container design, and the
procedures, standards, and label language requirements for nonrefillable
and refillable containers accomplish the following:   

1.	ensure that containers are strong and durable;

2. 	minimize human and environmental exposure during container handling;

3. 	facilitate container disposal and recycling;

4. 	minimize cross-contamination of pesticides distributed in refillable
containers;

5. 	codify safe refilling management practices;

6. 	encourage the use of refillable containers to conserve resources and
reduce container disposal problems; and

7.	provide instructions for proper cleaning of pesticide containers.

The improvements made in the design of pesticide containers and the
removal of residues from containers prior to recycling or final disposal
(e.g., in a landfill) as a result of the final pesticide container
standards are expected to benefit pesticide users, non-users and the
environment through a reduction in exposure to pesticides from
unintended pesticide container spills and leaks and through resource
conservation by recycling and source reduction.

A June 1, 2006, Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design
and Residue Removal Standards (container EA), and a June 1, 2006,
Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticides Containment Structures Final
Regulation (containment EA) support the final rule described above.  The
EAs estimate the total cost of compliance with the final standards to
the regulated industries and the benefits of the final standards, which
are summarized in the following table.

Table 1.  Total Annualized Costs and Benefits of the 2006 Container and
Containment Rule (2005$)

Quantified Cost/Benefit Category	Annualized Cost/Benefit at a 3%
Discount Rate	Annualized Cost/Benefit at a 7% Discount Rate

QUANTIFIED COSTS

For the container requirements a	$8.37 million	$8.45 million

For the containment requirements b	$2.93 million	$2.90 million

Total quantified costs	$11.30 million	$11.35 million

QUANTIFIED BENEFITS

For the container requirements a	$4.74 million – $4.80 million	$4.24
million - $4.30 million

For the containment requirements b	$12.2 million - $18.6 million	$12.2
million - $18.6 million

Total quantified benefits	$16.94 million - $23.40 million	$16.44 million
- $22.90 million

a  Source: Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and
Residue Removal Standards, June 1, 2006, Table 1.3.

b  Source: Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticides Containment
Structures Final Regulation, June 1, 2006, Table 1.1.

After the Container and Containment Rule was published, the Agency was
contacted by stakeholders with concerns about the compliance date
associated with the labeling requirements; the implications of the
phrase “sold or distributed” for the handling of packaged pesticide
products that may be returned to a registrant at the end of a use
season; and the scope of pesticide products and containers for which
some of the labeling statements are being required.  Unit III.A of the
proposed rule provides additional information on the stakeholders’
concerns.  After analyzing the stakeholders’ concerns with the
labeling requirements in the Container and Containment Rule, the Agency
generally agrees with those concerns noted above.  Therefore, EPA is
proposing several amendments to the Container and Containment Rule, as
follows:

To exempt certain container types from the container type labeling
statements required by the container and containment regulations (40 CFR
156.140) and allow the Agency to approve waivers of and modifications to
that language on a case-by-case basis.  The specific container types
that EPA proposes to exempt are described in detail in Section 2.1 of
this document.

To change the compliance date associated with the labeling requirements
in the Container and Containment Rule to August 17, 2010, as described
in Section 2.1 of this document.

To change the phrase “distributed or sold” to “released for
shipment” as associated with the labeling compliance date.  In
addition, EPA proposes to make a similar change to the language
associated with the compliance date for container and repackaging
requirements as well, as described in Section 3 of this document.

To correct typographical and other minor errors in the container and
containment rule described in detail in Sections 4 and 5 of this
document.

These proposed amendments to the Container and Containment rule will
change the estimated cost of compliance with the Container and
Containment rule, but are not expected to result in changes to the
benefits of the Container and Containment rule.  Section 2.2 of this
document explains how the amendments to the labeling requirements in the
Container and Containment rule change the estimated cost of compliance
with the final rule in the container EA and provides new estimated costs
of compliance.  Sections 3, 4, and 5 explain that the other amendments
to the final rule will not result in any additional changes to the costs
presented in the container EA beyond those changes as a result of the
amendments to labeling requirements.  Section 5 explains that the
containment related amendments will not result in any changes to the
containment EA. 

2.0	Effect of Amendments to Labeling Requirements on the Economic
Analysis

2.1	Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Labeling Requirements

The Container and Containment Rule originally made several changes to
the requirements for labeling pesticides in 40 CFR part 156. 
Specifically, the Container and Containment Rule added a new subpart H
titled “Container Labeling” to part 156 that requires the following
information or statements on certain pesticide product labels:

A statement identifying the container as nonrefillable or refillable;

On nonrefillable containers, statements providing basic instructions for
managing the container and a batch code;

Cleaning instructions for some nonrefillable containers;

Cleaning instructions for refillable containers at the end of their
useful lives.

In addition, the Container and Containment Rule modified several
existing requirements in 40 CFR 165.10, including a modification to
allow for blank spaces on the labels of some refillable containers for
the net contents and EPA establishment number and a modification to
reference the container and containment regulations in subpart H and 40
CFR part 165. 

In the amendments to the Container and Containment Rule, the Agency is
proposing some changes to the labeling requirements.  The rational
behind these changes is described in detail in Unit III.C of the
proposed rule.  The paragraphs below summarize the proposed amendments
to the labeling requirements. 

First, the Agency is proposing to exempt some container types from the
“identification of container type” requirements described in 40 CFR
part 156.140.  The container types that EPA proposes to exempt are as
follows:

aerosol cans

nonrefillable caulking tubes and other nonrefillable squeezable tube
containers for paste, gel, or other similar formulas (e.g., crack and
crevice application devices, unit dose application tubes)

foil packets for water soluble packaging, repellent wipes, and other
single-use products

tamper-resistant bait stations

tamper-resistant cages for repellent or trapping strips 

packaging for pet collars

any packaging that is destroyed by the use of the product contained

any packaging that would be destroyed if reuse of the container were
attempted (for example, bacteriostatic water filter cartridges, blister
card packaging, etc…)

	EPA proposes to exempt these container types from the requirement to
include a statement identifying the container as a nonrefillable
container in §156.140(a)(1) and the requirement to include a reuse
statement in §156.140(a)(2).  These sections of the rule require
pesticide labels to include the phrase “Nonrefillable container.  Do
not reuse or refill this container” or one of the other alternative
statements about reuse in §156.140(a)(2).  Currently, many labels
already include the statement “Do not reuse this container.”   

The Agency is also proposing to allow for the modification or waiver of
the label statements required by §156.140.  The Agency is proposing to
allow modifications or waivers of the required language so that the
Agency can determine on a case-by-case basis whether the requirements
for the nonrefillable container, reuse, recycling/reconditioning and
refillable container label statements are appropriate.  

The Agency is also proposing to exempt pesticide products that are
repellent-impregnated articles of clothing and other
repellent-impregnated fabric articles and that are not packaged in
containers from the requirement to bear identification of container type
language in §156.140 and the requirement to provide residue removal
instructions in §156.144.  The Agency has been advised that these
repellent-impregnated articles of clothing and other fabric objects such
as tents or mosquito netting that are registered as pesticides are
generally not sold in containers, and, as such, it would not be
appropriate to refer to the pesticide container on the labels for these
types of products if no container exists.  

In addition, the Agency is proposing a paragraph to exempt compressed
gas cylinders and transport vehicles such as rail cars and other
cargo-carrying vehicles from the requirement to provide residue removal
instructions. 

	And finally, the Agency is proposing to extend the compliance date
associated with the labeling requirements from August 17, 2009, to
August 17, 2010.  This amendment will allow additional time for
registrants to change all labels for final packaging for all registered
products and remain in compliance with the container and containment
regulations.  

	2.2	Revised Cost Estimates

	The Agency anticipates that the changes to the container and
containment labeling requirements will result in a slight decrease in
the estimated cost of the rule.  Specifically, the changes to exempt
some container types from some or all of the requirements will change
the number of labels and registrations (also referred to as formulations
in the 2006 container EA) that must be revised to comply with the
Container and Containment rule.  In addition, the change in the
compliance date will spread the cost of compliance over the last two
years of the phase-in period instead of concentrating that cost in one
year.  

		2.2.1	Adjusted Number of Registrations

	To estimate the reduction in number of registrations that require
compliance with the labeling requirements in the container and
containment rule, the Agency searched its OPPIN database (version 1.4)
for the total number of active, FIFRA Section 3 pesticide registrations.
 That number on March 6, 2008, was 16,921.  The Agency then searched to
determine the number of active registered plant-incorporated protectants
(PIPs) (20), and subtracted that from the total number of active
registrations to determine the number of registrations that would be
subject to the existing container and containment regulations at this
point in time (16,901).  The Agency then searched to determine the
number of actively registered products packaged in aerosol containers
(pressurized gas, pressurized dust, and pressurized liquid
formulations), which was 1,387.  The number of aerosol products
represented about 8.2% of the total number of registered FIFRA Section 3
products. 

	In this screening-level determination of revised cost estimates, the
Agency only searched for products packaged as aerosols.  It is likely
that many additional registrations beyond those identified in this
screening-level search will be exempt from the container and containment
labeling requirements based on the list of container types proposed for
exemption.  However, products packaged in aerosol containers likely
represent the majority of products being exempt and aerosol formulations
are easily identified using the Agency’s database.  This addendum to
the container EA is a conservative, screening-level estimate and the
actual reduction in the estimated cost of the final rule based on
changes to the labeling requirements may be more than estimated in this
document.

	The Agency used 8.2%, rounded to 8%, as an adjustment or correction
factor to determine how many fewer pesticide registrations would require
label changes to comply with the container and containment labeling
requirements.  This 8% adjustment factor was applied to the average
number of existing registrations per establishment used in the container
EA.  All other assumptions and values were held constant.  Therefore,
the cost estimates presented in this document are based on 2005 dollars
and can be compared to the estimates presented in the 2006 container EA.
 

Table 2 below presents the cost inputs and assumptions used in the
container EA, along with an adjusted average number of existing
registrations per establishment in the shaded column based on the 8%
adjustment factor described above. 

Table 2.  Labeling Requirement Cost Inputs and Assumptions (2005$)  

Establishment Type	Label Cost per Registration

– Routine Change a	Label Cost per Registration

– Necessary Change a	% of Label Changes Considered Routine a	Average
Number of Existing Registration per Establishment a	Adjusted Average
Number of Existing Registrations per Establishment b

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$206	$1,918	50	3	2.8

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$480	$5,069	50	9	8.3

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$480	$5,069	50	20	18.4

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	Large Establishments

Agricultural	$480	$5,069	50	32	29.4

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	a  Source:  Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design
and Residue Removal Standards.  June 1, 2006, tables A-2 and A-20

b  Source:  Number of existing registrations from the 2006 container EA
decreased by 8% based on an adjustment factor to account for
registrations that would no longer be subject to the labeling
requirements in the Container and Containment rule as a result of
proposed amendments to that rule.

	In Table 3, the Agency is presenting two sets of labeling requirement
costs per establishment, one as presented in the 2006 container EA, and
the second in shaded columns calculated using the adjusted average
number of existing registration provided in Table 2.

Table 3.  Labeling Requirement Costs per Establishment (2005$)  

Establishment Type	Total Cost of Compliance Based on Average Number of
Registrations	Recalculated Total Cost of Compliance Based on Adjusted
Average Number of Registrations

	Routine Change a, c	Necessary Change b, c	All Changes d	Routine Change
a	Necessary Change  b	All Changes

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$308	$2,877	$3185	$288	$2,685	$2,973

I/C/G







Home & Garden







Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$2,175	$22,811	$24,968	$1,990	$21,036	$23,026

I/C/G







Home & Garden







Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$4,795	$50,690	$55,485	$4,411	$44,635	$49,036

I/C/G







Home & Garden







Large Establishments

Agricultural	$7,672	$81,104	$88,776	$7,049	$74,514	$81,563

I/C/G







Home & Garden







a Facility-level routine labeling costs are calculated as follows:
Average # of Registrations * % of Label Changes Considered Routine *
Routine Label Change Cost.

b Facility-level necessary labeling costs are calculated as follows: 
Average # of Registrations * % of Label Changes Considered Necessary *
Necessary Label Change Cost.

c Source for these labeling costs is Table A-21 of the 2006 Container
EA.

d These are the undiscounted costs of complying with the labeling
requirements for year 3 in Table C-7 of the 2006 Container EA.

	These revised cost estimates will be used to calculate a revised
estimate for annualized costs in the following section.

		2.2.2	Extended Compliance Date

As described above, the Agency is proposing to extend the compliance
date associated with the labeling requirements from August 17, 2009, to
August 17, 2010.  This amendment will allow an additional year for
registrants to change all labels for final packaging for all registered
products and remain in compliance with the container and containment
regulations.  As a result of this change, the Agency is adjusting its
regulation-specific cost schedule for complying with labeling
requirements.  In the original containment EA, the cost schedule
provided showed that all labeling-related compliance costs were assumed
to fall in year 3.  Based on the extension in the compliance date, the
Agency is assuming that the costs will be divided equally between years
3 and 4.  When the registrants were discussing their process for
revising labels and indicating that more time was needed, they indicated
that they would begin work on revising labels sooner rather than later
to meet the compliance date; therefore, the Agency is changing its
assumption that all costs are incurred in the final year.  See Table 4
below for the original undiscounted costs per year described in the 2006
container EA (Table C-7) and Table 5 for the recalculated undiscounted
costs per year.  These values were recalculated based on the adjusted
total cost for compliance presented in Table 3.

Table 4.  Undiscounted Costs per Establishment of Complying with the
Labeling Requirements for All Containers Under the Container Rule
(Source:  Table C-7 Container EA)

	Year



3	4	5	6	7	8	9-20

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural

$3,185	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden









Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural

$24,968	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden









Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural

$55,485	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden









Large Establishments

Agricultural

$88,776	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden











Table 5.  Adjusted Undiscounted Costs per Establishment of Complying
with the Labeling Requirements for All Containers Under the Container
Rule

	Year



3	4	5	6	7	8	9-20

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural

$1,487	$1,487	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden









Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural

$11,513	$11,513	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden









Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural

$24,518	$24,518	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden









Large Establishments

Agricultural

$40,782	$40,782	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

I/C/G









Home & Garden











		2.2.3	Recalculated Annual Cost

Using the revised cost estimates of undiscounted costs per establishment
in Table 5, the annualized cost of complying with the labeling
requirements was recalculated using the same methods described in
section 4.4.8 of the 2006 container EA.  See Table 6 below.  

The annualized cost of complying with the labeling requirements
decreased by about $15 for small-small establishments, by $136 for
medium-small establishments, by $428 for large-small establishments, and
by $502 for large establishments, considering an interest rate of 3%. 
Considering an interest rate of 7%, the annualized cost of complying
with the labeling requirements decreased by about $22 for small-small
establishments, by $194 for medium-small establishments, by $580 for
large-small establishments, and by $712 for large establishments. 
Please see the 2006 Container EA for additional information interest
rates and the implications and use thereof.  Table 6 below presents the
estimated annualized cost from the original 2006 EA (Tables 4.10a and
4.10c) as well as the revised estimated annualized cost corrected for an
8% decrease in number of registrations subject to the labeling
requirements.

 

Table 6.  Estimated Annual Cost per Establishment of Complying with
Container and Containment Labeling Requirements for the Average
Registrant by Market Sector and Size Class  (2005$)a   

	Estimated Annual Cost… b

	…based on current labeling requirements and a 3% interest rate c
…based on current labeling requirements and a 7% interest rate d
…based on amended labeling requirements and a 3% interest rate
…based on amended labeling requirements and a 7% interest rate

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$190	$229	$175	$207

I/C/G





Home & Garden





Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$1,491	$1,798	$1,355	$1,604

I/C/G





Home & Garden





Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural	$3,314	$3,996	$2,886	$3,416

I/C/G





Home & Garden





Large Establishments

Agricultural	$5,302	$6,393	$4,800	$5,681

I/C/G





Home & Garden





a Rounded to the nearest dollar.

b The labeling requirement is assumed to result in one fixed cost (and
no variable costs) that covers labeling of both nonrefillable and
refillable containers.

c Source:  Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and
Residue Removal Standards.  June 1, 2006.  Table 4.10a

d Source:  Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and
Residue Removal Standards.  June 1, 2006.  Table 4.10c

		2.2.4	Recalculated Total Cost Decrease

	The 2006 container EA estimates that the annualized cost of complying
with the labeling requirements is $2.25 million at a 3% discount rate
and $2.72 million at a 7% discount rate.  This is calculated by
multiplying the average annualized cost per facility (shown in Table 6)
by the number of each type (size and sector) of registrant.  (See Table
1.5, Table 4.18a and Table 4.18b in the container EA.)

	Table 7 estimates the total decrease in annualized costs for all
registrants of complying with the proposed amendments to the container
and containment labeling requirements.  With the correction for an 8%
decrease in the number of registrations subject to the labeling
requirements, the Agency estimates that the annualized cost of comply
with the labeling requirements would decrease by $0.23 million at a 3%
interest rate and $0.32 million at a 7% interest rate.  This represents
about a 10% to 12% decrease from the original estimate of the cost to
comply with the labeling requirements ($2.25 million - $2.72 million)
and about a 2% to 3% decrease from the total original cost of the
Container and Containment Rule ($11.30 million - $11.35 million).

Table 7.  Estimated Decrease in Annual Cost to All Registrants of
Complying with the Proposed Amendments to the Container and Containment
Labeling Requirements (2005$)a  

Size of  Registrant	

Number of Registrants in that Size Class b	Estimated Decrease in Annual
Cost… 



…per registrant at a 3% interest rate c	…for all registrants in that
size class at a 3% interest rate	…per registrant at a 7% interest rate
c	…for all registrants in that size class at a 7% interest rate

Small-Small Establishments

Agricultural	

997	

$15	

$14,955	

$22	

$21,934

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	Medium-Small Establishments

Agricultural	

495	

$136	

$67,320	

$194	

$96,030

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	Large-Small Establishments

Agricultural	

166	

$428	

$71,048	

$580	

$96,280

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	Large Establishments

Agricultural	

146	

$502	

$73,292	

$712	

$103,952

I/C/G





	Home & Garden





	All Establishments

Total for all registrants (all sizes & all markets)	

na d	

na	

$226,615	

na	

$318,196

a Rounded to the nearest dollar.

b Source:  Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and
Residue Removal Standards.  June 1, 2006.  Table 1.4.

c Calculated from Table 6.

d na = not applicable

	2.3	Revised Benefits

The Agency does not anticipate any changes to the benefits presented in
the 2006 Economic Analysis for the container requirements as a result of
the proposed amendments to the labeling requirements.  

3.0	Effect of Amendments to the Compliance Date Language on the Economic
Analysis

The Agency is proposing to change the phrase “distributed or sold”
to “released for shipment,” as associated with all compliance dates
in the Container and Containment Rule.  This change will allow product
that was initially distributed or sold to retailers before the
compliance date, but which may be returned to the producer at the end of
a use season, to be distributed or sold the following season without
relabeling or changing the container.  

The Agency does not anticipate the change in language from
“distributed or sold” to “released for shipment” to result in
any changes to the costs or benefits of the Container and Containment
Rule.  This change is consistent with the original intent of the
Container and Containment Rule.

4.0	Effect of Amendments to the Definitions on the Economic Analysis

		

The Agency is proposing several amendments to the definitions provided
in the Container and Containment rule and the addition of several new
definitions, as described below.

The Agency is proposing to add to §152.3 the following definition for
“released for shipment:”  

“Released for shipment.  A product is released for shipment when the
producer has packaged and labeled it in the manner in which it will be
shipped, or has stored it in an area where finished products are
ordinarily held for shipment.  An individual product is only released
for shipment once, except where subsequent events constitute production
(e.g., relabeling, repackaging).”

The Agency is proposing to change the definition of “agricultural
pesticide” to “…any product labeled for use in or on a farm,
forest, nursery, or greenhouse.”  This change is being proposed in
order to be consistent with the definition of “agricultural
establishment” in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR
170.3.  EPA believes that using this definition will facilitate
compliance with and understanding of the Container and Containment Rule
because the definition of agricultural establishment in the WPS has a
long history and is well-understood.  

	The Agency is proposing to revise the definition of “flowable
concentrate” to indicate that this term is the same as a “suspension
concentrate” and is proposing to define “suspension concentrate”
as a stable suspension of active ingredients in a liquid intended for
dilution with water before use.  EPA is making these changes based on
input from the registrants that “suspension concentrate” is the term
currently used in formulation chemistry to describe the pesticide
formulations that we intended to be tested for the nonrefillable
container residue removal standard.

	The Agency is proposing editorial changes to the definition of
“pesticide compatible” as applied to containment.

	The Agency is proposing to add a definition for the term “capacity”
since this term is used in part 165 of the container and containment
regulations in order to make clear that the container capacities
specified in the Container and Containment Rule refer to the rated
capacity of the container (also known as the nominal or design
capacity). 

	Finally, the Agency is proposing to remove the definitions of
“pressure rinse” and “triple rinse” because these terms are not
used in part 165.

The amended definition and the new definitions are not expected to
result in any changes to the benefits or the costs of the proposed rule,
with the possible exception of the change in definition of agricultural
pesticide.  The Agency is proposing to change the definition of
“agricultural pesticide” from the original definition of “…any
pesticide product labeled for use in a nursery or greenhouse or for use
in the production of any agricultural commodity, including any plant,
plant part, animal, or animal product produced by persons (including
farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree
growers, aquaculturalists, horticulturists, orchardists, foresters, or
other comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation
or other us by man or animals.” to “…any product labeled for use
in or on a farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse.”  This change is
being proposed in order to be consistent with the definition of
“agricultural establishment” in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS)
at 40 CFR 170.3.  EPA believes that using this definition will
facilitate compliance with and understanding of the pesticide container
and containment rule because the definition of agricultural
establishment in the WPS has a long history and is well-understood. 
Introducing a new definition of “agricultural pesticide” that does
not conform exactly to the definition of “agricultural
establishment” could cause unnecessary confusion.  The Agency does not
believe that changing the definition of “agricultural pesticide”
substantially changes the scope or the intent of the pesticide Container
and Containment Rule.  Since this change in definition will not change
the scope of products regulated by the Container and Containment rule,
no changes to benefits or costs of the Container and Containment rule
are expected.  

5.0	Effect of Other Amendments on the Economic Analysis

In addition to several editorial changes and corrections, the Agency is
also proposing changes to the paragraphs that describe which DOT
regulations apply to portable pesticide containers, changes to the
paragraphs that describe the containment requirements for dry bulk
pesticides, and changes to the paragraphs that describe operational,
inspection and maintenance requirements for all new and existing
containment structures.  

	5.1	DOT Citations

	The Agency is proposing to change the Container and Containment Rule to
include some additional citations in the list of DOT standards that
containers have to meet.  The additional citations incorporate DOT
standards that allow for exceptions from DOT requirements rather than
adding new DOT requirements.  The Agency is including these additional
citations because the original intent of the Container and Containment
Rule was that if a container complies with DOT standards (or
exceptions), then it would also be in compliance with the Container and
Containment Rule.  

Because the proposed new DOT citations are not additional requirements,
but instead are DOT standards that allow for exceptions, and because the
original intent of the Container and Containment Rule is that if a
container complies with DOT standards (or exceptions), then it would
also be in compliance with the Container and Containment Rule, this
amendment is not expected to result in any changes to the benefits or
the costs of the proposed rule.  

In addition, as described in the container EA, it is assumed that all
containers comply with the basic DOT packaging requirements in 49 CFR
173.24 that establish minimum standards for container integrity,
compatibility, and filling limits (see Section 3.4.1.1 of the container
EA).  The cost of compliance with the DOT standards referenced in the
Container and Containment Rule is assumed to be zero.  For containers
containing hazardous materials, the cost of complying with the container
regulations is assumed to be zero because these products were assumed to
be already in compliance with the DOT regulations referenced by the
Container and Containment Rule.  Any cost of compliance with DOT’s
regulations was previously attributed to the DOT standards.  For
non-hazardous materials, the Agency assumed that most containers are
already in compliance with the DOT regulations.  In addition,
DOT-compliant containers are available for purchase on the market at
prices comparable to any existing non-compliant containers.  Therefore,
the Agency assumed that regulated entities would replace any
non-compliant containers with compliant containers within the compliance
period at no additional cost.  See section 3.4.1.2 of the Container EA
for additional discussion and explanation of these assumptions and
estimates. 

5.2	Containment Requirements for Dry Bulk Pesticides

The Agency is proposing an amendment to the Container and Containment
Rule to clarify that dry pesticide container storage areas must have a
floor.  This was implied and intended in the final rule; however, the
Agency is proposing this change for clarity.  

The proposed amendments to explicitly state that dry bulk pesticide
containment must include a floor are consistent with the original intent
of the final rule and are only being included for clarity.  This
proposed amendment will not change the cost estimates in the 2006
Containment EA because that EA assumed that stationary dry bulk
containers are already on concrete pads (floors).  The 2006 Containment
EA estimates the cost of extending the floor if necessary and building a
6-inch berm. (See Section 4.1 and Table H.5 of the containment EA.)

 

5.3	Operational, Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for all New and
Existing Containment Structures.  

The Agency is proposing to amend the Container and Containment Rule to
change the timing requirements for cleanup of spills and for repair of
containment structures.  The Agency is proposing to allow for
extenuating circumstances and not require cleanup or repair by the end
of the day.  The current requirement that all spills be cleaned up and
containment structures be repaired by the end of the business day may
result in a situation in which attempting cleanup or repair would result
in hazards that could have been avoided if cleanup or repair were
reasonably delayed.  This amendment is being proposed in order to avoid
that situation.  However, in most cases, and for routine spills and
leaks, the requirement for cleanup by the end of the day would still
apply.  

In addition, the Agency is proposing to change a paragraph that
prohibits facilities from storing pesticide on a structure that needs to
be repaired.  The Agency is revising this paragraph to not allow any
additional pesticide to be stored on a containment structure in need of
repair.  This change was made for practical reasons, i.e., to allow
product already stored on that containment structure to remain so as not
to require the movement of pesticide containers.  There is potentially
greater risk from transferring pesticide products outside of a
containment structure (and then back after repairs have been made) than
to repair a structure while pesticide products remain on the containment
structure.  

These proposed amendments to the Container and Containment Rule will not
change the cost estimates in the 2006 containment EA.  The containment
EA did not consider the timing of repairs as part of the cost estimate. 
The containment EA estimated the anticipated regular cleanup
(operational and maintenance) and repair (intermittent) costs for
representative facilities rather than the costs in the few situations
where there may be extenuating circumstances.  (See Section 4.1.1 and
Appendix H in the containment EA.)

In addition, the Agency does not anticipate any changes to the benefits
presented in the Containment EA as a result of these proposed
amendments.

6.	Conclusions

The amendments that the Agency is proposing to the Container and
Containment Rule are not expected to change the estimated benefits of
the Container and Containment Rule.  In addition, the amendments that
the Agency is proposing, with the exception of the amendments to the
labeling requirements, are not expected to change estimated cost of the
Container and Containment Rule.  

The amendments to the labeling requirements are expected to result in
changes to the cost of the Container and Containment rule because the
amendments will decrease the scope of labels that would require label
changes to comply with the labeling requirements.  To determine how much
the proposed labeling amendments would reduce the estimated cost of the
rule, the Agency used a conservative estimate of the number of pesticide
registrations that would no longer be subject to the labeling
requirements and adjusted the per establishment annual cost based on
that reduction.  This resulted in a slight decrease in the estimated
total cost per establishment by about $13 to $15 for small-small
establishments, $136 to $194 for medium-small establishments, $428 to
$580 for large-small establishments, and $502 to $712 for large
establishments.  This decrease results in a 2 to 3 % ($0.23 to $0.32
million) reduction in the estimate of the total cost of the rule.  

7.	References

71 FR 47330.  August 16, 2006.  Pesticide Management and Disposal;
Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment; Final Rule.  

OPPIN Query version 1.4

U.S. EPA.  June 1, 2006.  “Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide
Container Design and Residue Removal Standards.” 

U.S. EPA.  June 1, 2006.  “Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticides
Containment  Structures Final Regulation.”

 PAGE   

 PAGE   4 

