*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

RIN2070

-

AJ22_EO12866_AgWPS_FRM_EA_2015

- 07

- 28.docx



### Draft document as submitted for review under EO 12866



# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION

STANDARD REVISIONS

RIN 2070

- AJ22

Docket: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2011

- 0184

Prepared by

BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

i 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... iv

Chapter 1. Introduction

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

1.1 Background

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

1.2 Problem St atement

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

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

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

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

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

1.2.3 Market Failure

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

1.3 Affe cted Communities

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

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

1.3.2 Regulated Entities

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

1.4 Overview of Final Regulation

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

1.4.1 Statutory Authority

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

1.4.2 Need for Federal Regulation

................................ ................................ ............................... 11

1.5 Changes from the Analysis of Final Revisions

................................ ................................ ............. 11

Chapter 2. Final Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard

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

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

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

2.1.1 Non

- regulatory Approaches

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

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

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

2.2 Informing Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

................................ ............................ 14

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14

2.2.2 Hazard Communication

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

2.2.3 Notification

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

2.3 Protecting W orkers and Pesticide Handlers

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

2.3.1 Minimum Age

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

2.3.2 Entry Restrictions

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

2.3. 3 Personal Protective Equipment

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

2.4 Mitigating the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

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

2.4.1 Decontamination Supplies

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

2.4.2 Emergency Assistance

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 29*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

ii Chapter 3. Cost Analysis

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

3.1 Overview

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

3.2. Methodology and Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34

3.2.1 General Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34

3.2.2 Regional Groupings

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37

3.2. 3 General Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 38

3.3 Cost of Final Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46

3.3.1 Pesticide Safety Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47

3.3.2 Hazard Communication

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61

3. 3.3 Notification

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 68

3.3.4 Age

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 82

3.3.5 Entry

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 88

3.3.6 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

................................ ................................ ................. 90

3.3.7 Decontamination Supplies

................................ ................................ ................................ 101

3.3.8 Total Cost of Final Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 105

3.4 Impact on Jobs and Employment

................................ ................................ .............................. 109

3.5 Small Business Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 110

3.5.1 Industry Profile

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 111

3.5.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

................................ ................................ ......... 114

3.6 State Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 115

Chapter 4. Benefits of the Revised Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 117

4.1 Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 118

4.2 Who is at Risk?

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 119

4.2.1 Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

................................ ................................ .......................... 119

4.2.2 Children and families

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 119

4.3 What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families

................................ ...... 122

4.3.1 Acute Exposures and Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 122

4.3.2 Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

................................ ....... 123

4.4 Non

- Quantifi ed Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

................................ ........ 127

4.5 Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

................................ ................. 128

4.5.1 Methodology and Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 128

4.5.2 Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

................................ ................................ .......... 129*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

iii 4.5.3 Pesticide Incidents Avoided

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 140

4.5.4 Value of Incidents Avoided

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 147

4.6 What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers and Handlers

................... 159

4.6.1 Cancer Risks

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 162

4.6.2 Non

- Cancer Health Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 165

4.6.3 Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

................................ ................................ ................. 166

4.7 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

................................ ........................ 166

4.8 Break

- Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

................................ ................... 167

4.8.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 168

4.8.2 Method

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 169

4.8.3 Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 171

4.8.4 Break

- Even Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 175

4.8.5 Break

- Even Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 180

Chapter 5. Paperwork Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 181

Accounting Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 182

Refere nces

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 184*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

iv 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION S

E xecutive Summary

EPA is finalizing revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to 1

improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. This document 2

provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the final changes to the WPS to meet the 3

re quirements of Executive Order 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review ), Executive Order 4

13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as 5

amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

. 6

7

Pesticides are designed to control living organisms, i.e. , weeds, insects, fungi, and their use is 8

inherently risky

. T heir use , however, is also beneficial to improve crop quality and yield in 9

agriculture

. Based on an analysis of occupational pesticide incidents r eported to the National 10

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, there are an estimated 1,810 to 2,950 pesticide 11

incidents annually on agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. Acute symptoms from 12

overexposure to pesticides can range from mild s kin irritation to more severe effects such as 13

headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respiratory 14

depression and loss of consciousness. In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in 15

death. Occupational incidents are probably indicative of a larger number of cases where 16

pesticide safety practices are not fully followed resulting in higher levels of pesticide exposure to 17

agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, and possibly bystanders and non

- target o rganisms, 18

than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and risk management. Even minor errors in pesticide 19

application may lead to chronic exposure to pesticides, which is associated with long

- term health 20

issues that are potentially severe, including neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and several 21

forms of cancer. 22

23



### Market Failure 24

25

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: asymmetric 26

information and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences 27

of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the 28

consequence s of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions ; this may result in 29

unintended or undesirable amounts or kind s of use for a given pesticide that result in negative 30

consequences for society and/or the environment. If the market fails to p rovide incentives to 31

develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external 32

effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the 33

hazards of excess pesticide exposure. 34

35

In conjunction with various non

- regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are intended to 36

reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 37

to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WP S provisions are meant to 38*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

v (1) inform workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or 39

to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from 40

occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) 41

mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. 42

43



### Costs and Benefits 44

45

EPA estimates the incremental cost of the revisions to the WPS to be between $ 60.2 and $ 66. 9 46

million per year, given a three percent discount rate. The critical factor in the estimation of total 47

cost is the number of agricultural establishments, workers, and handlers affected by the WPS and 48

costs could range from $41.5 to $81.0 million. Costs recur each year and the choice of discount 49

rate does not affect the estimated annualized costs. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule 50

is estimated to cost between $ 40.0 and $ 81.0 million per year. The majority of the costs

, $ 53.0 51

to $ 62.2 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire workers 52

and/or pesticide handlers and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms 53

producing crops in the United States. The approximately 2,000 c ommercial pesticide ha ndling 54

establishments, which are contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost 55

of about $1. 9 million per year

. F arms relying solely on family labor that use pesticides may 56

collectively bear costs of about $ 1.4 million per year. Tot al costs amount to an average 57

expenditure of about $3 0 per year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced illness from 58

exposure to pesticides, are likely to exceed $ 6 7 million per year in terms of avoided costs 59

associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in chronic diseases 60

associated with occupational pesticide exposure , although the amount we can quantify is much 61

less

. 62

63

The estimated t otal incremental cost is considered an upper bound, primarily because of the 64

assumption that all requirements are applicable to nearly all employees of affected farms even 65

though the WPS requirements largely apply to workers engaged in hand labor for crop 66

production . Muc h of U.S. agricultural labor is mechanized and many establishments engage in 67

livestock production in addition to crop production

. EPA assumes that nearly two million 68

employees reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture are covered, while USDA estimates th ere 69

are just over one million farmworkers, including 288,000 agricultural service workers employed 70

through labor contractors. The lower bound estimate, using the estimate of one million workers, 71

is between $ 4 1.5 and $ 45.8 million annually

. 72

73

Costs 74

75

Key con clusions from the cost analysis are presented in Table 1. Most of the impacts of the 76

revisions to the WPS will be felt by the 375,000 U.S. crop

- producing farms that hire labor. The 77

cost to individual farms will depend on the number and type of employees employed. EPA 78

estimates that large farms , defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales and which average 79

almost 20 workers

, will incur costs of $ 310 to $ 355 per year, on average, using a 3% discount 80

rate. Large farms that are highly mechanized but e mploy pesticide handlers may face 81

incremental costs of $170 per year. Smaller operations that average three to four workers are 82

estimated to incur costs between $ 120 and $ 140 per year, on average, which amounts to less than 83

0. 1 percent of average annual r evenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a 84*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

vi significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the final rule. The 85

impact on farms that rely on family labor and use pesticides is driven by changes in certain 86

requirements for personal protective equipment . EP A estimates that approximately 11,000 farms 87

out of over 500,000 farms that use pesticides , but do not hire workers or handlers, will be 88

impacted at a cost of about $130 per year . Commercial pesticide hand ling establishments may 89

incur costs of $5 30 to $56 5 , although self

- employed commercial applicators will face costs of 90

only about $230 per year. 91

92

Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 93

Farms Hiring Workers

and/or Handlers Family F arms Commercial Pesticide

Handling

Establishments

Number Impacted 375,000 11,000 1,900

Annualized Cost $ 53.0

– 62.2 million $ 1.4 million $1. 9 million

Per

- Establishment

, Annual Cost Large farms $ 170

- $ 355

Small farms $ 70

- 140 $ 130 $230

- 56 5

Small Business

Impacts No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

 The rule will affect over 295 ,000 small farms, nurseries, and

greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are

contracted to apply pesticides.

 Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for

the average small entity

.

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

 The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase

$ 5 /year.

 The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected

to increase by $5 0 per year, but this is less than 0.2 percent of the

cost of a part

- time employee.

94

95

Benefits 96

97

The benefits of the final rule accrue to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers

, and their 98

families. For workers and handlers, t he revised rule is expected to substantially reduce the 99

potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to 100

pesticides , and provide them with information and tools to reduce the transport of pe sticide 101

residues home

. 102

103

It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from 104

this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to such a wide range of pesticides 105

with different toxicities and risks. However, the changes to the WPS are designed to reduce 106

occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer

- reviewed 107

literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health 108

thr ough reduced acute and chronic illness. 109

110*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

vii Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents 111

112

Based on analysis of reported pesticide illnesses , EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide 113

incidents where the WPS applies would have been prevented by the rule

. The value of avoided 114

medical and productivity losses of this reduction in incidents is estimated to be between $ 58,000 115

and $2 6 0,000 million annually (see Table 2) . However, this estimate is biased downward by an 116

unknown , but potentially significant degree . First, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and 117

accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be 118

correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting 119

database. The ef

fect of underreporting can be significant. If only 10 % of poisonings are 120

reported (within the range of estimates in the literature), the quantifi able benefits of the rule 121

would be about $ 2.6 million annually. Second, our approach only measures avoided medical 122

costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide 123

exposure, which could be substantially higher. 124

125

126

Table 2. Acute Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 127

Category Description Comments

Avoided acute pesticide

incidents  $ 5 75 ,000

– 2 ,603

, 000 /year

after adjustment for

underreporting of pesticide

incidents.

 $ 5 8 ,000

– 260 ,000 /year

without adjustment.  Cost of illness and reduced

productivity

.

 Accounts for underreporting.

Qualitative Benefits  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

. 128

Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure 129

130

There are a range of health effects associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure , and 131

benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health effects. Although 132

there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real world pesticide 133

exposure and long

- term health effects in human populations, many exposure

- chronic disease 134

associations have been tested in observational studies and reported in the scientific peer reviewed 135

literature, and research is ongoing. Therefore, overal l pesticide exposure reduction through WPS 136

may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time. 137

138

EPA is not able to provide quantitative estimates of the benefits from reducing chronic exposure 139

to pesticides, but there are well

- documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic 140

health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the 141

final requirements will result in long term health benefits to agricultural workers

, pesticide 142

handlers

, and their families . These benefits arise from reducing their daily risk of pesticide 143

exposures but also reduced risk of chronic illness, resulting in a lower cost of healthcare, a 144

healthier society and better quality of life. 145

146*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

viii The difference between the h igh

- end estimated cost of the rule, $66.9 million per year, and the 147

estimated benefits from avoiding acute incidents, $2.6 million per year, is $64.3 million per year. 148

EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of six chronic diseases, ranging from asthma to 149

cancer, by under 0.8 percent within the farmworker community would be sufficient to generate 150

total benefits equal to the cost of the rule. In general, farm families with exposure to pesticides 151

show higher incidence rates of these diseases than s imilar populations with little or no chronic 152

exposure to pesticides. Thus, the slight decrease in incidence rates is a plausible outcome of 153

revisions to the WPS, which include among other things improved worker safety training, better 154

dissemination of inf ormation about pesticides used on

- farm, and greater protection from 155

inadvertent exposures such as spray drift or inadequate protective equipment. 156

157

Many of the changes to current WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers 158

to transport pesticide residues home to their families. Thus, the final requirements are expected 159

to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. The benefits of reduced exposure to children are also 160

impossible to quantify, but they may be large. At every lifestage, in cluding the fetal stage, 161

reduci ng exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of 162

school, improved capacity to learn, better education, and better long

- term health. There are 163

benefits to parents and caregivers as well, be cause healthier families, means fewer missed 164

workdays, and a better quality of life. 165

166

167

Table 3. Chronic Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 168

Category Description Comment

Qualitative benefits

from reduced effects of

chronic pesticide

exposure to workers,

handlers, and

farmworker families A range of illnesses are associated with

chronic pesticide exposure, including

 Non

- Hod g kins lymphoma

 Prostate Cancer

 Parkinson’s Disease

 Lung Cancer

 Chronic Bronchitis

 Asthma Break

- even analysis for

only these illnesses

shows that , if the final

rule changes prevent a

relatively small number

of cases , then the total

benefits of the rule would

outweigh the costs.

169

170

171*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

1 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER

PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION S

Chapter 1

. Introduction 172

173

EPA is finalizing revisions to the Wo rker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 170, to 174

improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The revisions are 175

expected to reduce the risks to workers and handlers from occupational pesticide exposure, and 176

protect farm worker children and other family members from ta ke

- home pesticide exposure

. 177

Some r evisions may also reduce the potential for exposure to bystanders, i.e. , people not 178

employed by the establishment making a pesticide application, and exposure to non

- target plants 179

and animals. The changes represent revisi ons to the worker protection rule that w as first codified 180

in 1974 and revised in 1992

. 181

182

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the final revisions to the 183

WPS. This section provides a brief background to the WPS requirements, d escribes the reasons 184

for EPA’s changes and the statutory authority for the rule, identifies entities that may be affected 185

by the rule, and describes changes to the analysis since the economic analysis of the final rule. 186

Chapter 2 provides a summary of the major changes in the WPS and discusses qualitatively the 187

expected benefits of the changes to different components of the regulations . Chapter 3 presents 188

the cost estimates for the final revisions. Chapter 4 assesses the benefits expected from the 189

revisi ons as a whole, taking into consideration the complementary nature of many of the WPS’ 190

components

. Benefits arise from reduced accidental and chronic exposures to pesticides and will 191

accrue primarily to agricultural employees and their families

. 192

193

This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 ( Regulatory Planning 194

and Review ), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the 195

Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement 196

Fairness Act

. The remaining regulatory requirements and a full description of the regulatory 197

changes EPA is making are addressed in the preamble to the final rule. This document and the 198

data used in this analysis also serve as input in preparing an analysis required under the 199

Paperwork Redu ction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501

- 21), which is summarized in Chapter 5. 200

201



### 1.1 Background 202

203

The EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implementation of two primary 204

regulations. The Certification of Pesticide Applicator s r egulation, 40 CFR Part 171

, requires 205

applicators to meet certain competency requirements before they can purchase, use or supervise 206

the use of restricte d use pesticide products. EPA is currently revising the rules governing 207

certification of pesticide applicators through another rulemaking. The Worker Protection 208

Standard r egulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and employers of 209

commer cial pesticide handlers to provide specific information and protections to agricultural 210

workers and pesticide handlers when pesticides are used in the production of agricultural plants 211

on crop

- producing farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The WPS r egulation is intended to 212

reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 213*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

2 to pesticides on an agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the W PS provisions are meant 214

to (1) inform farm workers and pesti cide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides 215

they use or to which they come into contact in the workplace , (2) protect workers and handlers 216

from occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) 217

mitig ate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accid ents. 218

These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety 219

program, are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pest icides among pesticide 220

applicators, agricultural employees

, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, 221

such as children. This economic analysis focuses on the revisions to the W PS rule

. 222

223

The WPS rule is directed toward the working condition s of two types of employees , which, 224

t hroughout this document, we refer as ‘handlers’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those 225

employees who work directly with agricultural pesticides

, e.g.

, mix ing , load ing

, and apply ing 226

pesticides, and performing other activities linked to pesticide applications . These employees 227

may be directly exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other 228

people

, non

- target organisms , and the environment in general

. In principle, at least, pesticid e 229

handlers also know with which chemicals they work and have access to label information that 230

explains precautions and provides directions for use. Workers are employees who perform tasks 231

related to the cultivation and harvesting of plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or 232

forests , specifically tasks associated with hand labor

. Workers are potentially exposed to 233

pesticides t hrough c o ntact with treated plants, resid u es left on other surfaces, or through the air 234

or water on the farm or other operati on. Without regulations such as the WPS , worker s may 235

have little information about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be expose d o r 236

even if they are exposed. 237

238

Changes to WPS will largely impact two types of employers who are responsible for providing 239

required protections to their employees: agricultural employers, ( e. g. , owners and managers of 240

farms, greenhouses, nurseries and forest ry o p erations ), and commercial employers ( e. g. , owners 241

and managers of commercial pesticide handling establis hments ) that provide pest control 242

services to the agricultural sector . Some revisions may also pertain to other agricultural 243

establishments that do not hire labor, i.e. , that rely on labor from the immediate family, and to 244

other commercial agricultural services such as private crop advisors. 245

246

The benefits of the revisions to the WPS rule accrue primarily to agricultural workers

, pesticide 247

handlers , and their families . The changes to the rule will provide more information about the 248

potential risks of pes ticide exposure and ways workers and handlers can minimize those 249

exposures. 250

251



### 1.2 Problem Statement 252

253

EPA imposes requirements on the use of pesticides with the intent to avert unreasonable adverse 254

effects to human health and the environment. These requirem ents include current worker 255

protection standards and pesticide

- specific use restrictions found on the product label. However, 256

despite these safeguards, occupational pesticide poisonings still occur . An EPA review of a 257

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) database on occupational 258

pesticides exposure provides an estimate of 1,810

– 2,950 occupational pesticide exposure 259*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

3 incidents occur annually on establishments where WPS requirements apply (more detail is 260

provided in Chapter 4). Ma ny of these poisonings are preventable and there may be reasonable 261

measures to reduce exposure in situations where they are not avoidable. Moreover, incidents are 262

likely to reflect a larger number of cases where employers or employees fail to follow label 263

instruction or make mistakes in applications. Although not all mistakes or failures result in 264

indentifiable incidents and acute illness, even minor errors may increase exposure

. C hronic 265

exposure to pesticides can have adverse effects

, as documented in EP A risk assessments; further, 266

epidemiological studies have noted associations between repeated exposure and several serious, 267

chronic diseases

. 268

269



### 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure 270

271

There are inherent risks associated with the use of pesticides, which are substances that are toxic 272

by design. Some pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or processes while others 273

have effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can 274

be exposed in many ways and can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing 275

season (Arcury et al

., 2010). E xposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute 276

symptoms. The acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild 277

skin irritation to more severe effects. Exposures to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for 278

example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired 279

vision and other effects (Schulze et al

., 1997). Some pesticides can cause in seizures, respiratory 280

depression and loss of consciousness (R oberts and R eigart, 2013 ). In rare cases, unintentional 281

pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the many diverse symptoms that can 282

be caused by pesticide exposure; Robe rts and Reigart (2013) list almost 100 different symptoms 283

that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure. 284

285

While illnesses resulting from pesticide exposures to workers and handlers are underreported 286

(see the discussion in Section 4.5. 2 ), there are peer

- reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 287

reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 288

Calvert, et al . (2008), for example, looked at reported pesticide poisoning inciden ts among 289

agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for 290

agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non

291

agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample )). Das et al . (2001) identified 292

486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance 293

program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all pesticide 294

related illness cases in th e California surveillance system were agricultural workers. Over a 295

quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most 296

common symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and 297

gastrointestinal (ab out 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed 298

by inhalation and eye contact. 299

300



### 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure 301

302

In addition to the effects of acute exposure mentioned above, workers and handlers face risks 303

from chronic exposure to pesticides, as well. Although children and families may suffer illness 304*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

4 from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for thi s group is exposure to low 305

levels of pesticides over a longer period of time, either from the agricultural environment or in 306

the home, where pesticides have been transported via clothing or footwear of the workers and 307

handlers. There are a broad range of illnesses with a relationship to this type of chronic 308

exposure. 309

310

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre

- natal occupational exposure to 311

pregnant women may affect children. Pre

- natal and childhood exposure may have particularly 312

imp ortant effects on neurological development of children (see Section 4.2.2 and Eskenazi et al

., 313

2007 ; Young et al ., 2005 ; Rauh et al ., 2006 ; Engel et al ., 2007 ; Lovasi, et al ., 2011 ; Bouchard et 314

al . 2010 ) , and Wigle et al . (2009) find an association between prenatal exposure to the mother 315

and future childhood leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are 316

regulated on the basis of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional 317

deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from 318

multiple low

- level exposures as well as an acute overexposure to the pregnant farmworker 319

during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 320

321

While only a small number of pest icides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 322

various peer

- review bodies, there is a wide literature demonstrating statistical associations 323

between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in experimental 324

toxicology studies. There is a large body of epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on 325

long

- term health effects (such as cancer, neurological, respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other 326

long

- term health effects) that may result from pesticide exposure (se e below and Sections 4.2, 327

4.3, 4.6) . However, the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to specific 328

pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduc ing general pesticide exposure

. 329

330

Synthesizing across the studies of carcin ogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles 331

and meta

- analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure 332

and lymphohematopoetic cancers, specifically non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia; 333

among solid tum ors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in 334

association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et 335

al

., 2007; Blair and Beane

- Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al

., 2010a; Van Maele

- Fab ry et al

., 2011, 336

Wigle et al

., 2009, Turner et al

., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al ., 2013). 337

338

Blair and Beane

- Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 339

agricultural populations. They report that meta

- analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 340

excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL

, and multiple 341

myeloma and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain

, and deficits for total mortality, heart 342

disease, total cancer, a nd cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that 343

meta

- analyses of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific 344

exposures that lead to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors 345

conclude factors other than pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk 346

of cancer among agriculturally exposed occupational groups (Blair and Beane

- Freeman, 2009). 347

348

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pestic ide exposures and cancers of the 349

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health 350*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

5 Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al

., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al

., 2007 for 351

colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 2 009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, 352

cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills et al.

, 2009). 353

354



### 1.2. 3 Market Failure 355

356

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: asymmetric 357

infor mation and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences 358

of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the 359

consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, 360

there may be a socially undesirable amount or kind of use. If the market fails to provide 361

incentives to develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to 362

avoid external effects, there may be a r ole for government intervention to protect workers and 363

handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure. This intervention must adapt to changes 364

in industry and, especially, to the advancements of scientific knowledge about the risks of 365

pesticide ex posure. 366

367

Asymmetric Information 368

369

Asymmetric information may be the most critical problem leading to avoidable pesticide 370

exposure. Handlers working directly with pesticides and agricultural workers on farms where 371

pesticides are used may not have complete information about the occupational risks they face or 372

the potential consequences to their families if pesticide residues are transported to the home. 373

Asymmetric information arises in two ways. 374

375

First, there may be barriers to employees obtaining the infor mation if not provided by the 376

employer. Many who are employed in agriculture, for example, are not native English speakers; 377

an estimated 65 percent of agricultural employees speak little or no English (DoL, 2011

- 2012 ). 378

Many are migrant laborers who could lack access to sources of information, such as familiar 379

extension agents, because they are frequently away from home, but many workers may not have 380

access, especially internet access, to convenient, reliable information (DoL, 2005). These 381

barriers result in high search costs that can deter agricultural workers and handlers from 382

obtaining information on their own. Finally, information regarding pesticides and pesticide use 383

may not be available to the employee in the time frame that is required to take app ropriate action. 384

385

Second, there may not be incentives for workers and handlers to seek out information about 386

pesticides. Symptoms of pesticide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, 387

or other factors, especially for workers who may no t even be aware that they have been in 388

contact with pesticides or in pesticide

- treated areas. Long

- term or chronic effects of pesticide 389

exposure do not manifest themselves immediately and employees may not be motivated to learn 390

more about the risks they f ace given immediate priorities such as providing for their families and 391

obtaining or retaining their job s . These issues can result in workers and handlers with 392

insufficient information to make informed choices about their safety. 393

394*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

6 Externalities 395

396

Another factor that contributes to unnecessary pesticide exposure is that the party making the 397

application decision does not bear all of the negative effects of a pesticide application, including 398

the health effects on others. This is a classic externality that c an result in a divergence between 399

the social and private costs of using a pesticide. 400

401

An externality of this type could imply that there are fewer protections for workers and handlers 402

than would be socially desirable. Employers may lack the incentive to s eek out or act on the 403

information they have on the negative consequences of pesticides or the possible measures that 404

can be taken to avoid negative outcomes. This may be particularly true when the adverse effects 405

are not readily observable b ecause they oc cur over time, i.e. , are latent or associated with chronic 406

exposure . Moreover, there are numerous pesticides, many with complex effects on human and 407

environmental systems, which can make it costly for employers to obtain information for their 408

employees. Similarly, adequate protections may require specialized knowledge, e.g.

, 409

information about exposure or toxicology, which employers do not have. 410

411

Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections 412

413

Another concern is the presence of institutional constraints. EPA last revised the WPS 414

requirements in 1992. Some existing requirements have proven to be vague or open to differing 415

interpretations leading to regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, society’s understanding of exposure 416

and risk has evolved and regulatory requir ements are most useful when they reflect current 417

knowledge. 418

419

Environmental Justice Issues 420

421

There are several reasons that environmental justice considerations are especially important for 422

the agricultural employees covered by the WPS. 423

424

 Because of their o ccupation, workers and handlers face more potential exposure to 425

pesticides than the general public, and may be subject to multiple exposures of different 426

pesticides over the course of their working life. 427

428

 Language barriers and challenges for this workfor ce make it difficult for workers and 429

handlers to participate in making decisions about the risks they face as they perform their 430

jobs. 431

432

 Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than non

433

agricultural workers. Children and adolescents may be especially vulnerable to pesticide 434

exposure, because their body systems are still developing. Poverty, poor nutrition and 435

lack of access to health care can exacerbate the risks from this exposure. 436

437*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

7  The cumulative effects of occupational pesticide exposure can have long term impacts on 438

the health of worker and handler communities. See Section 1.2.2. These potential effects 439

are discussed in some detail in Chapter 4

. 440

441

According to the most recent data available from the National Ag ricultural Worker Survey 442

(NAWS), 64 percent of agricultural workers in the United S tates were born in Mexico and six 443

percent in Central and South America ( DoL, 2011

- 20 12)

. A majority (69 percent ) of all survey 444

respondents sp eaks Spanish as their primary language. Approximately 65 percent of this 445

population speaks a little or no English; 38 percent cannot not rea d English at all and another 30 446

percent can only read English “a little.” Many have received only limited formal e ducation; on 447

average, the highest grade completed by foreign

- born workers was seventh grade. 448

Approximately 17 percent of the survey respondents were classified as migrant, having traveled 449

at least 75 miles in the previous year to find a job in agriculture

. Only 17 percent of respondents 450

lived in housing pr ovided by their employer and 55 percent rented housing from someone other 451

than their employer. 452

453

In general, agricultural workers surveyed by NAWS do not have access to employer

- provided 454

health insurance

– in 2011

- 2012, only 21 percent of farmworkers reported having the option for 455

employer

- provided health insurance. USDA research, based on earlier NAWS data, also reports 456

that workers have difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment ( Ka ndel, 2008)

. 457

Cost was a significant barrier for two

- thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed language 458

barriers as an impediment to receiving care. The problem is more severe among undocumented 459

workers because they fear seeking treatment will lead to deportation or other adverse legal 460

action. 461

462

The NAWS found that 19 percent of workers and handlers surveyed earned less than $10,000 463

annually from agricultural work, and another 39 percent earn between $10,000 and $20,000 464

annually ( DoL, 2011

- 20 12)

. Ov er 55 percent of respondents reported a total family income 465

below $22,500. USDA reports that the unemployment rate among farm workers more than 466

doubled between 2007 and 2010, even as the level of employment increased slightly, suggesting 467

an influx of work ers from other sectors, such as construction (ERS, 2014). Real wages have 468

largely been stagnant since 2007 after rising at 0.8 percent per year between 1990 and 2007 469

(ERS, 2014). 470

471



### 1. 3 Affected Communities 472

473

The primary entities that will be impacted by the final changes to the WPS are agricultural 474

employees and their families, agricultural establishments (crop

- producing farms , nurseries and 475

greenhouses) that use pesticides in the production of agricultural pl ants and hire workers or 476

handlers , and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s). Other affected entities 477

include family farms that use pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses providing crop 478

advisory services. S tate agencie s , which are responsible for e nforcing the WPS and often 479

provide training for workers and handlers , will also be impacted by the revision s t o these 480

regulations

. 481

482*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

8 

### 1.3 .1 Agricultural Employees 483

484

The current rule is intended to protect worker s and handlers on crop

- produci ng farms, nurseries, 485

and greenhouses from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operations 486

although most workers in forestry would generally not be in proximity to treated areas due to 487

pesticide use patterns in forestry. 488

489

Pesticides of one type or another are used on many farms in the United States, so a large portion 490

of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed each year. Based on data from the 2012 491

Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014), EPA estimates that over 300,000 farms empl oying 1.8 492

million workers and handlers used pesticides in 2012. EPA estimates that within the farmworker 493

population are over 300,000 employees who handle pesticides, including those who mix and load 494

pesticides and assist with application as well as those who apply pesticides. Over several years, 495

however, it is likely that nearly 375,000 agricultural establishments that hire labor will use 496

pesticides, thus nearly two million agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of 497

adverse health effects at some point. 498

499

Agricultural workers and handlers are expected to benefit from the final rule through provisions 500

that would require agricultural employers to provide information to workers and handlers about 501

risks from pesticides and ways they can minimize t heir exposure, to provide warnings about 502

treated areas, to provide protective measures such as personal protective equipment , and to 503

provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultural pesticides. The costs 504

of the final rule are not generally expected to fall di rectly on workers and handlers , but there are 505

likely to be cases where workers bear at least some of the costs

. Many workers engaged for 506

harvest activities are paid by the amount of produce harvested. For them, time spent in pesticide 507

safety training, for example, is time they cannot generate income. 508

509



### 1.3

. 2 Regulated Entities 510

511

For the purposes of this analysis, we distinguish two types of establishments affected by the rule : 512

(1) farms , including livestock operations that produce crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and forestry 513

operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s ). Within each type, 514

we further distinguish between those who are self

- employed ( e.g. , the family farm) and those 515

who employ others . Farms that use pesticides and hire labor bear most of the cost of the final 516

changes to the WPS. The major sources of impact will be in additional labor cost to account for 517

time spent in training and in giving and receiving information. 518

519

Agricultural Es tablishments 520

521

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014), there were over 2.2 million 522

agricultural establishments in the United States of which 482,000 hired labor . The WPS covers a 523

subset of agricultural establishments involved in plant agr icultur e . These include farms, 524

livestock operations that grow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations . A n 525

a gricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the 526

management or condition of an agricultu ral establishment, and employs any worker or handler. 527*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

9 The WPS also covers self

- employed handlers, such as the operator of a family farm who applies 528

pesticides. 529

530

Just under one million U.S. establishments used pesticides as part of the production system 531

(NASS, 20 14 ) . Extrapolating from a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture 532

(NASS, 2008), EPA estimates that about 872,000 agricultural establishments using pesticides 533

produce crops while the rest are solely livestock operations . Of t hose, EPA estimates over 534

354

, 000 farms also hired labor, leaving approximately 51 8

, 000 farms that used pesticides but did 535

not hire labor . The latter farms appear to rely solely on immediate family labor and are exempt 536

from most provisions of the WPS. The WPS also sets standards for engineering controls, such as 537

closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for some personal 538

protective equipment (PPE) required on the lab el

. 539

540

The WPS, and any revisions to it, will primarily affec t the establishments that use pesticides and 541

hire labor for producing crops, and specifically for hand labor activities like weeding, pruning, 542

and harvesting. Of the 354,000 crop

- producing farms estimated to use pesticide s , about 50,000 543

are very small far ms, with annual sales less than $100,000, primarily produce livestock and are 544

unlikely to employ hand labor for cropping activities that are primarily grain and forage. This 545

leaves an estimated 304,000 farms that use pesticides and which are covered by th e WPS. 546

However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by non

- organic growers. Thus, 547

EPA estimates the number of crop

- producing farms that hire labor and are likely to engage in 548

activities with hand labor, nearly 375,000 establishments, as the likely universe of farms covered 549

by WPS requirements. Chapter 3.2. 3 discusses the affected entities in detail. For convenience, 550

throughout this document, we refer to the affected farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire 551

labor as “WPS farms.” The use of all farms hiring labor may be a slight overestimation due to 552

the presence of organic growers ; however many organic producers also have conventionally 553

grown crops and organic

- approved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, 554

must still be handled carefully and are subject to WPS requirements. 555

556

Similar information on the number of entities using pesticides for forestry operations is not 557

available. However, certain WPS requirements do not apply when treated areas are 558

geographically distant from areas where workers are engaged in activity . Given forest 559

production practices, pesticide applications and worker activities are commonly quite distinct 560

and so WPS requirements would rarely impact forestry operations. 561

562

Commercial Pesticide Ha ndling Establishments 563

564

EP A estimates that there are nearly 2,000 commercial firms that provide pest control services to 565

agricultural establishments and which may be covered by the WPS and, therefore, affected by 566

revisions to the requirements. Approximatel y 5,000 firms were identified under the North 567

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 1 1 5 112, Support Activities for Crop 568

Production, Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating. Within this group, we identified firms 569

listed under the Stand ard Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions for weed control 570

services (before and after planting)

, crop dusting services, soil chemical treatment services, crop 571

spraying services, crop thinning services (chemical), and crop disease control services. 572

573*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

10 Further, there are nearly 90,000 commercial applicators certified to use Restricted Use Products 574

for agricultural plant production (CPARD, 2014) . EPA estimates, considering that some will be 575

employed in the commercial firms identified above, t h at there are about 42,000 small or self

576

employed handlers providing commercial services to the agricultural sector. See Chapter 3.2. 3 577

for detail. 578

579



### 1. 4 Overview of Final Regulation 580

581

EPA is finalizing revisions to the requirements of the WPS to address the problems arising from 582

inadequate information and externalities, to clarify required actions, and to reflect current 583

knowledge. Chapter 2 discusses the revisions addressed in this analysis in more detail. The 584

preamble to the final rule explains all change s to the WPS. For this analysis, EPA organizes the 585

final requirements into eight categories. 586

587

Three categories primarily address the issue of incomplete information. Training requirements 588

are designed to provide general information to employees ; an impor tant aspect of the pesticide 589

safety training is to provide workers and handlers with information about the risks of pesticides 590

and steps they can take to minimize their exposure. Hazard Communication and Notification 591

requirements are designed to provide t imely application

- specific information. T ogether, t hese 592

requirements mean that agricultural workers receive appropriate safety information and know 593

when that information is most relevant in their work

. 594

595

Three categories address the externality issue and p rovide protections to employees working with 596

pesticides. Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescents, whose developing systems may be 597

more susceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge the potential 598

risks of exposure, especially the long

- term effects, compared to adults. Entry restrictions are 599

designed to reduce the possible adverse effects on workers who are in proximity either in time or 600

space to a pesticide application. Requirements for personal protective equipme nt (PPE) are 601

intended to provide handlers with protection from pesticide exposure during handling tasks. 602

603

The final two categories revise regulations to provide greater clarity and to help employers 604

adequately prepare for the possibility of exposure. The revisions p e r tain to the provision of 605

decontamination supplies and clarify existing requirements about providing emergency 606

assistance

. 607

608



### 1.4 .1 Statutory Authority 609

610

This action is issued under the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal Insecticide, 611

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) , 7 U.S.C. 136

- 136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7 612

U.S.C. 136w(a). 613

614*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

11 

### 1. 4 .2 Need for Federal Regulation 615

616

Under FIFRA, states and territories may establish local standards, provided the minimum federal 617

s tandards are met. For improved protections and efficiency, EPA concludes that the federal 618

standards should be revised. 619

620

First, there are efficiency gains for state and local agencies responsible for implementing 621

agricultural worker protection standards. Many states rely on the federal standards because data 622

on pesticide effects are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and avoid a 623

duplication of effort. Thus, while states have the authority to issue their own regulations, they 624

may lack the resources to individually examine toxicological and exposure data and revise 625

protection standards. 626

627

There are also potential efficiency gains for agricultural establishments when there is greater 628

consistency in worker protection requirements across st ates. Many workers migrate through the 629

agricultural season as different crops and regions need labor at different times. If worker 630

protection standards vary significantly across jurisdictions, workers may be confused about their 631

rights and regulatory pro tections , which may put them at greater risk . Different notification 632

requirements, in particular, that might present information in different ways, would be 633

particularly confusing. Additionally, agricultural employers and farm managers or supervisors 634

who cross state boundaries may inadvertently be out of compliance if regulatory requirements 635

are inconsistent. 636

637

There may also be efficiency gains in establishing consistent training requirements. Federal 638

requirements for training standards can ease the burd en of developing programs for individual 639

entities. 640

641



### 1. 5 Changes from the Analysis of Final Revisions 642

643

EPA previously assessed the costs and benefits of the proposed revisions (BEAD, 2014). The 644

analysis of the final revisions follows the same methodology ; however, there are other important 645

changes. First and foremost, the final rule has been modified somewhat from the proposed 646

revisions as a result of information received during the public comment period on the proposal. 647

A complete discussion of these cha nges is provided in the preamble to the final rule. 648

649

The cost analysis has been updated to reflect more current wage information and the price of 650

materials required under the WPS and the revisions. The number of affected entities, including 651

both farms and workers, has been updated with data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture. 652

Finally, based on comments received on the proposal, a few of the scenarios, notably those 653

pertaining to the use of respirators and closed pesticide delivery systems, were revised. 654

655

The analysis of acute benefits has also been revised. The analysis is based on more recent 656

incident data, as well as additional information from pesticide incident surveillance programs

. 657

658

659*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

12 

## Chapter 2

. Final Revisions to the W orker P rotection S tandard 660

661

This chapter provides a summary of the final revisions to the WPS and a discussion of the 662

benefits provided by individual components of the final regulation. Changes to the rule that were 663

proposed but not adopted are not discussed here

. The preamble to the final rule presents 664

a dditional detail s

. Chapter 3 estimates the costs of the revisions and Chapter 4 discusses the 665

benefits of the revisions as a whole

. 666

667

The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non

- regulatory programs that hav e been 668

established to improve worker safety. The remainder of the chapter is organized according to 669

how the regulation helps promote worker safety

, i.e. , to inform workers, protect against 670

exposure

, or mitigate the effects of exposure. The changes to the regulation are addressed under 671

these three broad elements . Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses the changes that will better 672

inform workers and handlers about protecting themselves from pesticide expo s ure, which 673

comprise of three categories: training, h azard communication, and notification . The provisions 674

that protect workers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in Section 2.3 and are 675

divided into three categories: age requirements, restrictions on entry into a treated area

, and 676

persona l protective equipment (PPE) requirement s to protect against exposure

. T he final section

, 677

2.4, addresses changes to the WPS that mitigate the adverse effects of contact with pesticides 678

including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response requirements. Please 679

refer to the preamble to the final WPS for a complete discussion of the changes and the rationale 680

for the Agency’s decisions

. 681

682



### 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 683

684

EPA’s p esticide w orker s afety p rogram is comprised of three major components: 685

 protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural w orker p rotection regulation 686

and support activities; 687

 the establishment of federal competency standards for the certification of pesticide 688

applicat or s ; and 689

 the n ational h ealth c are p roviders ’ pesticide i nitiative. 690

691



### 2. 1 .1 Non

- regulatory Approaches 692

693

T he Agency engages in extensive non

- reg ulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, 694

handlers, their families and the public from pesticide exposu re and potential injury. To 695

implement these programs, the Office of Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of 696

partners including state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s National Institute of 697

Food and Agriculture (NIFA); universi ty cooperative extension services; farmworker advocacy 698

groups; and the regulated community. 699

700

EPA funds pesticide safety education and outreach, and regulatory support activities through 701

grants with governmental and non

- governmental organizations with the goal of improving the 702

health of workers, handlers, applicators, the public, and the environment. For example, EPA has 703

a grant program to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to 704*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

13 reduce pesticide exposure risks in pesticid e worker and other affected populations. Regionally, 705

nationall y, and internationally, the grantee works with a variety of partners (community

- based 706

organizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care providers, regulators, subject matter 707

expert s, ag ricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the targeted communities and develop 708

creative community

- based action plan s to enhance risk reduction via targeted training and 709

outreach methods including: workshops, hands

- on training, fact sheets, manu als , exams, Web, 710

DVDs, and webinars. 711

712

EPA partners with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , part of 713

the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), to maintain the Sentinel Event Notification System for 714

Occupational Risk (SENSOR) program, which gathers information related to occupational 715

pesticide incidents, including those experienced by farmworkers. These data have been useful in 716

characterizing the benefits of the final rule, as discussed in Chapter 4. 717

718

EPA has also supported the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey 719

(NAWS), which collects demographic, health, and working condition information from 720

farmworkers and handlers. These data are useful to direct the development of materials in 721

appropriate langua ges and complexity. 722

723

EPA support s state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulate s the competency of 724

pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through grants to the cooperative 725

ext ension services in each state to support the t raining of applicators using RUPs

. 726

727

A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national h ealth c are providers ’ 728

p esticide i nitiative, aimed at improving the training of health care providers in the recognition, 729

diagnosis, and treatment o f occupational pesticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the 730

development of a manual for health care providers called “Recognition and Management of 731

Pesticide Poisoning.” This resource outlines the health effects associated with different classes 732

of pest icides and recommend s treatments b ased on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, 733

EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clinicians Network, which operates a project to 734

improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers t o recognize and 735

treat pesticide

- related conditions. This project includes the development of relevant resources 736

and tools that health care providers need to deal effectively with pesticide

- related health 737

conditions, and the distribution of these products t hrough training sessions, the Internet, and 738

continuing education opportunities. 739

740

The WPS regulation complements EPA’s non

- regulatory pesticide worker safety program 741

activities to improve protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and their families. In many 742

cases, regulatory change was the result of consultation with stakeholders and industry 743

participants on how to improve pesticide worker safety

. 744

745



### 2. 1. 2 Regulatory Approaches 746

747

Approval of a new or amended pesticide registration for sale and use implies EPA approval of 748

the pesticide label. By law, use of a pesticide must not result in unreasonable risks to human 749

health or the environment. It is illegal to use any registered pes ticide in a manner inconsistent 750*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

14 with its labeling. EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for how 751

the pesticide must be used in order to protect people and the environment from pesticide 752

exposure. T he label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific 753

pesticide, where these measures are determined according to the results of the Agency’s risk 754

assessments, including occupational risk assessments. 755

756

The label, however, is not available to the typic al farmworker, because they are not involved in 757

the use of the pesticide; as noted previously, they are potentially exposed via contact with treated 758

surfaces after the application has been completed. The requirements of the WPS complement the 759

label by pro viding protections from this post

- application exposure. It establishe s requirements 760

on the employer to notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training 761

information that enables workers and handlers to protect themselves and their fa milies, to 762

provide supplies to be used to mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance 763

in the case a worker or handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are 764

generic, crossing all agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, 765

efficiently, and consistently covered in regulation. 766

767



### 2.2 Inform ing Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers 768

769

In the final regulation, EPA is revising the requirements for Pesticide safety training (Section 770

2.2.1)

, Hazard communication (Section 2.2.2)

, and N otification of agricultural workers and 771

handlers (Section 2.2.3) to better inform them of potential dangers related to pesticide exposure 772

and how and when to avoid unsafe exposure . These measures work together t o provide workers 773

with important information about their working conditions and how they should act in those 774

conditions. For each of these areas

, a summary table of the existing, proposed, and final 775

re quirements is presented. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a discussion of 776

expected benefits. 777

778



### 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training 779

780

In the existing and final regulations, pesticide safety training provides general information on 781

pesticides, how workers and handlers may come into contact with them, how to prevent exposure 782

to pesticides, and what to do if exposed to pesticides. With the final rule, EPA is changing 783

worker and handler training requirements and changing supporting requirements that include 784

recordkeeping and training verification

. See the preamble to the final rule for detailed 785

information on the requirements and the reasons for the Agency’s decisions. 786

787

Worker Training 788

789

Table 2.2

- 1 provides a summary of the existing, proposed, and final regulations that will be 790

revised. In both the existing and final regulations, pesticide safety training must be provided to 791

all workers before they enter an area that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI 792

within 30 days. Currently, h owever, the WPS provides an exemption in the case that full 793

training cannot be provided before each worker’s first entry into such area s ; employers must 794

provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information and full training must be 795*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

15 complete befor e the sixth day of entry. This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for 796

agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers 797

was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992. However, the result is that wo rkers may not be 798

fully trained before engaging in hand labor. EPA estimates that nearly 100,000 workers do not 799

receive the full saf e ty training before entering fiel d s recently treated with a pesticide. I n the final 800

rule, full training must be provided be fore the first entry, with no grace period permitted. With 801

this change, w orkers will have the full information they need to protect themselves from 802

pesticide exposure before en gaging in hand labor activities in or near a treated area . I n addition, 803

i t wil l prevent the possib ility that a worker never receives full training when moving from one 804

farm to another. 805

806

Under the current rule, workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. 807

Revisions will require that workers receive the safety training every year. R etention of pesticide 808

safety information is expected to improve with annual training rather than with the existing five

809

year cycle. Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students 810

performed no better tha n untrained students in following protocols to preve nt infect ion s in 811

themselves and their patients. Ultimately, the changes will improve workers ’ ability to protect 812

t hemselves from pesticide exposure

. 813

814

In the proposal, EPA considered eliminating certified applicators and handlers as qualified 815

trainers for workers. However, many comments convinced EPA that certified applicators possess 816

the necessary skills to provide training to workers. In the final rule, certified applicators are 817

among the people qualifi ed to train workers, but trained handlers will not be qualified as trainers. 818

819

In the final regulation, worker training is expanded to include several new items: ways to reduce 820

take

- home pesticide exposure, worker rights ( e.g. , to a copy of training records) and protections 821

( e.g. , from retaliation)

, and the new WPS requirements. See Table 2.2

- 1. EPA’s understanding 822

of the potential for pesticide residues to be transported to the worker’s home on clothing and 823

other work materials has increased since the WPS was last revised. Relatively simple measures 824

to reduce transport can be used, but workers must be informed so that they can protect 825

themselves and their families. Training in the new WPS requirements, including an explanation 826

on warning signs and their meaning, information provided in case of entry into a field under a 827

REI

, and the availability of hazard communication materials, will help to insure safety measures 828

are followed and that workers understand their employer’s responsibilities in reduci ng exposure 829

to pesticides. 830

831*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

16 Table 2.2

- 1. Existing , Proposed, and Final Worker Training Requirements. 832

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Worker Training Frequency and Grace Period

Untrained workers receive, at a

minimum, abbreviated training

before entering a treated area.

F ull safety training before 6th

day of entry into treated area.

Training every 5 years. Untrained workers receive, at

minimum, essential Right

- to

Know information before

entering a treated area

.

Ful l safety training before 3 rd day

of field entry.

Annual training. Untrained workers receive f ull

training prior to entry into a

treated area.

No grace period.

Annual training.

Training Content for Workers

Basic pesticide safety training :

1. Possible exposures

2. Hazards

3. Routes through whic h

pesticides can enter body

4. S igns and symptoms of

poisoning

5. Eme rgency first aid for

poisonings

6. Obtaining medical care

7. Decontamination

procedures

8. Haza rds from chemigation

and drift

9. Haz ards from residues on

clothing

10. Warnings about taking

pesticid es or pesticide

containers home

11. WPS requirements Expand existing 11 basic safety

training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard

information

– Safety Data

Sheets ( SDS )

 How to report suspected use

violations

 Additional employer

requirements under the

proposal Expand existing 11 basic safety

training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard

information

– SDS

 How to report suspected use

violations

 Additional employer

requirements under the final

rule

Criteria for Trainers of Workers

Training may be conducted by

 certified applicators,

 trainers of certified

applicators,

 people who have

completed “Train

- the

trainer” programs, and

 handlers Training may be conducted by

 trainers of certified

applicators , and

 people who have completed

“Train

- the

- trainer” programs Training may be conducted by

 certified applicators,

 trainers of certified

applicators, and

 people who have com

pleted

“Train

- the

- trainer” programs

833

Handler Training 834

835

The requirements in the final regulation on the frequency and content of handler training are 836

summarized in Table 2.2

- 2. In the final regulation, annual pesticide safety training is required 837

for handlers, rather than the existing requirement of every five years. With this change, the 838

retention of pesticide safety information will be greater for annual training over the existing five

- 839*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

17 year requirement. The expected benefits are improvements in han dlers’ ability to protect 840

t hemselves from pesticide exposure

. 841

842

In the final regulation, the content of handler training is expanded to include ways to reduce 843

take

- home pesticide exposure, handler rights, the content of Safety Data Sheets ( SDS ) , and the 844

new WPS requi rements. The new components of handler training that are not relevant to 845

workers are a definition and meaning of the “application exclusion zone,” proper procedures if 846

another person ent e r s the application exclusion zone , and separate training on respirator use, fit

847

testing of respi rators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. Handler training will help 848

insure safety measures are followed and that handlers understand their and their employer’s 849

responsibilities in reducing exposure to pes ticides. 850

851

Table 2.2

- 2

. Existing, Proposed, and Final Handler Training Requirements. 852

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Training Frequency for Handlers

Training every 5 years Annual training Annual training

Training Content for Handlers

13 topics are covered

1. Product label, including

safety information

2. Hazards

3. Routes through which

pesticides can enter body

4. Signs and symptoms of

poisoning

5. Emergency first a id

6. Emergency medical care

7. Decontamination

procedures

8. Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE)

9. Heat

- related illness issues

10. Safety requirements for

handling, transporting,

storing, and disposing of

pesticides

11. Environmental concerns

12. Warnings about taking

pesticides or their

containers home

13. Regu latory requirements

of handling Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification and age

limit

 Entry restricted area

requirements

 Requirements for respirator fit

test, training and medical

evaluation

 Hazard information

– SDS Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification and age

limit

 Entry exclusion zone

requirements

 Requirements for respirator fit

test, training and medical

evaluation

 Hazard information

– SDS

853

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification 854

855

In the existing regulation there is no requirement to keep records of training. In the final 856

regulation, for both worker and handlers

, employers are required to document pesticide safety 857

trainings and maintain the records for two years. The information that must be recorded is listed 858

in Table 2.2

- 3. Note that the final regulation does not require documentation of the date of birth 859*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

18 of the worker or handler. The employer may keep one record for each training session, provided 860

that it contains all of the required information as well as the signatures of all trained workers and 861

handlers. This recordkeeping requirement benefits both agricultural establishments and 862

enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements 863

have bee n met. The two

- year retention period recognizes that compliance reviews and 864

enforcement actions are not necessarily brought immediately. 865

866

In the final regulation, EPA’s optional verification card system is eliminated. However, states 867

retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the recordkeeping 868

requirement) if they choose. The final regulation requires the employer to provide a copy of the 869

training record if requested by the trained worker or handler. The employee can t hen provide the 870

record to subsequent employers, which may help to reduce repeat training of workers and 871

handlers who have already met the training requirement. This system is an improvement on the 872

verification card approach since it provides subsequent em ployers with all the necessary 873

information for their own records, which individualized cards did not. 874

875

Table 2.2

- 3

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Training Records Requirements. 876

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Recordkeeping of Training for Workers and Handlers

No Records Employer to keep records of

worker training for 2 years:

 Names of workers /handlers

trained, trainer and employer

 Date of birth of

worker/handler

 Date of training

 Training m aterials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

worker/handler

 Documentation of trainer’s

qualification Employer to keep records of

worker training for 2 years:

 Names of workers /handlers

trained, trainer and employer

 Date of training

 Training m aterials used

 Acknowledg ement of receipt

of training by signature of

worker/handler

 Documentation of trainer’s

qualification

Verification of Training for Workers and Handlers

Voluntary program a l lows for

training verification c ards Provide verification in the form

of a copy of the training record to

handler or worker Provide verification in the form

of a copy of the record of training

upon request by trained handler s

or worker s

877



### 2.2.2 Hazard Communication 878

879

The requirements in the final regulation on hazard communication pertai n to the availability of 880

the information, the content to be provided , and recordkeeping . A comparison of the existing, 881

proposed, and final requirements is shown in Table 2.2

- 4. See the preamble to the final rule for 882

detailed information on the requirement s and reasons for the Agency’s decisions. The purpose 883

of hazard communication is to inform workers and handlers of the specific chemicals that are 884

used around their work areas and to provide them with information they may need to recognize 885

symptoms of par ticular exposure and the ability to seek out further information if the employee 886*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

19 desires. Notification that an application is to take place and warnings to avoid treated areas 887

under a restricted entry interval (REI) are separate requirements. 888

889

In the existing and final regulation, agricultural employers are required to display information 890

about pesticide applications at a central location for unhindered access by the employees and for 891

30 days following the end of the REI

. Currently, t he information mu st be displayed prior to the 892

application if workers are present. The revised regulation requires information to be posted at 893

least 24 hours after the application end s but prior to any worker entering the treated area. This 894

revision reduces the likelihood of inac curate information being display ed

, since changes m a y be 895

made to a pla n ne d application. 896

897

The content consists of information about the application: (i) the product name, EPA registration 898

number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product, (ii) the location and description of the 899

area to be treated, (iii) the dat e and tim e the pesticide is to be applied, and (iv) the duration of the 900

REI for the pesticide

. The final regulation makes two small revisions: the location and 901

description of the a rea to be treated must include the crop (or site) treated and the date and time 902

when the application ended

, which is when the REI begins. Further, the employer must display a 903

copy of the SDS for the pesticide product applied

. The SDS provides a standardi zed source of 904

information on the hazards of a particular chemical or product, the symptoms of poisoning, and 905

treatment information. The existing requirement provides workers with information about 906

potential exposure, but does not provide specific hazard i nformation. Workers must use 907

information about the product name and registration number to find information about the 908

hazards and their ability to do so may be limited. Providing the SDS makes that information 909

readily available. 910

911

This information can be complex, however, and merely having access to the information may not 912

be sufficient. In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an 913

incident or illness. Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical 914

and speed the diagnosis of an illness. The SDS also provides treatment information. The final 915

rule requires the employer to make access to or a copy of the information available on request to 916

workers, handlers, or their designated representative , and treating medical personnel or persons 917

acting on their direction . Further, because agricultural employment is highly seasonal, the final 918

rule requires access to or a copy of the information be made available for workers no longer 919

employed on the farm for the period that the records are required to be held. 920

921

In the final regulation, EPA requires the agricultural employer to maintain a copy of the pesticide 922

specific application information and SDS for two years from the REI end date. As discussed in 923

th e training section above, the advantage of keeping records is that it makes the verification of 924

compliance with the regulations much simpler for both the employer and the enforcement 925

agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may not be immediat ely obvious, a longer 926

retention period is useful. 927

928*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

20 Table 2.2

- 4. Existing, Proposed, and Final Hazard Communication Requirements. 929

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Availability of Information

Display information at a central

location before each application

occurs, or if no workers are on

establishment, before next work

period, and keep posted for 30

days from the REI end date

. Record information by end of

day of application. Make a copy

availa ble during normal work

hours upon request, to workers,

handlers and their authorized

representatives

. Display information at a central

location before workers enter

the treated area or within 24

hours of the end of application,

and keep posted for 30 days

from the REI end date

.

Make access to or a copy of the

information available on request

to workers, handlers, or their

designated representative, and

treating medical personnel or

persons acting on their direction,

while it is required to be on

display o r retained on the

establishment.

Pesticide Specific Information and Hazard Information

For each application, display at

a central location the following

pesticide application

information:

 location and description of

treated area;

 active ingredient, product

name, registration number;

 time and date the pesticide is

to be applied;

 the REI For each application, make

available to workers, handlers

and their authorized

representatives, a copy of the

pesticide label, SDS and the

following pesticide applicat ion

information:

 location and description of

treated area;

 crop or site treated;

 active ingredient, product

name, registration number;

 time and date the pesticide

is to be applied

 the REI For each application, display at

a central location a copy of the

SDS and the following pesticide

application information:

 location and description of

treated area , including crop

or site treated;

 active ingredient, product

name, registration number;

 times and date(s) the

application started and

ended;

 duration of REI

Recordkeeping

No recordkeeping Keep for 2 years from REI end

date Keep for 2 years from REI end

date

930



### 2.2. 3 Notification 931

932

The WPS requires employers to provide workers and handlers with information about each 933

pesticide application occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that 934

employees will know when to implement the precautions explained in pesticide safety training. 935

There are four areas within this component. First, we discuss the requirements for restricted 936

entry interval noti fication . The second area pertains to the notification to workers performing 937

early entry tasks. Third , the requirements for the pesticide safety information display are 938

discussed, and l astly, we discuss the requirements on information exchange between co mmercial 939*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

21 handler employers and agricultural employers. A table comparing the existing, proposed and 940

final requirements is provided following the discussion of each area . See the preamble to the 941

final rule for detailed information on the requirements and reasons for the Agency’s decisions. 942

943

Restricted Entry Interval Notification 944

945

In the existing and final regulations, agricultural employers are required to provide warnings of 946

areas under a REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Currently, all 947

applications made indoors ( i.e. , greenhouses) must be posted. Warnings need not be given to a 948

particular worker if, from the start of the application to the end of the re

- entry interval, the 949

worker would not be within one

- fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the handler 950

who applied the pesticide. In the final regulation, warning signs must be posted for pesticides 951

applications when the REI is greater than 48 hours for outdoor applications and 4 hours for 952

greenhouse applicat ions. If the REI is equal to or less than 48 hours or 4 hours respectively, the 953

employer has the option of posting warning signs or giving oral notification, unless the label 954

requires both ( i.e. , double notification)

. See Table 2.2

- 5. 955

956

A NIOSH review of available information indicates that entry into a treated area under a REI is 957

the second

- leading cause of pesticide incidents, following drift from adjacent fields (Calvert et 958

al. , 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from inadvertent entry as opposed 959

to employer

- directed entry, but it seems likely that many, including unreported incidents, would 960

stem from poor recall. On farms producing a variety of crops, there could be several fields 961

treated with different products and remembering which fields should be avoided could become 962

difficult. Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered planting dates and, 963

therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. Different fields of the 964

sam e crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for long REIs. Recall may 965

be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers at the time of the 966

application, but must also remember to notify workers who are not present at the time when they 967

return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers receive the appropriate 968

notification. Thus, posting warnings for REIs longer than 48 hours is anticipated to reduce 969

inadvertent entry into treated fields and reduce exposure to pesticide residues. 970

971

Table 2.2

- 5. Existing, Proposed, and Final REI Notification Requirements. 972

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

REI Notification

Outdoor production: Either oral

notification or post warning

signs unless double notification

is required by label Outdoor production: Post

warning signs if REI is greater

than 48 hours; otherwise option

for oral notification unless

double notification is required

by label Outdoor production: Post

warning signs if R EI is greater

than 48 hours; otherwise option

for oral notification unless

double notification is required

by label

Indoor production (WPS

Greenhouses): Post warning

signs; additional oral

notification if double

notification is required by label Post war ning signs if REI is

greater than 4 hours; otherwise

option for oral notification

unless double notification is

required by label Post warning signs if REI is

greater than 4 hours; otherwise

option for oral notification

unless double notification is

requir ed by label

973*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

22 Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks 974

975

Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the existing and final regulations 976

under certain narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact

, ” “no contact

, ” 977

“short

- term

, ” “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Under the existing rule, e xcept 978

for entry under the “no contact” exception, employers must make sure that workers performing 979

early entry tasks have read the label or been informed of infor mation on the label related to 980

human hazards or precautions, first aid and user safety, and other information related to the 981

application, the early entry exception used, and early entry requirements . See Table 2.2

- 6

. 982

983

Table 2.2

- 6 . Existing, Proposed, and Final REI Notification Requirements. 984

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Notification to workers entering treated area during REI

(Does not apply to “no contact” situations.)

Agricultural employer must

ensure that employee has either

read or been informed of all

labeling requirements related to

human hazards and precautions,

uses PPE as required by the

label, and follows any other

label requirements regarding

early entry Oral notification to workers

prior to entry into treated a rea

during REI:

 Date of entry

 Location of early

- entry area

 Pesticides applied

 Dates and times REI begins

and ends

 Exception allowing early

entry and description of tasks

permitted under the

exception

 Whether contact with treated

surfaces is permitted

 Amount of time allowed in

area

 Required PPE

 Location of basic safety

information and

decontamination supplies

The employer must ensure the

w orker has read or been

informed of labeling related to

human hazards, precautions,

first aid and user safety Oral notification to workers

prior to entry into treated area

during REI:

 Location of early

- entry area

 Pesticides applied

 Dates and times REI begins

and ends

 Exception allowing early

entry and description of tasks

permitted under the

exception

 Whether of contac t with

treated surfaces is permitted

 Amount of time allowed in

area

 Required PPE

 Location of basic safety

information and

decontamination supplies

The employer must ensure the

w orker has read or been

informed of labeling related to

human hazards, precautio ns,

first aid and user safety

No requirements for record

keeping Keep records for 2 years on:

 Notification (see above),

except labeling hazard and

precaution information

 Acknowledge ment of

notification by printed name

and signature of workers No requirements for record

keeping

985*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

23 As noted above, entry into treated areas during the REI was the second most common factor 986

leading to pesticide incidents in a recent review of incident data (Calvert et al. , 2008)

. 987

Information is lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have 988

occurred during employer

- directed entry. Farmworker advocacy organizations have expressed 989

concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early entry or understand the 990

requirements of th e exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the particular importance of 991

complying with the terms of the early

- entry exception. Under the final revisions , the early entry 992

notification requirements w ill be expanded to include additional safety information such as the 993

pesticide applied, the start and end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with 994

treated surfaces. 995

996

Pesticide Safety Information Display 997

998

The basic pesticide safety information display is a visual reminder of the infor mation presented 999

in pesticide safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect 1000

themselves from exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Employers 1001

must display the information at a central location on the establishment. In the final regulation

, 1002

employers will also be required to provide contact information for nearby medical facilities and 1003

the state enforcement agency on the display

. Information about how to contact enforcement 1004

personnel would enable employees to report violations. Contact information for the medical 1005

facility insures that employees have the ability to call for assistance in case of an accident. 1006

1007

The revisions to the WPS will also require that t he information be displayed where 1008

deconta mination supplies are available for 11 or more workers and/or handlers and at permanent 1009

decontamination locations

. With this additional location, the information would be available at 1010

time s and in place s it is most needed. Decontamination procedures are covered in safety 1011

training, but they not reinforced by routine practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropriate 1012

steps to take in case of exposure will reinforce the training message. 1013

1014

Table 2.2

- 7 . Existing, Proposed, and Final Basic Pesticide Safety Di splay Requirements. 1015

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Pesticide Safety Information

Information on display includes

decontamination information

and self

- protective practices D econtamination information

and self

- protective practices

and:

 State enforcement agency

contact information

 Medical facility contact

information D econtamination information

and self

- protective practices

and:

 State enforcement agency

contact information Med ical

facility contact information

Displayed at a central location Displayed at a central location

and display with worker and

handler decontamination

supplies Displayed at a central location

and display wherever 11 or more

workers/handlers are working

and sanitation supplies are

required , and at all permanent

decontamination locations

1016*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

24 Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms 1017

1018

As in the existing regulation, the final regulation requires commercial pesticide handling 1019

establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural employers to exchange information about pesticide 1020

applications. The agricultural employer must provide the CPHE with informa tion about treated 1021

areas under REIs on the establishment. The CPHE must notify the agricultural employer of 1022

application plans prior to making an application so that information can be communicated to 1023

workers and handlers

. The revisions adjust the timing information is exchanged and revise s the 1024

rule to reflect existing guidance

. 1025

1026



### 2.3 Protect ing Workers and Pesticide Handlers 1027

1028

In the final regulation, EPA revised requirements to improve protections for workers and 1029

handlers from the exposure and potential a dverse effects of pesticides. The provision s are 1030

intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides . There are three areas: minimum 1031

age requirements; entry restrictions, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Summary tables 1032

compare the exist ing, proposed and final requirements. See the preamble to the final rule for 1033

detailed information on these requirements and rationale for EPA ’s decisions. 1034

1035



### 2.3.1 Minimum Age 1036

1037

The final regulations establish a minimum age requirement of 18 for handlers and early entry 1038

workers. EPA focused on two situations where workers and handlers will have the greatest 1039

potential for exposure: the handling of pesticides including mixing, loa ding, and applying; and 1040

entry into treated fields during the REI. Minimum a ge requirements protect adolescents who 1041

may be more susceptible to injury from exposure to pesticides in either a concentrated form or 1042

where residues may be at a level that could c ause unreasonable adverse effects without proper 1043

protection . Neither minimum age requirement applies to persons covered by the immediate 1044

family exemption. 1045

1046

Table 2.3

- 1. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Minimum Age Restrictions. 1047

Existing Re quirement Proposed Requirement 1 Final Requirement 1

No age restriction on person

performing early entry activities Employee must be 1 6 years of

age to be directed to perform

early entry activities Employee must be 1 8 years of

age to be directed to perform

early entry activities

No age restriction on person

performing handling activities Employee must be 1 6 years of

age to perform handler duties Employee must be 18 years of

age to perform handler duties

1 Restriction does not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption. 1048

1049

As explained in more detail in Chapter s 1 and 4 , studies have suggest ed that the adverse effects 1050

of pesticides may be greater on children and adolescents than for mature individuals because 1051

devel oping systems are more sensitive (EPA, 2002 ; EPA 2008; Golub, 2000 )

. Thus, there can be 1052

substantial benefits to the health of adolescents by precluding them from engaging in tasks with 1053

the highest potential levels of exposure. Further, young adults may take more risks than older 1054

workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the consequences of their decisions 1055

(Young and Rischetielli, 2006)

. Thus, they may be less likely to follow directions and use PPE 1056*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

25 properly and in appropriate situations. I n the case of handlers, adolescents may not follow all 1057

label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the potential impacts to themselves, 1058

others, and the environment. 1059

1060

EPA estimates that there are about 150,000 workers under the age of 18 within the total farm 1061

work force, with as many as 2 7,0 00 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely 1062

about 6

, 2 00 of these adolescent workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and 1063

another 200 or so may be employed as handlers by CPHEs and working extensively with 1064

pesticides. 1065

1066



### 2.3. 2 Entry Restrictions 1067

1068

EPA is finalizing two changes; one pertaining to entry into areas being treated with pesticides 1069

and one pertaining to entry into areas under a REI. 1070

1071

The existing regulation limits direct contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry 1072

into an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, limited to nurseries 1073

and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit exposure 1074

from drift in relatively confined spaces

. The final regulation provides an analogous requirement 1075

to farms and forests by defining an “Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ)

. ” Unlike the entry 1076

restricted area of nurseries and greenhouses which is define d by the area being treated, the AEZ 1077

is established around the application equipment during application . The size of the zone depends 1078

on the method of the application because some application methods, such as aerial applications, 1079

are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in

- furrow applications. This revision 1080

reinforces the prohibition against applying pesticides in a manner that results in contact to others 1081

by establishing a well

- defined area that employers must keep workers from entering. The AEZ 1082

is limited to property under control of the employer. 1083

1084

Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to 1085

potentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Early entry into the treated area during the REI is 1086

generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical for 1087

agricultural production. Most exceptions do not allow hand labor , require use of personal 1088

protective equipment (PPE), and may have other limitation s, such as and/or specify ing that 1089

contact with treated surfaces must be limited to feet, lower legs, hands and forearms. A person is 1090

limited to one hour within the treated area under the short

- term exception. Limited contact and 1091

irrigation tasks exceptio ns are limited to eight hours within the treated area. Hand labor 1092

activities are allowed in the case of an agricultural emergency, but there is currently no limit on 1093

the time a worker may be in the treated area. T he final re visions establish a four

- hour time limit 1094

for any single workers to enter an area during an REI in the case of an agricultural emergency, if 1095

the area was treated with a double

- notification product, i.e. , requiring both oral notification and 1096

posting warning signs because of a relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to 1097

limit the duration of any exposure to such chemicals

. 1098

1099*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

26 

### 2.3.3 Personal Protective Equipment 1100

1101

Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addressed with the use of PPE to reduce 1102

dermal

, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide labels may require the use of PPE

. The 1103

WPS establishes requirements designed to ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used 1104

properly and at the appropriate time. This is one way that WPS complements the pesticide label, 1105

as discussed in Section 2.1.2. The requirements in the final regulations are discussed pertaining 1106

to: respiratory protection, crop advisor exemption, closed systems, and contaminated PPE, 1107

followed by a comparison of the existing, proposed and final requirements in Table 2.3

- 3. See 1108

the preamble to the final rule for detailed information on these requirements and rationale for the 1109

Agency’s decisions. 1110

1111

Respiratory Protection 1112

1113

The existing WPS require s that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that the 1114

employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly , but does not specify how to 1115

determine proper fit . The final regulation establishes requirements for annual respirator fit 1116

testing, training of the respirato r wearer, and medical evaluation for handlers who must use a 1117

respirator. This revision incorporates certain OSHA requirements that apply to workers in other 1118

ind ustries and reduces the possibility of exposures th a t occu r from poor fit. The respirator 1119

trai ning provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify 1120

when filters need replacement. 1121

1122

EPA reviewed over 800 pesticide incident reports; see Chapter 4 for details of this review. 1123

About half were judged to pertain to oc cupational activities covered by the WPS. EPA identified 1124

about a dozen incidents associated with respirator use and eight that were clearly linked to poor 1125

respirator fit. Given the hazards associated with the pesticides that require respirators, improvin g 1126

the use of this protective equipment is likely to result in substantial benefits. 1127

1128

Closed Systems 1129

1130

Under the existing regulations, a use of closed mixing and loading system allows relaxation of 1131

the PPE requirements specified on the product label

. I ndustrial hygienists consider engineering 1132

controls, such as closed systems for pesticides to be the first and best line of defense against 1133

occupational health hazards (Plog, 1996). Engineering controls do not require human 1134

intervention to minimize exposur e and the WPS is designed to encourage the use of closed 1135

systems in place of PPE if possible . However, t h e substitution of a closed system for PPE is only 1136

desirable if the closed system effectively prevents exposure

. A closed system, under the existing 1137

r ule, is defined as “a properly functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from 1138

contacting handlers or other persons.” This definition is vague and , as a result, many systems are 1139

in use that do not fully protect the handler. EPA is revis ing the definition to set a performance

1140

based standard in line with available technologies ( Giles and Billing, 2013 ). EPA is requir ing 1141

written operating instructions and training of handlers in the use of the system , if a closed system 1142

is used in place of PPE. The revisions apply to any user of a closed system, including farms 1143

relying s olely on immediate family labor and are intended to ensure that those who choose to use 1144

a closed system have one that is appropriate. 1145*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

27 1146

Crop Advisor Exemption 1147

1148

PPE are gener ally required when a person enters a field under a REI. However, t he WPS allows 1149

for certain exemptions, specifically for certified crop advisors (CCA) and employees working 1150

under the supervision of a CCA

, although these employees must be provided decontamination 1151

supplies and emergency assistance

. The final regulation requires that employees working under 1152

a crop advisor use a standard set of PPE or label

- required PPE while working in a field during an 1153

REI. The benefit of this revision is to remove a potential externality and protect employees who 1154

may not be fully trained and may be unable to make appropriate ju dgments regarding personal 1155

risk

. 1156

1157

Table 2.3

- 2

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Personal Protective 1158

Equipment

. 1159

Existing Requi rement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Handler employer confirms

respirator fit Fit test, training and medical

evaluation conforming to OSHA

requirements

Keep records for 2 years Fit test, training and medical

evaluation conforming to OSHA

requirements

Keep records for 2 years

PPE exception while using a

closed system PPE exception only if using a

closed system with specific

design criteria and operating

standards PPE exception while using a

closed system that meets a

performance

- based sta ndard and

basic operating instructions

Crop advisor may choose PPE

for employees working in a field

during an REI Crop advisor employees must

use label

- required PPE while

working in a field during an REI Crop advisor employees must

use a standard set of P PE or PPE

required by label while working

in a field during an REI

1160



### 2.4 Mitigat ing the Effects of Pesticide Exposure 1161

1162

Certain regulations help mitigate the effects of accidental pesticide exposure by ensuring that 1163

decontamination supplies are available and specifying actions for prompt medical treatment in 1164

case of an emergency. 1165

1166



### 2.4. 1 Decontamination Suppl ies 1167

1168

The existing WPS regulations require that workers have access to “enough” water, soap, and 1169

single

- use towels for washing when a pesticide covered by the regulation has been used or an 1170

REI has been in effect in the last 30 days and workers are engaged in tasks in which they may 1171

have contact with surfaces treated with the pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining 1172

“enough” water to be one gallon pe r worker (EPA, 2006)

. The final regulations require that 1173

workers have access to one gallon, i.e. , codifying existing guidance. Further, EPA will require 1174

that early entry workers have access to three gallons, as measured at the beginning of the 1175

workday. More water available for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential 1176

for exposure and for higher levels of exposure than in routine activities. 1177*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

28 1178

Similarly, t he existing WPS regulations require that handlers have access to “enough” wate r, 1179

soap, and single

- use towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing

. EPA’s guidance 1180

defines “enough” water to be three gallons per handler (EPA, 2006). The existing regulations 1181

also require that employers provide “enough” water for emergency ey e flushing and one pint of 1182

water in a portable container for emergency eyewash when the label requires protective eyewear

. 1183

Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity. The final 1184

revisions codify the guidance for the qu antity of water. The final requirements also specify that 1185

for emergency eye flushing, a handler who is mixing or loading pesticides or is using a closed 1186

system under pressure must have a system capable of delivering 0.4 gallons of water per minute 1187

for 15 m inutes, or 6 gallons of water able to flow gently for about 15 minutes . Handlers making 1188

application of products with label requirements for eye protection must be provided at least one 1189

pint of water in a portable container for immediate use in case of an exposure to the eye, as in the 1190

existing rule

. In addition to ensuring the availability of appropriate materials in case of an 1191

accident, t he benefit of these final revisions is to provide regulatory clarity for employers and 1192

enforcement agencies. 1193

1194

Table 2.4

- 1

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Decontamination Supplies. 1195

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

Provide “ enough ” water per worker

for routine washing and emergency

eye flushing Provide 1 gallon of water per

worker for routine washing

and emergency eye flushing Provide 1 gallon of water per

worker for routine washing

and emergency eye flushing

Provide “sufficient” water per early

entry worker for thorough washing;

provid e 1 pint water for eye flushing

as required Provide 3 gallons of water per

early entry worker for

thorough washing; provide 1

pint water for eye flushing as

required Provide 3 gallons of water per

early entry worker for

thorough washing; provide 1

pint water for eye flushing as

required

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

Provide “ enough ” decontamination

water per handler 3 gallons per handler for

routine hand washing,

emergency eye flushing, and

washing entire body in case

of emergency 3 gallons per handler for

routine hand washing,

emergency eye flushing, and

washing entire body in case

of emergency

All permanent mix/load sites

require sufficient running

water to flush eyes for 15

minutes at 1.5 L/min.

whenev er a product requiring

handler eye protection is

being used When mixing/loading product

requiring handler eye

protection, or using a

pressurized closed system,

have a system at the site

capable of delivering at least

0 .4 gallons per minute for 15

minutes o r 6 gallons of water

for about 15 minutes, and 1

pint of water in a portable

container

1196*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

29 

### 2.4. 2 Emergency Assistance 1197

1198

In case of a worker or handler becoming ill from pesticide exposure, t he existing regulations 1199

require that both transportation to an emergency medical facility and the provision of 1200

information about the pesticide for medi cal personnel must be “prompt.” T he proposal 1201

established a specific time frame of 30 minutes for provision of transportation and pesticide 1202

information ( label and SDS). However, many commenters described scenarios where the 1203

established timeframe would be very difficult to meet. EPA concluded that the existing 1204

requirement for prompt transportation and provision of information is adequate. The final 1205

regulations , therefor e, continue to require transportation to an emergency medical facility and 1206

provision of information by the employer promptly upon notice of an illness. 1207

1208

Table 2.4

- 2

. Existing , Proposed, and Final Requirements for Emergency Response 1209

Provisions. 1210

Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement Final Requirement

Emergency Response for Workers and Handlers

“Prompt” provision of transportation,

and obtainable information on

product name, EPA registration

number, active ingredients, and

medical information (symptoms,

antidote, etc. ) , circumstances of

exposure to the pesticide for

agricultural workers and handlers Provision of emergency

transportation and of SDS or

label or comparable

information to medical

personnel or the injured

person within 30 minutes Provision of transportation,

SDS and label (or the same

information listed in the

existing requirement)

promptly upon notice of a

pesticide

- related illness

1211

The next chapter estimates the cost of the potential requirements and Chapter 4 provides a 1212

discus sion of the relative costs and benefits of the final regulation requirements. 1213

1214

1215*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

30 

## Chapter 3. Cost Analysis 1216

1217

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of changes to the worker protection standards. 1218

EPA estimates the incremental cost of the final rule to be between $ 41. 5 and $ 8 1.0 million per 1219

year, given a three percent discount rate , but is likely to be between $60.2 and $66.9 million per 1220

year . The range of costs reflects different estimates of the number of agricultural establishments 1221

and number of workers and handlers that might be affected by revisions to the WPS

. Using a 1222

seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 40.0 and $ 81.0 million per 1223

year. Since costs essentially recur each year, the discount rate only effects the estimate d costs if 1224

some components of the rule, particularly the additional training materials, are not implemented 1225

at the same time as other components

. 1226

1227

These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and 1228

the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the final requirements. We 1229

necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is great 1230

diversity in pest pressure and the use of pesticides acros s the agricultural sector. EPA has, 1231

therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on 1232

conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made 1233

regarding the average or typical, in p ractice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably 1234

more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms

. EPA 1235

has also assume d that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and will be in full 1236

compliance with the final regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities conduct 1237

inspections of farms and find violations. However, inspections are not conducted randomly 1238

across all potentially regulated establishments; many inspections are the resul t of specific 1239

complaints. As a result, the information on violations does not provide meaningful information 1240

on compliance rates. 1241

1242

A major driver of the estimated total cost is the number of agricultural establishments , workers, 1243

and handlers that are cove red by the WPS

. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1244

2015), there were 2.1 million farms, including livestock operations, nurseries, and greenhouses, 1245

with 2.7 million employees in 2012 and these numbers have been relatively stable over the p ast 1246

decade. However, the WPS applies only to those farms using pesticides for crop production. 1247

The Census reports that about one million farms used pesticides in 2012, of which the Agency 1248

estimates about 872,000 produce some kind of crop, including nurse ry and greenhouse 1249

production. Further, the WPS generally applies only to farms that hire labor since farms relying 1250

on immediate family labors are exempt from many of the provisions. The Census reports that 1251

there are over 566,000 farms hiring labor and EP A estimates that about 466,000 of those, 1252

employing 2.4 million people, produce crops. Of those, EPA estimates 354,000 farms 1253

employing 2.1 million people used pesticides in 2012. EPA assumes that these estimates are 1254

representative of other years although, due to differences in pest pressure from year to year, an 1255

individual farm may not use pesticides every year. Finally, the WPS does not cover every 1256

employee; it covers ‘workers’ who engage in hand labor activities in crop production and 1257

‘handlers’ who mix , load, and/or apply pesticides for crop protection. Farms that hire workers 1258

are required by the WPS to: 1259

 Conduct worker pesticide safety training; 1260

 Provide hazard communication material and pesticide safety displays; 1261*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

31  Provide notification of pesticide applications and REIs, either orally or by posting ; 1262

 Provide safety information in cases of entry into areas under a REI; 1263

 Provide decontamination supplies and emergency assistance

. 1264

Much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and many employees will not be engaged in hand labor. 1265

For example, farms engaged primarily in livestock production (NAICS 112) that also produce 1266

crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like grains and oilseeds that do not require hand 1267

weeding, thinning, or harvesting

. These farms may employ a pesticide handler. Farms that hire 1268

handlers are requied by the WPS to: 1269

 Conduct handler pesticide safety training; 1270

 Provide hazard communication material and pesticide safety displays ; 1271

 Provide appropriate PPE; and 1272

 Provide decontamination supplies and emergency assistance

. 1273

1274

EPA’s primary estimate is that nearly 375 ,000 agricultural establishments employing nearly 2.0 1275

million workers and/or handlers will be affected by the revisions to the WPS

. In particular, EPA 1276

assumes that all establishm ents hiring workers and/or handlers will provide pesticide safety 1277

training at the beginning of the agricultural season before decisions are made regarding the use 1278

of pesticides. EPA estimates that 304,106 farms, employing 1.8 million workers and/or handle rs, 1279

will ultimately use pesticides and be subject to the other WPS requirements. Additionally, EPA 1280

estimates there are another 568,000 farm s that use pesticides but do not have employees 1281

performing hand labor and/or pesticide handling tasks or are eligibl e for the immediate family 1282

exemption

. S ome of these ‘family farms’ may be affected by revisions to the PPE requirements 1283

and exceptions. Finally

, EPA estimates there are over 40,000 commercial pesticide application 1284

firms including self

- employed commercial applicators that may be affected by the final 1285

revisions

. Given the estimated number of affected entities, EPA estimates the total annual 1286

incremental costs to be between $60.2 and $66.9 million, using a three percent discount rate

. 1287

T he cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of $750,000 or more, is 1288

estimated to be around $ 1 70 and $ 35 5 per year , depending on whether the farm employs 1289

handlers only or both handlers and workers . The incremental cost to the average small WPS 1290

farms is estimated to be between $ 71 and $ 14 2 per year depending again on whether the farm 1291

employs handlers and/or workers . For small farms, the cost represents less than 0.1 percent of 1292

average annual sales. The impact on ‘ family farms ’ that us e pesticides is limited to the respirator 1293

fit requirements and changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost less than 1294

$ 50 per year, on average, to approximately 130 ,000 farms. Commercial pesticide handling 1295

establishments (CPHEs) are estimated to face an annual incremental cost between $ 530 and 1296

$ 565 , although self

- employed commercial applicators will face costs of only about $ 230 per 1297

year. Most of the estimated cost to CPHEs is due to the minimum age requirement and is a 1298

driven by hi ghly conservative assumptions regarding the number or adolescent handlers and the 1299

amount of time they are employed. Forestry operations are also covered by WPS, but EPA lack s 1300

the data on co

- occurrence of pesticide use and covered activities (hand labor) o n these 1301

establishments to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. Pesticide use in forestry 1302

operations is likely to be widely separated from worker activities in both time and space, with the 1303

exception of seedling nurseries

, and thus, impacts are likely to be minimal

. 1304

1305*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

32 The estimated costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $ 29 to $ 32 per year per 1306

employee, not including self

- employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family 1307

farms) who benefit from some of the revision s. 1308

1309

The national incremental costs presented in this chapter are likely biased upwards for several 1310

reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impact of individual 1311

requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the co sts. For example, we have assumed 1312

that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, farms that do not 1313

need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide safety training. We 1314

have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the farm throughout the 1315

growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify most workers of all applications at 1316

the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed temporarily for certain 1317

peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers will only need to notify 1318

those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications to specific fields) and 1319

can do so at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated assuming that all 1320

requirements are applicable to nearly all employees of affected farms. In reality, WPS 1321

requirements cover only farmworkers who engage in hand labor activities associated with cr op 1322

production and handlers who mix, load, and apply pesticides

. EPA assumes that nearly two 1323

million employees reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture are covered, while USDA 1324

estimates there are just over one million farmworkers , including 288,000 agric ultural service 1325

workers employed through labor contractors (ERS, 2014)

. The USDA estimate does not include 1326

handlers. These assumptions bias the per

- farm upwards, which are then multiplied by the 1327

number of affected farms, which is also likely to be overes timated. 1328

1329

As a lower bound, EPA assumes that farms that primarily produce field crops, such as grains, 1330

oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, are also largely mechanized , like the prim arily livestock farms, 1331

and will not employ worker s who enga ge in hand labor act ivities, although they may employ 1332

handlers. As a result, EPA estimates that there are about 182,000 farms employing 1333

approximately 248,000 handlers and about 90,000 farms producing cotton, tobacco, vegetables, 1334

and tree crops

, along with nurseries and green houses , employing over 1.2 million workers

, some 1335

of whom would also be pesticide handlers

. Given these figures

, along with the number of 1336

affected family farms and CPHEs, the total incremental cost of the WPS revisions is estimated to 1337

be between $ 4 2.4 and $ 4 7.0 million per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward 1338

somewhat. It maintains the relatively conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual 1339

requirements at the farm level and likely includes many employees of crop farms that will not be 1340

using hand labor in production. 1341

1342

If we estimate costs based on the 1,063 ,000 workers estimated by USDA rather than all 1343

1,246,000 employees counted in the Census for farms producing cotton, tobacco, vegetables, and 1344

tree crops along with nurseries and greenhouses , t otal incremental costs are estimated to be 1345

between $ 4 1.5 and $ 4 5.8 million annually. It is not an unreasonable estimate. It maintains the 1346

conservative assumptions about the individual requirements, especially since it includes an 1347

estimated 288,000 workers employed through labor contractors. The farm may be re s ponsible 1348

for providing pesticide safety training for these workers, but most notification requirements 1349

would not be applicable for workers who are on farm for only a few days

. 1350

1351*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

33 If all 466,000 crop

- producing farms estimated to hire labor, and all 2.4 million employees, are 1352

covered by the WPS because they engage in hand labor or handle pesticides, EPA estimates the 1353

total incremental cost of the rule to be $7 2.6 to $ 81.0 million per year. 1354

1355

It should be noted that, as the scenarios focus on a smaller subset of farms subject to all WPS 1356

provisions , the estimated per

- farm impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, 1357

and greenhouses tend to employ more workers per farm than do livestock operations. I n the 1358

lower bound, large ‘handler only’ farms are e stimated to incur impacts of $ 16 5 to $ 17 5 per year, 1359

on average, while the l arge farms employing hand labor are estimated to bear additional cost of 1360

$ 5 98 to $ 725 per year, on averag e, given the higher average number of workers . The estimated 1361

incremental cost to small farms employing hand labor is $ 1 66 to $ 1 94 per year. 1362

1363

This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 3 .1 provides an overview of the estimation. 1364

Section 3.2 explains the methodology and data used to estimate the cost of the revisions. Section 1365

3.3 presents the estimation of costs where Section 3.3 .1 addresses the training component

. 1366

Section 3.3 .2 presents the costs of the final hazard communication requirement s

, Section 3.3.3 1367

covers the notification components, Section 3.3.4 the cost of the minimum age, Section 3.3.5 1368

entry restrictions, Section 3.3.6 PPE requirements, and Section 3.3.7 addresses the requirements 1369

for decontamination supplies . Section 3.3. 8 prov ides additional details about the total estimated 1370

cost of the rule. Section 3.4 then discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section 1371

3. 5 presents the analysis of small business impacts. Section 3.6 discusses the resource 1372

implications of the rule to the states, which have enforcement duties under FIFRA. 1373

1374



### 3.1 Overview 1375

1376

As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 1377

will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and commercial pesticide 1378

handling establishments (CPHEs). The WPS covers employees who p erform hand labor 1379

activities associated with crop production on fields recently treated with pesticides and 1380

employees who handle pesticides, that is, who perform activities such as mixing, loading and 1381

applying pesticides. For simplicity, we use the term “ WPS farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and 1382

greenhouses that have employees potentially covered by the WPS . Forestry operations are not 1383

analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use patterns in forestry 1384

operations will not t ypically trigger most WPS provisions such as training and notification. 1385

Generally speaking, the revisions w ill require owners/operators of these establishments to devote 1386

additional resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated with pesticide 1387

use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure , beyond those 1388

required under the existing rule . EPA estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the 1389

value of the time and materials expended to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not 1390

direct out

- of

- pocket expenses. 1391

1392

In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate 1393

their time or make expenditures. Some activities or expenditures are conducted by the 1394

manage ment of the WPS farm or CPHE. The nature of these activities may vary by certain 1395

characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other 1396

activities require time from employees, who are divided into two groups: w orkers and handlers. 1397*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

34 Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an 1398

agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products. 1399

Hand labor activities include such tasks a s harvesting, weeding, thinning, and trimming. 1400

Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g. , to mix, load, and/or apply 1401

pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers may be 1402

workers as well, as they will often engage in production activities that do not entail handling 1403

pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule depends on 1404

the nature of the activ ity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time. 1405

1406



### 3. 2. Methodology and Data 1407

1408

To estimate the impact to the affected industries of the final regulatory enhancements to the 1409

WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum 1410

standards, but states, as well as other juris dictions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, 1411

could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory 1412

baseline takes into account current state requirements rather than the federal requirements only

. 1413

To reduce the analytical complexity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine regions of the 1414

country. 1415

1416



### 3. 2 .1 General Methodology 1417

1418

In general, requirements may impose costs at the level of the employer or establishment and /or at 1419

the level of the employee. That is, there are some activities and/or materials that must be 1420

conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of employees; these costs 1421

are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities and/or materials may be 1422

con ducted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the number of workers or handlers 1423

employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate the average annual cost for each 1424

affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate those co sts to the regional level, 1425

given the number of actors (establishments or employees). There are six basic steps. 1426

1427

Step 1. Calculate the state/regional level baseline cost of existing regulatory requirement: 1428

1429

cost

r

, i

, a B

t = ∑

w a ∙ H

r

, i

, a

, j B

t ∙ fr eq t (

j | i )

j + ∑

c m ∙ M

r

, i

, a

, m B

t ∙ freq

t ( m | i )

m 1430

1431

where cost r,i, a B

t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement s r , in region i , for an actor, 1432

a, in time t ; H r,i, a ,j B

t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement s ; w a 1433

is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; freq

t ( j | i ) is the 1434

annual frequency of activity j in time t given the region; M r,i, a ,m P

t is the quantity of material m 1435

needed in time t under th e requirement; c m is the cost of material; and freq

t ( m | i ) is the annual 1436

frequency material m is required in time t given the region. 1437

1438

Revisions to the requirements of the WPS are assessed under seven elements. Three elements 1439

deal with information provide d by the employer: training, hazard communication, and 1440

notification. Three elements focus directly on protecting workers: minimum age, protective 1441*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

35 equipment, and restrictions on entry into a treated area. The last element, decontamination 1442

supplies and emergency assistance

, address es mitigating the effects of exposure in case of an 1443

incident . However, revisions to the emergency assistance requirements are not expected to 1444

impose additional costs and this element is not included in the cost analysis. 1445

1446

An actor may be an establishment, primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g. , a 1447

pesticide handler or agricultural worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups 1448

within an actor category, e.g. , farms according to the size of the operation. Activities conducted 1449

by the establishment include posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each 1450

employee include attending training and receiving information from the employer, that is, 1451

activities for which an establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that 1452

activity. The probability weighting indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake 1453

the activity in some year. For example, training is currently required every five years ; thus , any 1454

given employee might have about a 2 0 perc ent chance of taking a training, although various 1455

factors make training more likely. 1456

1457

Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per actor of the revised regulatory requirement: 1458

1459

cost

r

, a F

t = ∑

w a ∙ H

r

, a

, j F

t ∙ freq

t (

j )

j + ∑

c m ∙ M

r

, a

, m F

t ∙ freq

t ( m )

m 1460

1461

where variables are defined as above, with F denoting the requirement under the final rule . For 1462

simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or region. Current s tate 1463

requirements can exceed federal requirements, however

, and if current state requirements exceed 1464

the potential federal requirements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we generally 1465

restrict H r,i,, a ,j B ≤ H

r, a ,j F and M

r,i,, a ,m B ≤ M

r, a ,m F ; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously 1466

imply a cost savings. 1467

1468

Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and new requirements by multiplying per

1469

actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across actors. 1470

1471

RC

r

, i B

t = ∑

c ost

r

, i

, a B

t × N

a

, i t

a 1472

1473

RC

r

, i F

t = ∑

cost

r

, a F

t × N

a

, i t

a 1474

1475

where RC r,i X denotes the cost of requirement r in region i for the baseline , B, and the new 1476

requirement , F; and N

a, i is the number of affected actors in a region. Note that the number of 1477

affected actors, e.g. , the number of pesticide handlers in a given region, may not be known and 1478

has to be estimated. This is explained in the section on general data (Section 3.2 .3 ). 1479

1480*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

36 We can also estimate the national level costs by summing across regions. 1481

1482

NC

r X

t = ∑ RC

r

, i X

t

i 1483

1484

Step 4. Estimate the present value of the cost stream. Present value is a measure of all future 1485

costs, translated into the equivalent value if paid o r received immediately. Translating costs to 1486

present value allows different streams to be compared or aggregated. EPA calculates the present 1487

value (PV) of regional costs over a ten

- year time horizon. 1488

1489

PV ( RC

r

, i X )

= ∑ RC

r

, i X

t ( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1 1490

1491

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variab les are as previously defined. 1492

1493

Th is step and the choic e of time horizon are not particularly important as most of the per

- actor 1494

costs, especially baseline costs, will occur annually. However, some training requi rements will 1495

be phased in over time to allow for the development and dissemination of new material. We 1496

utilize a discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent, to 1497

represent the private discount rate as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 1498

2003). Similarly, the ten

- year time horizon was chosen mainly to be consistent OMB’s preferred 1499

time frame for analyzing the costs of regulation across federal agencies. 1500

1501

Again, the present value of national level costs is estimated as the sum of the regional costs. 1502

1503

Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the requirement in each region by subtracting the 1504

regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement. 1505

1506

PV ( RIC

r

, i )

= PV ( RC

r

, i F )

− PV ( RC

r

, i B ) 1507

1508

Where PV

( RIC r,i ) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i

. 1509

The PV of national incremental cost, PV ( NIC

r ), is calculated the same way. 1510

1511

Step 6

. Sum across protective categories to obtain the PV incremental cost for the final rule. 1512

1513

PV ( RIC i )

= ∑ PV ( RIC R

, i )

R 1514

1515

Again, this is done for national level cost , NIC, by summing across regions

. 1516

1517

Step 7

. C alculate the ann ualized incremental cost of the rule . The annualized figure represents 1518

the consta nt cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present value as a variable 1519*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

37 cost stream. For example, the annualized incremental cost of the revisions at the national level

, 1520

AIC, is calculated as 1521

1522

AIC = PV ( NIC ) × ρ ∙ ( 1 + ρ ) 10

( 1 + ρ ) 10

− 1 1523

1524

w here all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annualized incremental cost by 1525

the number of impacted entities provides a simple measure of the costs per establishment. A 1526

more detailed examination of impacts on small entities is presente d in Section 3. 5. 1527

1528

A few of the potential requirements require some deviation from this general methodology. This 1529

is explained in the following sections as we present the results. 1530

1531



### 3. 2

. 2 Regional Groupings 1532

1533

Table 3. 2

- 1 shows the representative states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well as 1534

the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic 1535

location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas. For example, the Sou th 1536

region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this 1537

region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 1538

accounting for the highest value throughout the region. T he regions represented by New York, 1539

Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 1540

represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e. , extensive 1541

livestock production, rather than geogr aphical continuity. EPA also considered similarities in 1542

worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed 1543

together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted 1544

by a var iety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 1545

warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production. 1546

California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural pro duction and the 1547

state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and 1548

other states’ requirements. 1549

1550*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

38 Table 3. 2

- 1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups. 1551

Region Representative State Other Jurisdictions

South Arkansas Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina,

South Carolina, and Virginia

California California none

Southwest Colorado Arizona and New Mexico

Subtropical Florida Hawaii

Midwest Iowa Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota,

Nebraska, North Dakota, and

South Dakota

Northeast New York Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Vermont, and

West Virginia

Ohio Valley Ohio Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Missouri, Tennessee, and

Wisconsin

Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and

Wyoming

Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon

1552

Several non

- state jurisdictions are covered by the WPS , including Puerto Rico, the Virgin 1553

Islands, and several Pacific islands . These jurisdictions are not included in this analysis because 1554

robust data on farms , workers, and pesticide use are not readily available. This implies some 1555

undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate of the incremental costs, but the effect 1556

will be negligible since the jurisdictions have small agricultural sectors relative to those in the 1557

states. 1558

1559

EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to 1560

establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 1561

applied to all states within the region. In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be 1562

as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 1563

t here is no reason to think that the variation in the national

- level estimates of cost are greater 1564

than the variation in regional

- level estimates. 1565

1566



### 3. 2

. 3 General Data 1567

1568

Th is section discusses the data that are commonly used throughout the analysis. Data tha t are 1569

specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the requirement. 1570

1571

For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to 1572

meet current and potential requirements and the probability or f requency with which they will be 1573

needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each requirement. 1574

The other component of the per

- actor costs are the prices associated with time and material. The 1575*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

39 wage rates for the various a ctors are used frequently in the analysis and are discussed below. 1576

Extrapolating to the regional and national level (Step 3) requires data on the number of actors in 1577

each category, which includes the establishment meeting the requirement or the employees to 1578

which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time (Step 4), we 1579

need to take into account changes in the agricultural sector. Most of the time and materials 1580

needed to comply with current and potential requirements reoccur on an annual basis. Changes 1581

in the agricultural sector may be important, however, particularly the changes in the number of 1582

farms and workers . In this section, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the 1583

establishments and employees, inclu ding both numbers and wages, and changes in each over 1584

time. 1585

1586

Establishments , Farms 1587

1588

The WPS applies to those farms that use pesticides in the commercial production of agricultural 1589

plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses and employ labor, speci fically workers 1590

engaged in hand labor activities or handlers working directly with pesticides . Although many 1591

livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not covered by the 1592

WPS. According to the 20 12 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 20 14 ), there are over 2. 1 million 1593

ranches, farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States. Over 1.5 million grow crops, 1594

including nursery and greenhouse production. Almost one million of them report ed using 1595

pesticides and about 566,000 hi red labor at some time during the year. However, publicly 1596

available data from the 2012 Census do not report the subset of farms that grow crops, use 1597

pesticides, and hire labor. Moreover, publicly available data by economic category do not 1598

correspond to t hat used by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define small businesses. 1599

1600

Previously , the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 1601

conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture at EPA’s request to 1602

identify the number of the operations that meet all the criteria for the WPS to apply (NASS, 1603

2008)

. In 2007, there were 2.2 million farms of which 482,000 hired labor. Of those, 395,000 1604

produced crops of which 304,000 used pesticides. In the analysis of the proposed WPS 1605

revisions, EPA identified all 395,000 farms , nurseries, and greenhouses that hired labor and 1606

produced crops as those subject to WPS provisions, especially the requirements that workers 1607

receive pesticide safety training . Most other provisions, such as notifications of pesticide 1608

applications, apply only to the 304,000 WPS farms that used pesticides. We assumed that any of 1609

the WPS farms might use pesticides at some time in the future, estimating that the probability of 1610

u sing pesticides in any year as the proportion of WPS farms using pesticides in 2007 to the total 1611

number of WPS farms. These data were available across farms of different production types and 1612

economic categories, in particular, by categories that follow th e distinction between small and 1613

large entities as defined by the SBA. This is explained more fully in Section 3.5, the analysis of 1614

small business impacts. 1615

1616

In order to estimate the number of WPS farms across economic categories and production types 1617

for th is analysis of the final WPS rule, we rely on publicly available data from the 2012 Census 1618

and the observed proportions of farms in 2007. The methodology is describe d in Appendix A. 1619

EPA estimates that there are 46 5

, 766 crop

- producing farms that hire labo r, of which 354, 220 use 1620

pesticides. This is likely to be a substantial overestimate, however, because many farms 1621*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

40 included in this figure will not be employing labor in tasks covered by the WPS , that is pesticide 1622

handlers or fieldworkers who engage in hand labor activities. They will produce field and forage 1623

crops that are highly mechanized. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in the production of 1624

nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries and greenhouses. EPA estimates that 8 9 ,9 0 9 farms 1625

fall into these categories, based on the primary source of revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage 1626

in diverse types of production, however, so many other farms might produce such crops, even if 1627

the primary activity is highly mechanized like the production of oilseed s and/or grains. 1628

Therefore, EPA ’s primary estimate includes all farms where the primary activity is a type of crop 1629

production, a total of 312,56 8 . Another 62,226 farms where the primary activity is a type of 1630

livestock production are estimated to employ p esticide handlers, but not fieldworkers. This 1631

provides a total of 374,79 4 farms covered by the provisions of the WPS, or “WPS farms.” 1632

1633

Table 3. 2

- 2 presents the number of farms hiring labor, by state, and their distribution across the 1634

regions EPA identifie d for this analysis , obtained from the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1635

2014)

. The number of WPS farms and those using pesticides are assumed to be distributed 1636

across regions in the same proportion as all farms that hire labor. 1637

1638

Table 3. 2

- 2 . WPS Farms

, by region 1

. 1639

Region Farms Hiring

Labor Crop

Producing

Farms Hiring

Labor WPS Farms

with

Fieldworkers WPS Farms

with

Handlers Only

United States 566,469 466,295 312,565 62,226

South 86,646 71,343 47,822 9,521

California 33,955 27,978 18,754 3,734

Southwest 19,339 15,854 10,627 2,116

Subtropical 15,268 12,590 8,439 1,680

Midwest 122,128 100,720 67,514 13,441

Northeast 60,016 49,427 33,132 6,596

Ohio Valley 125,897 103,517 69,389 13,814

Texas/Mountain

West 72,585 59,686 40,008 7,965

Northwest 30,635 25,180 16,879 3,360

Source: NASS, 20 14; EPA estimation (see Appendix A ) 1640

1 Farms include nurseries and greenhouses as well as livestock operations that also produce crops

. 1641

1642

Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the 1643

definition of handler includes any self

- employed person who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. 1644

However, these farms will generally not be affected by the final revisions because there is an 1645

exemption from many WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her 1646

immediate family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with 1647

some exemptions to pesticide label requirement s, e.g.

, the ability to substitute a closed delivery 1648

system for PPE . Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect all 1649

farms applying pesticides. EPA estimates that about 5 6 8 ,000 crop

- producing farms that use 1650

pesticides but do not hire workers or handlers; rather, immediate family members supply labor 1651

for these activities

. 1652*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

41 1653

Table 3. 2

- 3 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on 1654

the impacts of many of the requirements. For example, small er farms are less likely to employ a 1655

pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a 1656

commercial applicator. The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater 1657

than $750,000, and the s mall farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small 1658

Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013). EPA further subdivides the small farm 1659

category into three groups: small

- small farms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, 1660

medium

- sm all farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large

- small 1661

farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 1662

which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2. 5 million 1663

(CFR, 2013) . Subdivisions of small feedlots are small

- small, with annual gross revenue less than 1664

$50,000; medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large

1665

small, with annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million. These distinctions 1666

correlate to the number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory 1667

impacts. They also correlate to pesticide use. Around 9 0 percent of large and large

- small WPS 1668

farms used pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small

- small farms did. Seventy

- four 1669

percent of medium

- small farms used pesticides. 1670

1671

Table 3. 2

- 3 . Number of WPS Establishments, by size category , 2012

. 1672

Region WPS

Farms Small

Small 1 Medium

Small 2 Large

Small 3 Large 4

South 5 7, 343 1 0,850 12,652 21, 688 12,153

California 22,488 4,255 4,961 8,505 4,766

Southwest 12,746 2,411 2,811 4,820 2,701

Subtropical 10,119 1,915 2,233 3,827 2,145

Midwest 80,956 15,318 17,861 30,619 17,158

Northeast 39,728 7,517 8,765 15,026 8,420

Ohio Valley 83,204 15,744 18, 357 31,469 17,634

Texas/Mountain West 47,974 9,077 10,584 18,144 10,168

Northwest 20,239 3,830 4,465 7,655 4,289

U.S. 374,794 70,917 82,690 141,753 79,434

Source: EPA estimation (see Appendix A )

. Establishments distributed across regions according to 1673

distribution of all farms that hire labor

. 1674

1 Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and feedlots with annual revenue less than $50,000

. 1675

2 Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annu al 1676

revenue between $50,000 and $500,000

. 1677

3 Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between 1678

$500,000 and $2.5 million

. Includes 39,469 farms employing handlers, but not fieldworkers. 1679

4 Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 1680

million

. Includes 22,757 farms employing handlers, but not fieldworkers. 1681

1682

Establishments , Commercial Pesticide Handlers 1683

1684

In order to determine the number of CPHEs, EPA obtain ed a report from Hoover ’s of Dun & 1685

Bradstreet (D&B, 201 4 ) database to identif y firms under the North American Industrial 1686*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

42 Classification System ( NAI C S ) code 115112, for soil preparation, planting, and cultivating. This 1687

search resulted in 5,079 firms. With in this group, we identified firms listed under the Standard 1688

Industrial Classification (SIC) code descriptions for weed control services (before and after 1689

planting)

, crop dusting services, soil chemical treatment services, crop spraying services, crop 1690

thin ning services (chemical), and crop disease control services . Within these categories, there 1691

were 1, 936 firms. We assume that these firms are distributed across states and regions in the 1692

same proportions as farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2014). 1693

1694

EPA als o considered the number of commercial applicators. According to data submitted to 1695

EPA under the applicator certification program, between 2008 and 2013, an average of 89,564 1696

commercial applicators have been certified or maintained certification in agricul tur e, plant 1697

protection (CPARD, 2014 ). Given data on employment of handlers (detailed below) , we 1698

estimate 1,936 establishments account for 1 6,256 commercial applicators leaving 73,338 . At the 1699

extreme, all these commercial applicator s could be self

- employe d. More likely, many are part of 1700

small operations not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one

- fourth of these 1701

applicators are self

- employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an 1702

average of 2.5 commercial applicators, i ncluding the owner of the establishment. As shown in 1703

Table 3. 2

- 4 , this implies that there are 40,336 small CPHEs in addition to those identified by 1704

Dun & Bradstreet . These firms are distributed across the regions based on the number of 1705

commercial applicators cert ified in each state as shown in Table 3. 2

- 4 (CPARD, 2014 ). 1706

1707

Table 3. 2

- 4 . Estimated number of CPHEs, by region. 1708

Region CPHE

(NAICS 115112) CPHE

(commercial

applicator)

South 281 2,240

California 87 2,508

Southwest 45 1,069

Subtropical 50 506

Midwest 470 17,021

Northeast 184 2,011

Ohio Valley 488 5,720

Texas/Mountain West 238 2,943

Northwest 93 6,317

U.S. 1,936 40,336

Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (201 4 ); CPARD (2014 ). 1709

1710

Establishments , Wage Rates 1711

1712

The value of the owner/operator’s time is important in the estimation of the cost of most 1713

requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 20 14 b ), managerial wages 1 for 1714

farm establishments are $ 22.86 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of 1715

benefits received, such as insurance. BLS reports on wages and other compensation suggest that 1716

benefits comprise an additional 4 6 percent of wages across the civilian labor force (BLS, 2014 b ). 1717

1 Farming, fis hing, and forestry workers, occupational code 45

- 1011.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

43 EPA , therefore, calculates a loaded wage rate of $ 33 .44 per hour as the full value of time. For 1718

managers in a commercial pesticide handling establishments, BLS (2014 b ) reports the average 1719

unloaded wage rate of $2 2.32 per hour 2 . Using the same rate for benefits as for farm 1720

establishments, the loaded wage r ate for this category is $ 32.65 per hour. 1721

1722

Employees

, W

orkers 1723

1724

Table 3. 2

- 5 presents the estimated number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations 1725

with crops and the share of workers in each region , based on the number of employees reported 1726

in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014)

. The estimation procedure follows that for the 1727

number of farms and is explained in detail in Appendix A. I ncluding all crop

- producing farms 1728

that hire labor in the category of farms covered by the WPS would impl y over 2. 4 million 1729

employees

. This is likely to be a significant overestimation for a number of reasons. First, the 1730

Census is conducted at the establishment level. If a person is employed on multiple 1731

establishments over the course of the year, he or she will be counted by each establishment. 1732

Second, t he WPS only covers workers engaged in hand labor activities while the number of 1733

employees reported in the Census covers all activities

, including activities associated with 1734

mechanized production as well as activities not directly related to production. USDA estimates 1735

less than 1.1 million field workers, including those working through labor contractors ( ERS, 1736

2014) . EPA estimates that about 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and vegetable 1737

farms and nurseries and greenhouses, based on Census data, which may be a more reasonable 1738

approximation of the number of workers covered by the WPS

. For the primary estimate of costs, 1739

EPA includes all employees of farms that are primarily producing crops, which includes over 1.9 1740

million people. While about 7 6 percent of farms that hire labor use pesticides, 87 percent of 1741

labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the crop farms, the number of workers at 1742

the national level is from a special tabulat ion by NASS from the 2007 Census of Agriculture 1743

(NASS, 2008). Regional numbers for labor on farms by size are estimated by distributing the 1744

total number of employees in the same proportion as all farm workers. 1745

1746

Table 3. 2

- 5

. W orkers on Crop Farms. 1747

Region Farm Labor Labor, Crop

Producing Farms Labor

, Farms with

Fieldworkers

United States 2,736,417 2,407,056 1,910,055

South 324,118 276,081 225,386

California 465,422 424,096 324,709

Southwest 89,245 77,176 63,032

Subtropical 119,684 106,441 84,042

Midwest 366,584 324,157 255,947

Northeast 324,627 284,554 227,297

Ohio Valley 422,620 363,514 294,148

Texas/Mountain West 218,974 183,815 152,804

Northwest 405,143 367,222 282,688

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008) 1748

2 First

- line supervisors of building and grounds cleaning and maintenance workers, occupational code 37

- 1010.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

44 1749

Employees , Pesticide Handlers 1750

1751

The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms is un known. EPA assumes that, on average, 1752

large WPS farms (annual revenue greater than $750,000) employ two individuals who handle 1753

pesticides and large

- small WPS farms (annual revenue between $100,00 0 and $750,000) employ 1754

one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smalle st categories of WPS farms, EPA 1755

assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. Thus, EPA estimates that there are a 1756

total of 300,621 pesticide handlers working on crop

- producing farms. The distribution of 1757

handlers across regions follows from the distribution of farms, as in Table 3. 2

- 2 , not of workers 1758

as in Table 3.3

- 5 . Pesticide handlers may represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct 1759

group. It is unlikely that an on

- farm handler would be occupied full time with pesticide handling 1760

tasks and will, therefore, likely perform other production

- related tasks , although not necessarily 1761

hand labor activities

. For this analysis, EPA estimates that 217,656 handlers a lso engage in 1762

worker activities and are also included in the number of workers presented in Table 3.2

- 5. 1763

1764

Data from the May 20 13 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 1765

Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the to tal number of handlers 1766

employed by commercial pesticide h andling establishments (BLS, 201 4 a ). The number of 1767

handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishment s (1 4

, 32 0 in total) is 1768

estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45

- 2091( Agricultural Equipment 1769

Operators) or 37

- 3012 ( Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation ) that work for 1770

a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production). Re gional numbers are 1771

estimated using the proportion of all farms using pesticides , including farms that do not hire 1772

labor

. 1773

1774

In addition to handlers identified in the BLS data, EPA has information on the number of 1775

commercial applicators certified in crop prot ection, by state (CPARD, 2014). These handlers are 1776

assumed to be self

- employed or part of a small firm not listed in proprietary databases. 1777

1778

Table 3. 2

- 6 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, the number of 1779

handlers employed at CPHEs, and other commercial applicators . All WPS farms are likely to 1780

use commercial applicators for some applications. 1781

1782*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

45 Table 3.2

- 6 . WPS Agricultural Wor kers and Handlers and CPHE handlers. 1783

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1 Handlers

CPHEs 2 Handlers

CPHEs,

certified applicators

South 45,995 2,076 4,072

California 18 ,037 644 4,559

Southwest 10,221 329 1,944

Subtropical 8,117 372 920

Midwest 64,934 3,480 30,948

Northeast 31,866 1,360 3,658

Ohio Valley 66,738 3,609 10,400

Texas/Mountain West 38,479 1,761 5,351

Northwest 16,234 687 11,486

U.S. 300,621 14,320 73,338

Source: EPA estimates based on NASS (2008b, 2014); BLS, 201 4 a ; CPARD (2014)

. 1784

1 Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS 1785

establishment and one handler per large

- small WPS establishmen t, not including the employer. 1786

Includes 217,656 handlers on farms that employ fieldworkers, which are in cluded among workers in 1787

Table 3.2

- 5

. 1788

2 Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all farms that use pesticides

. 1789

1790

Employees , Wages 1791

1792

The average wage rate for farm workers and laborers in crops, nurseries, and greenhouses 1793

reported in the May 2 013 occupational employment statistics is $ 10.01 per hour (BLS, 201 4 b )

. 1794

Non

- wage benefits may be quite limited for this sector of the workforce ; a recent report ( DoL, 1795

2011

- 2012 ) found that only 21 percent of farmworkers had access to employer

- provided hea lth 1796

insurance, for example. However , without more specific data, EPA assumes that benefits are 1797

similar to the rest of the civilian population at about 46 percent of wages. The loaded wage rate 1798

for workers is therefore estimated to be $1 4.64 per hour. 1799

1800

Ha ndlers represent a more skilled set of workers, which we represent by using the wage rate for 1801

agricultural equipment operators, at $1 3.70 per hour (BLS, 201 4 b ). The loaded wage rate for 1802

WPS handlers, therefore, is $ 20.04 per hour. Wages for commercial ha ndlers is reported to be 1803

$1 5.90 per hour, which impl ies a loaded wage rate of $23.26

. 1804

1805

Future time periods 1806

1807

To project costs into the future, EPA must take into consideration any changes over time. EPA 1808

calculates the present value (PV) of regional baseline and new regulatory costs as shown in Step 1809

4 above. Thus, the calculation is: 1810

1811

PV ( RC

r X )

= ∑ ∑ cost

r

, a X

t × N

a t a

( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1 1812*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

46 1813

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as defined as above. Some indices are 1814

suppressed for c larity. 1815

1816

In general, the per

- actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However, 1817

the number of actors could chang e as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, 1818

and if growers increasingly rely on commercial pest con trol services. Data, however, do not 1819

support the hypothesis of large c hanges . The number of farms has remained steady and an 1820

analysis of data by USDA (ERS, 2014) indicates that the number of farm workers has been 1821

largely unchanged since 2007, at least. After a period where the number of commercial entities 1822

increased in the early 2000’s, there appears to have been a recent decline. Such fluctuations do 1823

not suggest a long

- term trend, however. Therefore, EPA assumes the number of actors will 1824

rem a in mo re o r less constant in the future

. 1825

1826

As a result, we can simplify the equation for PV into components for each actor. 1827

1828

PV ( RC

r X )

= cost

r

, a X

∙ N

a 0 ∙ ∑ 1

( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1 1829

1830

That is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that 1831

reflects the cumulative effect of discount rate, which can then be summed across actors. This 1832

value is approximately 8.79 for a three percent discount rate and 7.52 for a seven percent 1833

discount rate

. 1834

1835

This completes the discussion of the genera l data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the 1836

data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 1837

requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with 1838

training, fol lowed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response 1839

and decontamination supplies. 1840

1841



### 3.3 Cost of Final Requirements 1842

1843

This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We estimate cost under 1844

different com ponents in order to account for interactions between specific requirements. For 1845

example, under pesticide safety training, EPA will require employers to cover additional 1846

material, which will result in longer training sessions, and will require annual train ing, which 1847

will result in more frequent sessions. There are essentially no cost interactions between 1848

components, so estimated incremental costs of each component can be summed to estimate the 1849

total incremental cost of the final revisions. Section 3.3.1 c overs the P esticide S afety T raining 1850

component in some detail . The results of other components are presented in more summary 1851

fashion in Section 3.3.2, Hazard Communication; Section 3.3.3

, Notification ; Section 3.3.4, 1852

Minimum Age; Section 3.3.5, Entry Restrictions; Section 3.3.6, Personal Protective Equipment; 1853

and Section 3.3.7, Decontamination Supplies . Details of the estimation for these components 1854

can be found in Appendix B. Section 3.3.9 then sums the components and presents the total cost 1855

of the final rule. 1856*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

47 1857



### 3.3. 1 Pesticide Safety Training 1858

1859

Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training , potentially 1860

hiring trainers, and incur ring the opportunity cost of labor duri ng the time workers and /or 1861

handlers are receiving the training. C PHEs incur costs for handler training. 1862

1863

We assume that all farms hiring farmworkers and/or handlers conduct training sessions even if 1864

over the course of the production season they find they do not need to make pesticide 1865

applications. Otherwise, any untrained employees, especially handlers, would have to be trained 1866

prior to an application, which could delay treatment. Alternatively, the pesticide application 1867

could be made and untrained emplo yees would not be allowed to work in and around treated 1868

areas until they receive training, which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if 1869

employees can be brought into compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other 1870

farm ac tivities, WPS farms may find it more cost

- effective to forego training until a pesticide 1871

application is needed. Thus, EPA ’s estimates of the cost of training requirements are likely 1872

biased upward, although any bias in the incremental cost is uncertain. 1873

1874

C urrently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area 1875

that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. There is a ‘grace 1876

period’ of five days, however, if full training cannot be provi ded before the first entry into this 1877

area; employers must still provide an abbreviated training consisting of basic safety information. 1878

Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. The training covers specified 1879

topics including how pesticide exposure can occur, basic hazards and symptoms, washing and 1880

other forms of decontamination and first aid, and the protections workers can expect under the 1881

WPS. Trainings can be conducted by people with certain credentials as well as certified 1882

a pplicators and co

- workers who have received WPS handler training. The WPS does not 1883

currently require that trainers provide workers with a record of their training , but EPA and 1884

several states have run a voluntary program to issue training verification card s to workers. The 1885

goal of the program is to provide workers with a means of showing future employers that they 1886

have met the training requirement. 1887

1888

The specific changes to the worker training requirements consist of (1) the e limination of the 1889

grace period before training ; (2) a nnual worker training ; (3), e xpanded worker training content to 1890

cover additional topics, most notably emphasizing the potential for pesticide residues to be 1891

transported home on clothing , shoes and other items ; (4) trainers must have certain credentials or 1892

be a certified applicator, but not someone who has only received WPS handler training; and (5) a 1893

record

- keeping requirement, a copy of which must be provided to a worker upon request, which 1894

can then be used to show other employers that he or she has met the training requirements. 1895

1896

Handler safety training is similar in many respects. Currently, t raining must be provided before 1897

an employee can mix, load, or apply pesticides and must be provided at least every five ye ars. 1898

The training covers the same topics as worker safety training as well as topics such as reading 1899

and understanding a pesticide label and use of PPE. As with worker safety training, records are 1900

not required but there has been a voluntary program to is sue training verification cards. Changes 1901

to the handler safety training requirements consist of (1) annual training; (2) e xpanded training 1902*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

48 content to cover additional topics, most notably emphasizing the potential for pesticide residues 1903

to be transported home on clothing; and (3) a record

- keeping requirement, a copy of which must 1904

be provided to a worker upon request, which can then be used to show other employers that he or 1905

she has met the training requirements. 1906

1907

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 1908

Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the 1909

workers and handlers , who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although we 1910

assume the WPS farm incurs the training costs and implicitly pays the work er /handler to take the 1911

training at the same wage he or she earns doing field work. However, some workers may bear 1912

the opportunity cost of taking the training. Workers who are hired to harvest fruits and 1913

vegetables are often paid by the quantity harvested ; thus, time spent in training is time they are 1914

not earning pay. 1915

1916

Following the methodology described in Section 3.2.1, the expected opportunity cost per worker 1917

is simply the wage rate multiplied by duration of the training and multiplied by the probabilit y 1918

that a worker takes the training

. There are no differences across states or regions. Thus, for each 1919

WPS farm, the cost is 1920

1921

cost

r

, a B

t = ∑

w j ∙ H

r

, aj B

t ∙ Prob

t (

j )

j 1922

1923

As described in Section 3.2.3, the average worker wage rate is $1 4.64 per hour including 1924

benefits . Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA 1925

assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes . In the baseline, EPA estimates that 1926

49 .0 percent of workers are trained each year. This percentage is derived as follows. 1927

1928

Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available ; however

, a report from the 1929

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) , 2001

- 2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 1930

percent of the agri cultural workforce is comprised of foreign

- born newcomers. While this 1931

underestimates the true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate

. A 1932

sensitivity analysis conducted for the proposed rule indicates that the incremental cost is no t 1933

sensitive to this parameter

. 1934

1935

This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year. Current standards 1936

require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning 1937

workforce will need to take the full training in any given year. According to the NAWS (DoL, 1938

2005), however, less than 25 percent of workers had been with their current employer for more 1939

than five years. Most workers will receive safety training if they change employers because the 1940

voluntar y training verification cards provided in some states are not well accepted by employers 1941

as sufficient proof of training. In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training 1942

even though they are within the five

- year period because they d on’t remember when they last 1943

took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. In 1944

the absence of specific data, EPA assumes 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the 1945

full training for one reason or a nother. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a 1946

calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 1947*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

49 16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training. Note that some 1948

workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year and about 28 1949

percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 2001

- 1950

2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005). EPA does not account for any additional cost s associated with the 1951

worker’s time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the 1952

baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of 1953

the final rule

. 1954

1955

Some small portion of the wo rkforce may work less than six days and thus could receive an 1956

abbreviated training, but not a full training. Based on quarterly Farm Labor Reports from 1957

January 2012 to April 2014, EPA estimates that 24 percent of the agricultural workforce, 1958

including both new and returning workers, are part

- time employees who work less than 150 1959

days. EPA assumes that five percent of these p art

- time employees, or about 1.2 percent of the 1960

workforce, do not receive training because they are employed for less than six days. Thus, 98. 8 1961

percent of the first time and returning workers in need of training will take the full training, or 1962

49 .0 percent of the total workforce. 1963

1964

Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1. 2 percent. However, 1965

this sug gests that up to 2 3 ,000 farm workers each year do not receive pesticide safety training 1966

when they are hired or within five years of a previous training. 1967

1968

Table 3.3

- 1 presents the per

- worker cost of training under current requirements, including the 1969

per

- wor ker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An abbreviated training is assumed 1970

to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates 1. 2 1971

percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated training only. We fur ther assume that 25 1972

percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full 1973

training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days. Together, this 1974

suggests that approximately 5. 2 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each 1975

year. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three 1976

minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator , whose time is 1977

valued at $ 33.44 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2. In total, the expected cost per worker is 1978

estimated to be $3.71 per year. The California baseline is estima ted to be $5.51 per year, since 1979

the state requires the safety training to cover material similar to what w ill be required with these 1980

revisions and the training is likely to last an additional 15 minutes. 1981

1982*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

50 Table 3.3

- 1 . Per

- Worker Baseline Costs. 1983

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Full Training Session $1 4.64 /hr 0.5 hour 0.49 0 $ 3.59

Abbreviated Training

Session $1 4.64 /hr 0.05 hour 0.052 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated

Session $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0.052 $ 0.0 9

Expected Cost ( cost r, a B ) $ 3.71

Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources. 1984

1985

The expected opportunity cost for a handler is estimated in a similar manner. The wages for 1986

handlers are $ 20.04 /hour for on

- farm employees and $2 3.26 /hour for commercial handlers. 1987

Handler safety training covers more material than worker sa fety and is expected to take about 45 1988

minutes. We assume the new hire rate for workers is reflective of handler turnover as well, 1989

indicating that 16 percent of handlers will be newly trained each year. Since training must occur 1990

every five years thereafte r, we assume that 20 percent of the remaining 84 percent of handlers, or 1991

16.8 percent of all handlers, are trained each year as well. Thus, 32.8 percent of handlers are 1992

trained each year at an expected cost per handler of $4. 93 per year on

- farm and $5.7 2 per year in 1993

CPHEs. 1994

1995

Regarding the provision of training, the cost is essentially the cost of providing a trainer. We do 1996

not include material costs as there are none specifically required under the requirements, 1997

although various aides such as DVDs are avai lable. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost for 1998

worker training is 1999

2000

cost

r

, a B

t = ∑

w j ∙ H

r

, aj B

t ∙ freq

t (

j | a )

j 2001

2002

where j , in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training and the frequency or 2003

probability of holding a training w ill vary across different farms . There are four types of trainers 2004

are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different wage rate. 2005

Table 3.3

- 1 presents this estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of handlers and 2006

certified applicators, paid $ 4 7.18 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of trainings; (2) 2007

individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $ 4 7.18 per hour and 2008

account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applica tors, paid $ 33.44 per hour

, lead 75 2009

percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $ 20.04 per hour and assumed to lead one percent of 2010

trainings. Wage rates are loaded as explained in Section 3.3.2 . The wage for handler trainers is 2011

that for occupational health and safety specialists, 2 9

- 9010 (BLS, 201 4b ). The probabilities that 2012

each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with trainers, extension agents, 2013

and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the owner/opera tor of the 2014

farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a training. 2015

2016

Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3. 2

- 3 and 3. 2

- 5 ), there are, on 2017

average

, 17. 9 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750, 000 in annual sales) and 2018*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

51 3. 5 workers per small WPS farm . With a five

- year training cycle, an average of four workers to 2019

less than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained every year. This number 2020

could easily be accommodated with a sin gle session. However, the average worker per farm 2021

masks considerable variability across farms with different production systems. For example, 2022

large WPS farms that primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 2023

average, while smal l WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 2024

workers. EPA assumes that s mall farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to hold 0.7 2025

training sessions each year on average and small farms with more than ten workers hold an 2026

a verage of 2.2 training session per year ; EPA estimates that the re are 17,598 small WPS farms 2027

with more than ten workers out of 25 5

, 8 9 1 small WPS farms hiring farmworkers

, im plying a 2028

weighted average of 0.81 training sessions per year. EPA assumes that lar ge farms with fewer 2029

than ten workers will hold 0.9 sessions per year and large farms with more than ten workers hold 2030

4.5 session per year

. We estimate that there are 40,224 large WPS farms with fewer than ten 2031

workers and 1 6

, 4 5 4 large farms with more than ten work ers for a weighted average of 1 .95 2032

training sessions per year. 2033

2034

Table 3.3

- 2 presents the expected baseline cost for worker pesticide safety training for large 2035

WPS farms, given the hourly cost for a trainer, the time for a session, and the probability of a 2036

training being led by a particular type of trainer. The probability is sim ply the overall probability 2037

of using a type of trainer multiplied by the average number of sessions per year. For large WPS 2038

farms, averaging 1 .95 training sessions per year, the average annual cost for worker pesticide 2039

safety training is $3 5

. 6 0. For a sm all WPS farm, holding 0.81 training sessions per year on 2040

average, th e cost is estimated to be $1 4.75 per year. 2041

2042

Table 3.3

- 2 . Baseline Costs for Worker Pesticide Safety Training , Large WPS Farm

. 2043

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trainer $ 4 7.1 8 /hr 0.5 hour 0.272 $ 6. 42

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $47.18 /hr 0.5 hour 0.195 $ 4.69

Training by certified

applicator $33.44 /hr 0.5 hour 1.459 $24.39

Training by handler $20.04 /hr 0.5 hour 0.019 $ 0.19

Expected Cost ( cost r,i, a B ) $35.60

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2044

2045

The cost for handler training is estimated in a similar manner. Trainings may be conducted by 2046

trainers of certified applicators , those completing a sanctioned train

- the

- trainer program, or a 2047

certified applicator. As with worker safety training, trainers of certified applicators and those 2048

completing a train

- the

- trainers program are assumed are assumed to c onduct 14 percent and ten 2049

percent of trainings, respectively. Certified applicators conduct the remaining 76 percent of 2050

sessions. 2051

2052

The frequency that a farm will need to conduct a handler safety training depends on the number 2053

of handlers in its employ. E PA assumes that large WPS farms employ, on average, two handlers. 2054*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

52 If there is a 32.8 percent chance a handler needing to receive the safety training, there is a 65.6 2055

percent chance of a large WPS farm providing a training. Farms may share resources or 2056

co ordinate handler training so we assume that there are four training sessions for every five 2057

farms with a handler to be trained for a total probability of 52.5 percent annually. EPA assumes 2058

that a large

- small farm (annual revenues between $100,000 and $750 ,000) employs one handler, 2059

for a 32.8 percent chance that the handler needs training. EPA further assumes that there are 2060

three trainings for every 4 farms, as some farms are able to share resources, implying an annual 2061

probability of holding a handler trai ning session of 24.6 percent. Given 14,320 commercial 2062

handlers and 1,936 CPHEs, each firm employs, on average, over seven handlers. EPA assumes 2063

that CPHEs hold a training session every year, on average. 2064

2065

Table 3.3

- 3 presents the estimated baseline cost f or a large WPS farm for handler pesticide safety 2066

training. Given the time and the annual frequency of training, combined with the cost and 2067

probability of each type of trainer, the expected cost is $ 14.46 per year. The expected cost for a 2068

large

- small WPS farm is $ 6.7 8 per year, given a lower frequency of holding a training session. 2069

For CPHEs, the cost is estimated to be $2 7.11 per year, reflecting the highest frequency of 2070

training and a higher opportunity cost for a training conducted by a certified comme rcial 2071

applicator. California currently requires annual training for pesticide handlers and the training 2072

covers the additional material EPA will now require. Thus, for handler training in California, the 2073

baseline cost will be the same as the cost estimate d under the rule. 2074

2075

Table 3.3

- 3 . Baseline Costs for Handler Pesticide Safety Training , Large WPS Farm

. 2076

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trainer $ 4 7.18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.073 $ 2.60

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $47.18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.052 $ 1.86

Training by certified

applicator $33.44 /hr 0.75 hour 0.399 $10.00

Expected Cost ( cost r,i, a B ) $14.46

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2077

2078

Finally, we consider the cost of the training verification cards. EPA produces the cards and 2079

distributes them to participating states at cost. In 2010, the last time the cards were printed, EPA 2080

produced 400,000 cards at a cost of $23,900 or ab out $0.06 per card. Trainers must fill out and 2081

distribute the cards; tests by EPA staff indicate it takes about 2 minutes per card to enter the 2082

name, date of training, and other pertinent information. Trainers belong to different categories as 2083

explained above. The probability a trainer from a given category provides a trainee the 2084

verification card is the probability that a worker or handler receives training times the probability 2085

that the training is led by a trainer in that category. The verification c ards a re estimated to cost 2086

$0.63 per worker per year, $0. 42 per farm handler per year, and $0.4 1 per commercial handler 2087

per year. 2088

2089*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

53 Table 3.3

- 4 . Per

- Worker Baseline Costs , Verification Cards

. 2090

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Verification Card $0.06/card 1 card 0.49 0 $ 0.03

Distribution by handler

trainer $ 4 7. 18 /hr 0.033 hour 0.069 $ 0. 1 1

Distribution by Train

- the

Trainer $47.18 /hr 0.033 hour 0.049 $ 0.0 8

Distribution by certified

applicator $33.44 /hr 0.033 hour 0.368 $ 0 .41

Distribution by handler $20.04 /hr 0.033 hour 0.005 $ 0.00

Expected Cost ( cost r, a B ) $ 0.63

Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources. 2091

2092

Baseline costs for the verification cards are adjusted based on state participation in the voluntary 2093

program. Currently, very few states in the Midwest, Ohio Valley, and Texas/Mountain West 2094

regions have requested cards and therefore EPA treats the probability of the action as zero, 2095

resulting in zero baseline costs. About half the states in the Subtropical, Northeast, and 2096

Northwest states participate and therefore EPA estimates the annual frequencies to be half those 2097

estimated above, resulting in expected baseline costs of $0. 31 per worker per year and $0. 2 1 p er 2098

handler per year for both the farm and commercial handler. 2099

2100

For each actor, we sum the cost of the various activities in which they are currently engaged. 2101

Table 3.3

- 5 presents the costs for the thre e different employee categories and Table 3.3

- 6 2102

presen ts the costs for the four different categories of establishments. 2103

2104

Table 3.3

- 5. Pesticide Safety Training Cost, by Employee 2105

Action Worker Farm Handler CPHE Handler

Pesticide Safety Training $ 3.71 $ 4.93 $ 5.72

Verification Card $ 0.63 $ 0.41 $ 0.4 1

Expected Cost ( cost TRAIN,i,a

B ) $ 4 .34 $ 5.35 $ 6.14

2106

Table 3.3

- 6. Pesticide Safety Training Cost, by Employer 2107

Action Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farm CPHE

Worker Safety Training $ 35.60 $14.7 5 $14.75 $ 0.00

Handler Safety Training $14.46 $ 6.78 $ 0.00 $27.11

Expected Cost ( cost TRAIN,i,a

B ) $50.06 $21.53 $ 14.75 $27.11

2108

The total cost of pesticide safety training is a combination of the ‘fixed’ per farm cost and the 2109

‘variable’ per employee cost multiplied by the number of employees. Thus, the average large 2110

WPS farm, employing 1 8 workers of which two are handlers, is expected to incur pesticide 2111

safety training costs of $1 3 8. 88 per year. 2112

2113*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

54 Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement 2114

The same process applies to the cost of complying with the final regulations. The final worker 2115

training requirements include immediate training without exception

, annual training, increase d 2116

training content (duration), and heightened standard for train ers

. Workers will also have to 2117

acknowledge receipt of training for the employers records and they will be able to obtain a copy 2118

of the training record, if they request it, to show future employers that they meet the training 2119

requirement. 2120

2121

The per

- worker unit cost is estimated to be $ 10.39

, as shown in Table 3.3

- 7. Based on draft 2122

material developed by EPA , additional training points will take about 15 minutes to cover. 2123

Given the baseline time of 30 minutes

, workers will spend 45 minutes (0.75 hours) of time in 2124

training every year. EPA estimates that 90.5 percent of workers will be trained each year, 2125

consisting of everyone except for returning handlers. Each worker will have to sign a training 2126

sheet, acknowledging that they received the training, which will entail a small amount of time. 2127

Finally, obtaining a copy of the training record will entail time on the part of the employer to 2128

make and distribute the copy. According to results of the National Agricultural Workers Survey, 2129

28 percent of agricultural wor kers had more than one employer in a year (DoL, 2005). EPA 2130

therefore assumes that about one third of workers will request a copy of the training record, 2131

given that more workers are likely to request a record than will actually need one

. 2132

2133

Table 3.3

- 7 . Per

- worker Costs for Final W orker T raining R equirements

. 2134

Action/Material wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Full Training Session $ 1 4.64 /hr 0.75 hour 0.9 05 $ 9.94

Acknowledge Training $14.64 /hr 0.008 hour 0.9 05 $ 0.11

Copy of Training Record $0.02/page 1 page 0.3 02 $ 0.01

Distribute Copy $33.44 /hr 0.033 hour 0.3 02 $ 0.34

Expected Cost

( cost TRAIN

,a P ) $ 10.39

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2135

2136

Similarly, the expected per

- handler cost is estimated to be $ 20. 39 per year for a handler on a 2137

WPS farm and $2 3.6 3 per year for a CPHE handler. 2138

2139

Table 3.3

- 8 presents the expected costs for worker safety training for a large WPS farm. 2140

Because of the requirement for annu al training and the lack of flexibility to delay the training of 2141

newly hired employees , EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct a lmost three worker 2142

safety trainings per year on average , in lieu of 1 .95 sessions in the baseline, and a small WPS 2143

farm will conduct an average of 1.39 trainings per year, up from 0. 81 sessions in the baseline

. 2144

This represents a 40 to 6 0 percent increase in trainings for farms with more than 10 employees, 2145

who are assumed to hold multiple trainings throughout the season, an d a 5 0 to 85 percent 2146

increase for farms with fewer than 10 employees as they are currently unlikely to hold frequent 2147

training sessions. As co

- workers who have attended the handler training will no longer be 2148

permitted to conduct worker training, EPA assume s that they will be replaced with certified 2149

applicators

. In addition to providing the training, the employer will be responsible for collecting 2150*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

55 and storing the training record from each training. EPA does not envision extensive 2151

documentation. The per

- fa rm cost for the revised worker training is estimated to be about $91 2152

per year for large farms (Table 3.3

- 8) and $44 per year for small farms. 2153

2154

Table 3.3

- 8 . Per

- WPS farm Costs for Final W orker T raining Requirements, Large Farm

. 2155

Action/Material wage/price unit

time/quantity probability cost

Training by handler trainer $ 4 7. 18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.404 $14.30

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $ 47.18 /hr 0.75 hour 0.289 $10.22

Training by Certified

Applicator $ 33.44 /hr 0.75 hour 2.194 $55.04

Collect/Store Training

Record $ 33.44 /hr 0.11 7 hour 2.887 $11.26

Training Record $ 0

. 02 / page 1 page 2.887 $ 0

. 06

Folder $ 0.20 each 1 folder 1 .0 $ 0.2 0

Expected Cost

( cost TRAIN

,a P ) $ 91.08

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2156

2157

Handler safety training requires similar actions and material. As with worker training, the new 2158

material is expected to add 15 minutes to the training, for a total time averaging one hour. Large 2159

farms are expected to conduct 0.8 training per y ear, on average, assuming that training events are 2160

sometimes coordinated between farms. However, record keeping events are expected to occur 2161

1.16 times per year, on average, since each farm will have to maintain individual records even if 2162

the training inc ludes handlers from multiple farms. Further, there may be more than one event 2163

during the year on a farm because a worker may be ‘promoted’ to handler and rec eive training 2164

during the season, which EPA assumes corresponds to the proportion of new hires obta ined from 2165

the NAWS (DoL, 2005). The per

- farm cost for handler training, not including the per

- handler 2166

cost, is estimated to be $ 3 2. 20 per year for large farms. The cost for a large

- small farm is 2167

estimated to be $ 2 1 .1 8, where the difference is that these smaller farms with a single handler 2168

conduct an average of 0.5 trainings per year. Note that this represents a doubling of training 2169

sessions over the baseline. For CPHEs, EPA estimates expected cost f or handler training to be 2170

$50.04 per year, assuming an average of 1.3 training sessions and record keeping events. 2171

2172

In total, EPA is estimating expected ‘fixed’ per

- establishment costs to be $1 23.28 per year for 2173

the average large WPS farm, $ 6 5

. 03 per year for the average large

- small WPS, $ 4 3

. 8 5 per year 2174

for ot her small WPS farms, and $5 0.04 per year for CPHEs. The total cost per employee is 2175

estimated to be $ 10.39 per worker, $ 20. 39 per on

- farm handler, and $2 3.6 3 per CPHE handler. 2176

Thus, for the average large WPS farm with 1 8 workers, including two handlers, t otal pesticide 2177

safety training costs are estimated to be $3 51.08 per year. 2178

2179*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

56 Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 2180

Given the estimated costs per

- establishment and per

- worker, we can estimate the regional level 2181

baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in 2182

each region that are affected by the requirements and summing across t he various actors

. 2183

2184

RC

r

, i X

t = ∑

cost

r

, a X

t × N

a

, i t

a 2185

2186

Table s 3.3

- 9 a

- c present the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Section 2187

3.2 . Under current requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $ 1 8.5 million per year. 2188

2189

Table 3.3

- 9 a . Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training , WPS Farms 2190

Region Large WPS

Farm

with

W orkers Large WPS

Farm

without

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with out

W orkers Other

Small WPS

Farms

with

W orkers WPS

Farms

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $ 50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.7 8 $14.75

N a,South 8, 67 2 3,482 15,649 6,039 23,502 $1,20 9

N a,Southwest 1,9 27 774 3,47 8 1,342 5,223 $ 269

California

cost TRAIN,a

B $85.61 $32.20 $43.30 $21.18 $22.12

N a,California 3,401 1,365 6,137 2,368 9,216 $ 8 55

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

N a,Subtropical 1,530 614 2,762 1,066 4,147 $ 213

N a,Northeast 6,008 2,412 10,842 4,184 16,282 $ 837

N a,Northwest 3,061 1,229 5,523 2,131 8,295 $ 427

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a

B $50.06 $14.46 $21.53 $ 6.78 $14.75

N a,Midwest 12,242 4,916 22,093 8,525 33,179 $1,707

N a,Ohio Valley 12,582 5,052 22,707 8,762 34,101 $1,754

N a,Texas 7,255 2,913 13,092 5,052 19,662 $1,011

U.S. 56,677 22,757 102,284 39,469 153,607 $8,282

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2191

2192

Table 3.3

- 9 b . Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training , CPHEs and Employees 2193

Region CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE

Handler CPHEs &

Employees

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 4.34 $ 5.35 $ 6.14

N a,South 281 225,386 45,995 2,076 $1,245

N a,Southwest 45 63,032 10, 221 329 $ 331*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

57 Region CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE

Handler CPHEs &

Employees

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

California

cost TRAIN,a

B $50.04 $ 6.13 $21.95 $25.17

N a,California 87 324,709 18,037 644 $2,408

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 4.03 $ 5.14 $ 5.93

N a,Subtropical 50 84,042 8,117 372 $ 384

N a,Northeast 184 227,297 31,866 1,360 $1,092

N a,Northwest 93 282,688 16,234 687 $1,228

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a

B $27.11 $ 3.71 $ 4.93 $ 5.72

N a,Midwest 470 255,947 61,934 3,480 $1,303

N a,Ohio Valley 488 294,148 66,738 3,609 $1,455

N a,Texas 238 152,804 38,479 1,761 $ 733

U.S. 1,936 1,910,055 300,621 14,320 $10,219

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2194

2195

Table 3.3

- 9c . Regional Baseline Costs, Pesticide Safety Training, Total 2196

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000) CPHEs & Employees

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000) RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 1,209 $ 1,245 $ 2,453

N a,California $ 8 55 $ 2,408 $ 3,263

N a,Southwest $ 269 $ 331 $ 600

N a,Subtropical $ 213 $ 384 $ 597

N a,Midwest $ 1,707 $ 1,303 $ 3,010

N a,Northeast $ 837 $ 1,092 $ 1,929

N a,Ohio Valley $ 1,754 $ 1,455 $ 3,209

N a,Texas $ 1,011 $ 773 $ 1,785

N a,Northwest $ 427 $ 1,228 $ 1,655

U.S. $ 8,282 $10,219 $18,501

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2197

2198

Table s 3.3

- 10 a

- c present the estimates of regional costs under the final training regulations. 2199

Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of $ 48.4 million 2200

dollars for the first year of full implementation. However, the expanded training requirement 2201

will not be implemented until materials can be developed and disseminated

. 2202

2203*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

58 Table 3.3

- 10 a . Reg ional Costs under Final Rule

, Pesticide Safety Training , WPS Farms 2204

Large

WPS Farm

with

W orkers Large

WPS Farm

without

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with

W orkers Large

Small WPS

Farm

with out

W orkers Other

Small WPS

Farms

with

W orkers WPS

Farms

cost TRAIN,a

F $ 123.28 $ 32.20 $ 65.03 $ 21.18 $ 43.85 RC oi F t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t

N a,South 8,672 3,482 15,649 6,039 23,502 $ 3,357

N a,California 3,401 1,365 6,137 2,368 9,216 $ 1,317

N a,Southwest 1,927 774 3,478 1,342 5,223 $ 746

N a,Subtropical 1,530 614 2,762 1,066 4,147 $ 592

N a,Midwest 12,242 4,916 22,093 8,525 33,179 $ 4,740

N a,Northeast 6,008 2,412 10,842 4,184 16,282 $ 2,326

N a,Ohio Valley 12,582 5,052 22,707 8,762 34,101 $ 4,871

N a,Texas 7,255 2,913 13,092 5,052 19,662 $ 2,809

N a,Northwest 3,061 1,229 5,523 2,131 8,295 $ 1,185

U.S. 5 6 ,6 77 22,757 102,284 39,469 152,568 $21,944

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2205

2206

Table 3.3

- 10 b . Reg ional Costs under Final Rule

, Pesticide Safety Training , CPHEs and 2207

Employees 2208

CPHE WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE

Handler CPHEs &

Employees

cost TRAIN,a

F $ 50.04 $ 10.39 $20. 39 $23.6 3 RC oi F t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t

N a,South 281 225,386 45,995 2,076 $ 3, 344

N a,California 87 324,709 18,037 644 $ 3,763

N a,Southwest 45 63,032 10,221 329 $ 874

N a,Subtropical 50 84,042 8,117 372 $ 1, 050

N a,Midwest 470 255,947 64,934 3,480 $ 4, 090

N a,Northeast 184 227,297 31,866 1,360 $ 3, 054

N a,Ohio Valley 8,762 294,148 66,738 3,609 $ 4, 528

N a,Texas 238 152,804 38,479 1,761 $ 2, 427

N a,Northwest 93 282,688 16,234 687 $ 3, 290

U.S. 1,936 1,910,055 30 0 ,6 21 14,320 $2 6,420

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2209

2210

Table 3.3

- 10c . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, Pesticide Safety Training, Total 2211

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) CPHEs & Employees

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) RC Ri F

1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 3,357 $ 3, 344 $ 6, 701

N a,California $ 1,317 $ 3,763 $ 5, 079

N a,Southwest $ 746 $ 874 $ 1,6 20

N a,Subtropical $ 592 $ 1, 050 $ 1, 643*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

59 Region WPS Farms

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) CPHEs & Employees

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) RC Ri F

1 ($1,000)

N a,Midwest $ 4,740 $ 4, 090 $ 8,830

N a,Northeast $ 2,326 $ 3, 054 $ 5, 380

N a,Ohio Valley $ 4,871 $ 4, 528 $ 9, 400

N a,Texas $ 2,809 $ 2, 427 $ 5, 235

N a,Northwest $ 1,185 $ 3, 290 $ 4,7 75

U.S. $21,944 $2 6,420 $ 48

, 364

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2212

2213

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. 2214

T he PV of regional costs for the baseline and final is calculated over a ten

- year time horizon as 2215

2216

PV ( RC R

, i X )

= ∑ RC

R

, i X

t ( 1 + ρ ) t

− 1 10

t = 1 2217

2218

where variables are defined as in Section 3.2. As explained in Section 3.2.2, where annual costs 2219

are constant, this calculation simplifies to annual costs multiplied by the sum of the discounting 2220

factors. For a seven percent discount rate over ten years, this sum equals 8.79. Thus, the PV of 2221

r egional baseline costs is simply the annual cost shown in Table 3.3

- 9 times 8.79. The c ost of 2222

pe s ticide safety training under the rule, however, will vary over time because the requirement for 2223

expanding the training will not be implemented immediately. M aterials must first be developed 2224

and disseminated. EPA assumes that this will take about two years. F or simplicity we estimate 2225

upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes all requirements are implemented 2226

immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are delayed two years. The upper 2227

bound is, like the baseline cost, simply the annual costs shown in Table 3.3

- 10 times 8.79. 2228

Results are presented in Table 3.3

- 11. 2229

2230

T he lower bound estimate of pesticide s a fety training assumes that basel ine costs are incurred for 2231

two years and full costs under the rule are incurred for the remainder of the time horizon. The 2232

PV of costs under the rule, at a 3% discount rate, is 2233

2234

PV ( RC

r

, i F )

= RC

r

, i B

t = 1 ∙ ∑ 1

( 1 + 0

. 03 ) t

− 1 2

t = 1 + RC

r

, i F

t = 1 ∙ ∑ 1

( 1 + 0

. 0 3 ) t

− 1 10

t = 3 2235

= RC

r

, i B

t = 1 ∙ 1

. 97 + RC

r

, i F

t = 1 ∙ 6

. 82 2236

2237

2238*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

60 Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2239

The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking 2240

the difference in the PV of the compliance and the regional baseline costs. 2241

2242

PV ( RIC

r

, i )

= PV ( RC

r

, i F )

− PV ( RC

r

, i B ) 2243

2244

Table 3.3

- 11 presents the PV of costs under the final rule, assuming immediate implementation, 2245

under the baseline, and the incremental costs of the revisions. 2246

2247

Table 3.3

- 11 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , Pesticide Safety Training

. 2248

Region PV( RC

o F i ) PV( RC

o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South $ 58,881 $ 21,557 $ 37,324 $ 4,248

California $ 44,628 $ 28,671 $ 15,957 $ 1,816

Southwest $ 14,232 $ 5,273 $ 8,959 $ 1,020

Subtropical $ 14,435 $ 5,245 $ 9,190 $ 1,046

Midwest $ 77,589 $ 26,443 $ 51,145 $ 5,821

Northeast $ 47,270 $ 16,953 $ 30,317 $ 3,451

Ohio Valley $ 82,592 $ 28,195 $ 54,397 $ 6,191

Texas/Mountain West $ 46,001 $ 15,682 $ 30,319 $ 3,451

Northwest $ 39,322 $ 14,539 $ 24,783 $ 2,821

National $4 24,950 $1 62,558 $2 62,392 $ 29,864

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 2249

2250

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement. 2251

The national incremental cost of the pesticide safety training requirement s is simply the sum of 2252

the regional level incremental cost or the difference in the sum of regional level baseline and 2253

potential costs. Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3.3

- 1 1 . The incremental cost of 2254

pesticide safety training requirement s is estimated to be between $ 204 and $ 262 million over 10 2255

years, given a 3% discount rate. The lower bound assumes that all requirements, not just the 2256

expanded training, a re delayed two years while the upper bound assumes that all requirements, 2257

including expanded training, are implemented immediately. This corresponds to an annualized 2258

cost of $ 23.2 to $ 29.9 million per year

. 2259

2260

EPA estimates that almost 375,000 farms will co nduct pesticide safety training, including about 2261

6 2 ,000 farms with only handlers. On average , the annual cost of the revisions to the pesticide 2262

safety training requirements is estimated to be $ 62 to $ 80 per year per WPS farm. These costs 2263

will vary by far m size and region, in that the average number of workers varies across different 2264

parts of the country. Farms that employ handlers, but not field workers, are expected to incur 2265

additional costs of $ 37 to $ 49 per year , with farms in California facing little or no additional 2266

costs

. For large farms that hire farmworkers , average annual incremental costs are between $ 162 2267

and $ 209 per year but vary from $ 138 to $ 178 per year in the Midwest, where the average 2268

number of workers per farm is relatively low, to $ 323 to $ 417 per year in the Northwest, where 2269

farms typically employ nearly 6 0 workers. For small farms hiring farmworkers , those with 2270

annual revenue less than $750,000 per year, incremental cost s are expected to average between 2271

$ 45 and $ 58 per year, rang ing from $ 42 to $ 54 per year for farms employing around three 2272*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

61 workers, as in the Midwest, to $ 73 to $ 94 per year for farms employing ten to 15 workers. The 2273

per

- farm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the 2274

worke r for the time spent in training. However, many temporary workers employed to harvest 2275

fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 2276

spent in training may represent forgone wages. 2277

2278

Refinements in the estim ated number of workers will reduce overall costs. If farms that 2279

primarily produce field crops do not employ workers engaged in hand labor, then about 272 ,000 2280

farms would be impacted by revisions to the pesticide safety training requirements and over 1.2 2281

m illion field workers and almost 250,000 handlers would be affected . Estimated incremental 2282

cost for pesticide safety training is between $ 15.8 million and $ 20. 4 million annually

. If the 2283

number of workers affected is less than 1.1 million, as estimated by USDA, the incremental cost 2284

for safety training ranges from $ 14. 8 to $19. 0 million per year. At the lower bound, the 2285

incremental cost for a large WPS farm employing both workers and handlers is estimated to be 2286

between $ 375 and $ 485 per year, on average across the U.S. The incremental cost to small farms 2287

employing workers is expected to average between $ 6 0 and $ 80 per year

. If all 465,766 farms 2288

estimated to produce crops and hire labor are included in the analysis, the incremental cost is 2289

estimated to be $29.0 to 37.4 million per year, but per farm costs would be lower. Large farms 2290

with both workers and handlers are estimated to face incremental costs between $150 and $190 2291

per year, while the incremental cost to small farms is esti mated to be between $40 and $55 per 2292

year, on average. 2293

2294



### 3.3. 2 Hazard Communication 2295

2296

Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their workers 2297

about the use of pesticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry operations are 2298

also covered, but as the impact is minimal, they are not considered in this analysis. As with 2299

training, the impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 2300

information as well as materials used to disseminate t he information. Hazard communication 2301

requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications. 2302

2303

The requirements specify where, what, and when hazard information is to be provided, as well as 2304

how long it should be retained. Current ly, material is to be posted at a central location for 2305

unrestricted access by workers and handlers . The content consists of information about the 2306

application : (i) the product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the 2307

pesticide produc t, (ii) the location and description of the area to be treated, (iii) time and date the 2308

pesticide is to be applied, and (iv) the duration of the REI for the pesticide. Information must be 2309

posted prior to the application, if workers are present, or prior t o any worker’s first work period 2310

on the establishment

, and the information must be updated if any changes are made in the way 2311

the application is conducted . The information must remain on display from the time of the 2312

application until 30 days after any res tricted entry interval expires. 2313

2314

The final rule will still require hazard information to be posted at a central location. The content 2315

will consist of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the product in addition to the application 2316

information currently required. The revised rule will specify that the description of the area 2317

treated must include the crop or site treated and the date and time the application ended

. The 2318*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

62 information must be posted as soon as possible , but no later than 24 hours, after the application 2319

and before any worker enters the treated area

. Workers on the establishment at the time of the 2320

application must be notified under separate provisions. The hazard communication material 2321

must still remain on display when workers are on the esta blishment and from the time of the 2322

application until 30 days after any restricted entry interval expires . Additionally, the material 2323

must be retained for two years from the date of the expiration of the REI, and provided on 2324

request by a worker, handler, a n employee’s designated representative, treating medical 2325

personnel, or inspector

. 2326

2327

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 2328

As noted above, c urrent requirements obligate the farm employer to compile and record the 2329

appropriate application information . Discussions with stakeholders suggest that the time 2330

required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. A sheet of paper is n eeded to record the 2331

information and takes about a minute (0.017 hours) to post at a central location. This must be 2332

done for every applic ation. Table 3.3

- 1 2 presents the estimated baseline cost per establishment 2333

for five regions : South, Southwest, Northeast, Ohio Valley, and Northwest. The r epresentative 2334

states for California

, the Subtropic al , Midwest, and Texas/Mountain West regions cur rently 2335

require that SDS be provided

. California and Texas also ha ve record

- keeping requirement s and 2336

requirements to make the records available upon request

. The California requirements seem to 2337

apply only to workers and handlers who are currently employed while the Texas requirements 2338

seem to apply only to large farms

. The ba se line cost i s somewhat underestimated as i t do es not 2339

account for revising the informat ion in case there are changes in the application, such as a delay 2340

in the time of application. 2341

2342

Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes the average WPS farm will make 1 6.2 pesticide 2343

applications per year, given that 81. 1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given year 2344

(NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 2345

applications per year. This can be varied as appropriate for size of farms, ranging from 10.5 2346

applications for the average small

- small WPS farm to 18.9 applicat ions for average large WPS 2347

farms with fieldworkers

. Similarly, 8 2.2 percent of handler only WPS farms use pesticides, 2348

resulting in an average of 16.4 applications per year

. Few crops would be treated so frequently, 2349

especially field crops, but the number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following 2350

examples show how EPA arrived at this number. 2351

 Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 2352

(NASS, 2008), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). 2353

Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average 2354

farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 2355

acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, 2356

which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn

– soybean rotation with some fields 2357

in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 2358

and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 2359

in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical 2360

farm. 2361

 Fruit crops in Washington. There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 2362

production, which acreage of several fruit tree s, impl ies about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres 2363

of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per farm, on average (NASS, 2008 , Volume 1, Chapter 2, 2364*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

63 Table 32). This suggests a typical farm might have four blocks of fruit production: two 2365

of apple, one of cherry, and one of pear. Typical spray programs (Northwest Wholesale, 2366

Inc., 2011a, b, c) imply 12 applications to apple blocks, six to the cherry block, and seven 2367

to the pear block , for a total of 37 applications. Including one herbicide application to 2368

each leaves us with 40 applications per year. 2369

 Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida 2370

vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no information on field size or 2371

number of fields per farm. Further, Florida’s climate allows t wo or even three crops each 2372

year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 2373

tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 2374

Florida, 2008

- 09) indicate that most vegetables are tr eated a total of seven to eight times, 2375

including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 2376

however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including two herbicide 2377

treatment s , 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fun gicide treatments. Insecticides and 2378

fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 2379

Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, 2380

however. A budget for lettuce from the Univers ity of California (Smith, Klonsky, and 2381

DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receives about six pesticide treatments, considering 2382

tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of 2383

time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and to stagger production activities. 2384

Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of 2385

pesticide applications. 2386

Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms 2387

ac counting for another 22 percent (NASS, 2008). The average across all farms, given 12 2388

applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is 2389

about 20 applications per farm. This does not consider farms that are primar ily livestock with 2390

some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average. 2391

Nor does it account for the fact that hazard communication requirements apply only if a worker 2392

is present at the time of application or within 3 0 days of the REI. Note as well that most farms 2393

produce a variety of crops, e.g. , both grains and vegetables. 2394

2395

Table 3.3

- 1 2 . Per

- Establishment Baseline Costs for Hazard Communication

. 2396

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Gather/record information $ 33.44 /hr 0.083 hr 16.2 $ 45.11

Information sheet $ 0.02 /sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32

Post application

information $ 33.44 /hr 0.017 hr 16.2 $ 9.02

Expected Cost ( cost Ha z Com ,i, a

B ) $ 54.45

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2397

2398

As shown in Table 3.3

- 12, the expected cost for WPS farms to comply with current hazard 2399

communication requirements is about $ 5 4. 45 per year , ranging from around $5 3 per year for 2400

small WPS farms to nearly $ 62 per year for large WPS farms

. 2401

2402*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

64 Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement 2403

In addition to the current requirements, employers will now be required to obtain and post the 2404

SDS and retain the inform ation for two years. SDS are commonly available on line or at 2405

pesticide dealers. Based on internet searches for a number of commonly used herbicides, 2406

insecticides, and fungicides, EPA estimates that it takes about four minutes to obtain a SDS. The 2407

avera ge length of a SDS is 6.7 pages, implying that about three to four double

- sided pages will 2408

be needed as part of the information provided to workers. Because the same product is likely to 2409

be used multiple times on the same establishment, albeit on differen t fields, EPA assumes that 2410

only about half of the applications will require the employer to obtain and copy a unique SDS. 2411

The material must then be filed after the period of posting expires. The same material as was 2412

posted could be used for the records o r the material may be retained electronically. However, for 2413

this analysis, EPA assumes that additional copies must be made and stored in a physical folder. 2414

The expected cost for the hazard communication requirements is estimated to be $8 3. 3 0 per farm 2415

per year, ranging from $8 0 for small farms to $ 94 per large farm per year. The actually cost may 2416

be lower according to the number of applications made while workers are present. 2417

2418

Table 3.3

- 1 3 . Per

- Establishment Costs for Final Hazard Communication Requirements

. 2419

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

R ecord application

information $ 33.44 /hr 0.083 hr 16.2 $ 45.23

Information sheet $ 0.02 /sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32

Post application

information $ 33.44 /hr 0.017 hr 16.2 $ 9.05

Obtain SDS $ 33.44 /hr 0.067 hr 8.1 $ 18.09

Copy of SDS $ 0.0 2/ sheet 3

. 3 sheets 8.1 $ 0.54

File Haz Comm material $ 33.44 /hr 0.0 17 hr 16.2 $ 9.05

Information sheet for file $ 0.02 /sheet 1 sheet 16.2 $ 0.32

Copy of SDS for file $ 0.0 2/ sheet 3

. 3 sheets 8.1 $ 0.54

Folder $ 0. 2 0 1 0.8 $ 0.16

Expected Cost ( cost HazCom ,i, a F ) $ 83.31

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2420

2421

In estimating the cost of allowing access to application information, EPA considers two 2422

scenarios: first, the case of a current employee and, second, the case of a former employee. In 2423

both cases, the actions required of the employer are to locate the appropriate record(s) and the n 2424

to provide that information to the requester. 2425

2426

In the case of the current employee, locating the appropriate records is likely to be fairly simple 2427

as the employee should be able to provide exact information about the time and location of the 2428

application in question. EPA estimates that the exchange of information would take about 6 2429

minutes (0.1 hours). EPA assumes that a copy of the record is p r ovided to the employe e . The 2430

expected cost per re quest is estimated to be $ 3.43 . Estimating the number of requ ests that might 2431

be made is subject to a great deal of uncertainty. Given that the information is post ed for at least 2432

30 days, the frequency of requests coming from current employees may be small. If we assume 2433*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

65 there will be one request for every 20 pestic ide applications, there would be about 0.8 request s 2434

per farm per year , implying an average cost of $2.78 per year , as shown in Table 3.3

- 14

. The 2435

average cost to small WPS farms, given 15.7 pesticide applications on average, is e stimate d t o be 2436

$2.69 per ye ar and for large farms averaging 18.4 applications per year, the cost is estimated to 2437

be $3.15 per year

. 2438

2439

Table 3.3

- 1 4 . Per

- Establishment Costs for Hazard Communication, Available on Request

. 2440

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Retrieve/Copy record $ 33.44 /hr 0.10 hr 0.811 $ 2.71

Records $ 0.02 4.3 sheets 0.811 $ 0 .0 7

Expected Cost ( cost HazCom ,i, a

B ) $ 2.78

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2441

2442

In the case of former employees, the employer will first need to verify employment both to 2443

determine if a response is required and to help identify the time frame in question. The employer 2444

must then identify the appropriate records. The reques ter must provide sufficient information to 2445

identify the records, but it is likely to be more complicated that in the case of the current 2446

employee. EPA estimates that verifying employment and identifying the appropriate records 2447

will take about 12 minutes ( 0.2 hours) per request. If records are held electronically and can be 2448

e

- mailed to the requester, EPA estimates that the employer will spend another 6 minutes 2449

responding to the request. Given prevailing wages, the opportunity cost of time would be about 2450

$ 10 per request. E

- mail would likely be the preferred method, since it provides proof that the 2451

request was honored. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, about 70% of U.S. farms 2452

have internet connections, but that does not mean records are held ele ctronically nor that the 2453

requester can receive the information electronically. If the response must be made using hard 2454

copies, EPA estimates the cost to be about $1 7 per request. In addition to the time to prepare t he 2455

mailing, this cost includes copies o f the records and return receipt postage to obtain proof that 2456

the request was fulfilled. Again, the frequency of requests is subject to a great deal of 2457

uncertainty. If we assume that there will be one request for every 100 employees and half the 2458

requests can be addressed by e

- mail, as shown in Table 3.3

- 15, the pe r

- e mployee cost would be 2459

around $0.14 per employee per year. EPA estimates that, on average, WPS farms employ 6 2460

workers, implying that the frequency of receiving a request would be 0.06 (6% chan ce) per year. 2461

Large farms (annual revenues of $750,000 per year) average 18 employees, implying a 2462

frequency of 0.18 per year or slightly less than one request every five years. Large farms in 2463

California and Washington average about 50 employees, suggesti ng they would receive about 2464

one request every two years. Large greenhouses average over 100 employees, which would 2465

imply about one request per year

. 2466

2467*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

66 Table 3.3

- 1 5 . Per

- E mployee Costs for Hazard Communication, Available on Request

. 2468

Action/Material (j) wag e/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Retrieve/Copy record $ 33.44 /hr 0.20 0.010 $ 0.06

E

- mail records $ 33.44 /hr 0.10 0.005 $ 0.02

Mail records $ 33.44 /hr 0.20 0.005 $ 0.03

Records $ 0.02 4.3 sheets 0.005 $ 0.00

Envelope/Postage $ 3.88 1 0.005 $ 0.02

Expected Cost ( cost HazCom ,i, a

B ) $ 0.14

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2469

2470

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 2471

W e estimate the regional level baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of 2472

establishments in each region that are affected by the requirements

. Table 3.3

- 1 6 presents the 2473

baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Chapter 3.2

. Representa tive states for 2474

the Subtropical and Midwest regions require employers to provide the SDS, so baseline costs are 2475

estimated to be average $70.65 and $82.84 per small and large farm per year , respectively

. The 2476

per

- farm costs in California are estimated to be $83.05 and $97.38 per small and large farms per 2477

year considering the additional record

- keeping costs. Texas requires the SDS and recordkeeping 2478

by large farms , implying baseline costs of $ 52.67 and $97.38 per small and large farm per year. 2479

In addition, under the provision to make records available to former employees, there are 2480

expected costs of $0.07 per worker in the Texas/Mountain West region since about half the 2481

workers and handlers are employed on large farms. See Appendix B for detail s. Under current 2482

requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $ 2 3. 2 million per year. 2483

2484

Table 3.3

- 16 . Regional Baseline Costs, Hazard Communication 2485

Region Large WPS

Farm Small WPS

Farm WPS

Worker/Handler RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

South, Southwest, Northeast, Ohio Valley, and Northwest

cost HazCom

,a B $61.76 $52.67 $ 0.00

N a,South 12,153 45,190 238,389 $3,131

N a,Southwest 2,701 10,042 65,921 $ 696

N a,Northeast 8,420 31,308 236,305 $2,169

N a,Ohio Valley 17,634 65,570 313,015 $4,543

N a,Northwest 4,289 15,949 287,277 $1,105

California

cost HazCom

,a B $97.38 $83.05 $0.00

N a,California 4,766 17,722 329,808 $1,936

Subtropical and Midwest

cost HazCom

,a B $82.84 $70.65 $0.00

N a,Subtropical 2,145 7,975 86,337 $ 741

N a,Midwest 17,158 63,798 274,304 $5,928*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

67 Region Large WPS

Farm Small WPS

Farm WPS

Worker/Handler RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

Texas/Mountain West

cost HazCom

,a B $93.62 $79.84 $0.07

N a,Texas 10,168 37,806 163,682 $2,993

U.S. 79,434 295,360 1,995,038 $23,242

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2486

2487

Table 3.3

- 1 7 presents the estimates of regional costs under the final hazard communication 2488

requirements . Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of 2489

$ 3 2.5 million dollars per year

. 2490

2491

Table 3.3

- 17 . Reg ional Costs under Final Rule

, Hazard Communication 2492

Large WPS

Farm Small WPS

Farm WPS

Worker/Handler

cost HazCom

,a F $ 94.23 $83 .05 $ 0.14 RC oi F t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a

N a,South 12,153 45,190 238,389 $ 4,969

N a,California 4,766 17,722 329,808 $ 1,981

N a,Southwest 2,701 10,042 65,921 $1,106

N a,Subtropical 2,145 7,975 86,337 $ 883

N a,Midwest 17,158 63,798 274,304 $ 7,007

N a,Northeast 8,420 31,308 236,305 $ 3,452

N a,Ohio Valley 17,634 65,570 313,015 $ 7,206

N a,Texas 10,168 37,806 287,277 $4,152

N a,Northwest 4,289 15,949 287,277 $1,782

U.S. 79,434 295,360 1,995,038 $ 32,538

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2493

2494

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. 2495

There are no changes over time in the requirements for hazard communication. Thus, the PV of 2496

costs over the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as 2497

explained in Chapter 3.2.2. 2498

2499

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2500

Table 3.3

- 1 8 presents the PV of hazard communication costs under the final rule, under the 2501

baseline, and the incremental costs of the revisions. Incremental costs vary substantially across 2502

regions, not only b ecause of differences in the number of farms covered by the WPS, but because 2503

of state regulations. In states where records and/or SDS are already required, such as California 2504

and Florida , the incremental costs are low. To the extent that the baseline cos ts are 2505

underestimated because they do not account for the cost of updating information that changes 2506

between planning the application and conducting the application, the incremental costs will be 2507

overestimated. 2508

2509*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

68 Table 3.3

- 18 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Inc remental Costs , Hazard Communication

. 2510

Region PV( RC

o F i ) PV( RC

o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 43,659 $27,508 16,152 1,838

California 17,406 $17,009 397 45

Southwest 9,718 $ 6,113 3,605 410

Subtropical 7,758 $ 6,511 1,247 142

Midwest 61,562 $52,087 9,475 1,078

Northeast 30,333 $19,058 11,276 1,283

Ohio Valley 63,309 $39,913 23,396 2,663

Texas/Mountain West 36,482 $26,300 10,183 1,159

Northwest 15,654 $ 9,709 5,945 677

National $ 285,881 $204,206 $81,675 $ 9,296

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 2511

2512

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement. 2513

The PV national incremental cost of revisions to the hazard communication requirement s is 2514

estimated to be $ 81.7 mil lion over ten years, or about $ 9 .3 million dollars annually. EPA 2515

estimates that there are 374,79 4 affected farms implying an annual cost of about $ 24.80 per farm. 2516

The cost per farm varies across states and regions depending on current state requirements and 2517

w ill also depend on how many pesticide applications are made . Estimated incremental costs 2518

range from less than one dollar to nearly $ 44 per farm per year. EPA estimates that small farms 2519

will incur somewhat lower costs over time because they are less likel y to use pesticides. 2520

However, the main reason that small farms would face lower costs , which is not captured in the 2521

analysis, is that workers are less likely to be present throughout the entire growing season and 2522

hazard communication is not needed if work ers are not present within about a month of the 2523

application. 2524

2525

At the lower bound, EPA estimates that 272,172 WPS farms would be impacted by revisions to 2526

the hazard communication requirements at a total annual incremental cost of about $ 7.3 million. 2527

The es timated cost per farm for the changes in the WPS, however, are largely unchanged. At the 2528

upper bound, with almost 466,000 farms impacted, the total annual incremental cost is estimated 2529

to be about $ 10.9 million. 2530

2531



### 3.3. 3 Notification 2532

2533

Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employer s who must provide their 2534

employees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 2535

information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 2536

i nformation as well as materials used to disseminate the information. As with hazard 2537

communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 2538

pesticide applications. 2539

2540

Revisions to the WPS will cover three areas pertaining to not ifications: informing workers of 2541

treated areas under a restricted entry interval (REI), informing workers of required safety 2542*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

69 precautions if they must enter an area under a REI, and informing workers of basic safety 2543

precautions and decontamination procedur es. Under the current rule, employers must usually 2544

inform workers of areas under a REI either orally or by posting warning signs a t reasonably 2545

expected points of worker entry into a field and when a treated field is near worker housing

. 2546

Certain products require both oral notification and warning signs and indoor production areas 2547

(greenhouses) must always post areas under a REI. If workers are to be sent into a field under a 2548

REI, the employer must inform them of all labeling requirements related to human hazards and 2549

precautions as well as ensure that the worker uses PPE as required by the label and follows any 2550

other label requirement s. Finally, the WPS requires the employer to display

, at a central 2551

location, a poster describing safety practices and decont amination procedures. 2552

2553

Under the final WPS, employers will be required to post warning signs if the REI is greater than 2554

48 hours. For products used in outdoor production with shorter REIs, employers may notify 2555

workers orally, unless posting is required on the label. For gree n houses, employers are not 2556

required to post warning signs if the REI is less than or equal to four hours if they provide 2557

workers with oral notification. 2558

2559

Revisions will specify and expand the information provided to workers entering fields under a 2560

REI: 2561

 Location of early entry area 2562

 Pesticide ( s ) applied 2563

 Dates and times REI begins and ends 2564

 Exception that allows early entry and description of permitted tasks 2565

 Whether contact with treated surfaces is permitted 2566

 Amount of time worker is allow ed in area 2567

 Required PPE 2568

 Location of pesticide safety information and of decontamination supplies 2569

2570

Finally, the safety information must be displayed at a central location, at permanent 2571

decontamination sites, and where decontamination supplies for more than 10 workers or handlers 2572

are located. Further, the employer will be required to provide contact information for medical 2573

facilities and for the state agency responsible for WPS enforcement on the safety information 2574

display. 2575

2576

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 2577

To assess the impacts of revisions to the notification requirements in the WPS, we identify a 2578

number of different actors. There will be actions required of both the employer and worker, 2579

where the worker spends some time receiving informatio n. We also distinguish WPS farms by 2580

size and by type of production, specifically to identify greenhouses. The Census of Agriculture 2581

defines farms according to the primary source of revenue. Given the available information, EPA 2582

estimates there to be 947 WPS farms that are primarily greenhouse operations. They may also 2583

have outdoor production. Similarly, many of the remaining 311,618 WPS farms have 2584

greenhouse as part of the farm. In this analysis, we abstract from the reality of diverse 2585

production to fo cus on the impacts of revisions specific to the type of production. In the 2586

aggregate, the differences likely offset each other. For impacts at the farm level, a diverse 2587

operation will likely face costs that are a reflective of both types of production. 2588*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

70 2589

Posting warning signs. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a 2590

sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e. , both verbal 2591

communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnin gs of all 2592

applications. Costs are expected to vary by farm size because it may be cheaper to post the 2593

warnings than orally notify a large number of workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a 2594

large

- small farm is presented in Table 3.3

- 1 9 , as an exampl e. EPA assumes that most employers 2595

in small farms provide oral notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide 2596

application has been made. As with hazard communication ( Section 3.3.2), we assume a farm 2597

makes 20 applications per year, but this is weighted by the proportion of WPS farms, by size, 2598

that used pesticides in 2012. Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they 2599

will have to be informed of the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to 2600

provi de multiple notificat ions. For example, 94.3 percent of large

- small farms used pesticides in 2601

2012, which EPA interprets as the likelihood that farms of this size will use pesticides in any 2602

given year. Assuming 20 applications in general, a large

- small fa rm will make 18.7 applications 2603

on average. Further assuming that each application averages 1.1 notifications to reach all 2604

workers, implies 20.8 notifications per year. Employers with many workers, however, may find 2605

it too complicated and too time consumi ng to orally notify them all; thus, many employers in 2606

large farms likely post REIs. Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the 2607

pesticide used will be double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification ; thus 2608

a large

- small farm will post the REI 1.87 times per year, on average . EPA assumes that two 2609

signs are generally needed for posting and they can be reused . We assume that about some farms 2610

have worker housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed , but this 2611

assumption has no effect on the incremental cost . Signs will generally last for two years. The 2612

probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by the proportion of non

- greenhouse 2613

WPS farms making an application in any given year, which varies across farm size ( Section 2614

3.2.2 ). In the case of a large

- small farm, that weighting is 94.3 percent, for a likelihood of 47.2 2615

percent. A larger proportion of farms purchases two signs, with a 38.3 percent chance while the 2616

remainder, 8 .9 percent purchases three signs. The expected per

- farm cost is estimated to be 2617

between $ 3 5 and $1 37 depending on the size of the farm. See Appendix B. 2618

2619

Table 3.3

- 1 9 . Per

- Large

- Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs

, Post REI warning signs. 2620

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 20.8 $ 34.70

Signs $ 7.3 5 each 2 signs 0.3 83 $ 5.63

Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.333 hour 1. 53 $ 1 7.06

Signs $ 7.3 5 e ach 3 signs 0.089 $ 1.96

Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.50 hour 0.36 $ 5.95

Expected Cost ( cost REI ,i, a B ) $ 65.31

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2621

2622

Since greenhouses must always post REI warning signs, as well as provide oral notification for 2623

certain products, baseline costs are greater than for outdoor production. Costs are estimated to 2624*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

71 be about $1 32 per year for a small greenhouse and $1 80 per year for a large greenhouse, where 2625

the largest proportion of costs is from the posting of signs. 2626

2627

Associated with the per

- farm cost of notification is the per

- worker cost of receiving the 2628

information, the reciprocal of the employer providing the information. That is, each worker 2629

spends three minutes receiving a notification. If a large

- small farm makes 20 applications 2630

necessitating notification and, coincidentally, 94.3 percent of workers employed on large

- small 2631

farms work on farms using pesticides, we would expect 18.7 notifications per worker per year. 2632

However, workers will not always be on the farm during the application or when a REI is in 2633

effect . Assuming the worker is present in 80 percent of cases, the average worker would receive 2634

15.1 notifications of pesticide applications each year at an opportunity cost of $1 1.04 per year. 2635

Depending on farm size, the per worker cost may be as low as $7. 74 per year on large farms, as 2636

we assume that large farms will typically post a REI rather than try to inform al l the workers. 2637

Expected per

- worker cost for a greenhouse ranges from $0.5 9 to $0. 92 per year because only the 2638

few applications involving ‘double notification’ products will result in oral notification. 2639

2640

Provide information to workers entering treated fiel ds during the REI. W orkers may be sent into 2641

a field during the restricted entry period if the situation meets criteria specified in the WPS

. 2642

Prior to entering the field, w orkers must have either read the product labeling or been informed 2643

of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety. EPA assumes that gathering the 2644

currently required information takes 1 minute as it comes directly from the pesticide label

. 2645

Further, EPA assumes that providing the information takes 3 minutes. Several assumption s go 2646

into calculating the probability of an early entry event : 2647

 EPA assumes that there will be an early entry event about 1 for every 50 applications or 2648

2% of applications. 2649

 Assuming 20 applications farm per year, there is a 40% probability a WPS farm applying 2650

pesticides will have an early entry event. 2651

 The probability is further weighted by the likelihood of WPS farms using pesticides in 2652

any given year , calculated as the proportion of WPS farms using pesticides in 2012 2653

(NASS, 2012 and 2008 b ), which vari es by the size of the farm. 2654

Table 3.3

- 20 pr esents the calculation for a medium

- small farm, where the likeli hood of using 2655

pesticides is 79.5 percent, leading to a probability of an early entry event of 0.31 8 or 31. 8 percent 2656

per year. The expected c o st for a medium

- small WPS farm is $0.7 1 per year and the cost ranges 2657

from $0.4 7 to $0. 84 per year for small

- small to large WPS farms

. See Appendix B for details. 2658

2659

Table 3.3

- 20 . Per Medium

- Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs

, Information for Early Entry

. 2660

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Gather Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.017 hour 0.31 8 $ 0.1 8

Provide Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0.31 8 $ 0.53

Expected Cost ( cost EarlyEntry

,i, a B ) $ 0.71

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2661

2662

Again, there is an associated cost per worker for the three minutes spent receiving the 2663

information prior to entry. As above, there is a 40 percent chance of an e vent entailing early 2664*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

72 entry into a treated field. EPA assumes that 50 percent of workers on a farm would be involved 2665

in any such activity, implying a 20 percent chance for each worker. This is weighted by the 2666

likelihood of a worker being employed on a far m that uses pesticides. For a med ium

- small WPS 2667

farm, this is 84.1 percent. Calculated costs range from $0. 07 to $0.1 4 per worker, on average. 2668

2669

Safety displays. Currently, a single safety poster is require d at the establishment’s central 2670

location. Some establishments may have multiple ‘central’ locations, as fields may be widely 2671

dispersed, but as the WPS revisions only add posting locations, the the existing diversity among 2672

farms does not alter the incremental costs. According to an on

- line source of WP S materials, a 2673

safety poster costs $6.25 (Gempler’s, 2014). Other key assumptions are : 2674

 it takes 2 minutes to set up the safety poster and 2675

 a poster lasts about 3 years, so one

- third of WPS farms will need to purchase a sign. 2676

The probability that a poster i s purchased or displayed is weighted by the likelihood that a WPS 2677

farm uses pesticides, which varies across size and whether production is in a greenhouse or 2678

outdoors. EPA estimates the expected cost of the safety display to range from $1.6 8 to $ 3.0 3 per 2679

year, on average. 2680

2681

Baseline Notification Costs

. Table 3.3

- 2 1 presents the estimated costs of the individual 2682

components of the notification requirements, by actor, and the total baseline notification costs. 2683

2684

Table 3.3

- 2 1. Per

- Actor Baseline Costs, Notification. 2685

Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Large WPS Farm $ 136.58 $ 0.84 $ 3.02 $140.45

Large

- Small

WPS Farm $ 65.31 $ 0.84 $ 3.02 $ 69.16

Medium

- Small

WPS Farm $ 53.75 $ 0.7 1 $ 2.54 $ 57.00

Small

- Small

WPS Farm $ 35.20 $ 0.47 $ 1.68 $ 37.35

Large WPS

Greenhouse $179.76 $ 0.66 $ 2.3 8 $182.80

Small WPS

Greenhouse $1 31.64 $ 0.49 $ 1.74 $133.87

Large Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.72 $ 2.72

Small Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.01 $ 2.01

Worker, Large

WPS Farm $ 7.74 $ 0.14 $ 0.00 $ 7.88

Worker, Large

Small WPS Farm $ 11.04 $ 0.14 $ 0.00 $ 11.17

Worker, Other

Small WPS Farm $ 9.63 $ 0.12 $ 0.00 $ 9.75*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

73 Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Worker, Large

Greenhouse $ 0.92 $ 0.12 $ 0.00 $ 1.04

Worker, Small

Greenhouse $ 0.5 9 $ 0.07 $ 0.00 $ 0.6 7

Source: EPA estimation. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2686

2687

The total cost for an establishment is a function of the per

- establishment cost and the cost per 2688

worker multiplied by the number of workers. Thus, a small greenhouse, which employs an 2689

average of five workers, would be expected to bear costs associated with these notification 2690

requirements of $1 37.22 per year, including $1 33.87 in the cost of signs and employer time and 2691

$3.3 5 in employee time. 2692

2693

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regul atory Requirement 2694

2695

Posting warning signs. The costs associated with the new posting requirements are the material 2696

expense of additional signs and labor costs of posting signs more frequently. Offsetting some of 2697

these costs is a reduction in the time requ ired to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3

- 2698

2 0 presents the calculations for a large

- small farm . We assume that 40 percent of the time signs 2699

will be required due to an REI greater than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of 2700

the ti me. Double notification is still required for ten percent of applications. The assumption 2701

that 40 percent of applications, or eight out of 20, are associated with a REI of more than 48 2702

hours is somewhat conservative. Long REIs, especially in fruit and vegetable production, can 2703

impede routine but necessary activities. As shown i n Table 3.3

- 2 2 , the estimated cost for a 2704

l a rge

- small farm is $132 per year, on average, compared to $ 6 5 per year in the baseline. T he 2705

expected per

- establishment cost ranges between $ 6 5 and $1 37 , where large farms with many 2706

workers are not expected to be i mpacted since posting is probably less costly than orally 2707

informing a large number of workers

. 2708

2709

Table 3.3

- 2 2 . Per

- Large

- Small WPS Farm Costs

, Post REI warning signs

. 2710

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 14.5 $ 24.29

Signs $ 7.35 e ach 4 signs 0.3 83 $ 11.2 5

Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.333 hour 6.1 2 $ 68.26

Signs $ 7.35 e ach 6 signs 0.089 $ 3.9 2

Post Sign $ 33.44 /hr 0.50 hour 1.4 2 $ 2 3.81

Expected Cost

( cost REI ,i, a F ) $1 31.53

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2711

2712

Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected cost decreases to $ 7 to $ 8 per

- worker per 2713

year compared to $ 8 to $11 in the baseline. 2714

2715*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

74 The rule will give greenhouse employers the option of orally notifying workers if the REI is less 2716

than four hours. Large greenhouses may not find this option attractive, if it means notifying a 2717

large number of workers, but it may reduce some posting costs for small greenhouses. EPA 2718

estimates that costs for small greenhouses may be around $111 per year under the rule, compared 2719

to $132 per year in the baseline. However, there will be some costs to notifying workers, 2720

increasing the cost per worker to about $1. 80 per year compared to $0.60 per year in the 2721

baseline. 2722

2723

Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. The revisions expand the 2724

information employers will be required to provide workers entering a field while the REI is still 2725

i n effect. As a result, the employer will spend more time than in the baseline to gather and 2726

disseminate the information. Table 3.3

- 2 3 provides the estimates for a medium

- small WPS farm. 2727

Across the types and sizes of WPS farms, expected costs range from $1.41 to $2. 53

. 2728

2729

Table 3.3

- 2 3 . Per Medium

- Small WPS Farm Costs

, Information for Early Entry

. 2730

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Gather Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.167 hour 0.31 8 $ 1.06

Provide Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.167 hour 0.31 8 $ 1.06

Expected Cost

( cost EarlyEntry

,i, a F ) $ 2.13

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2731

2732

The expected cost per worker increases as a function of the time spent to receive the expanded 2733

information. The estimated range is from $0.1 5 per worker in a small greenhouse to $0.2 8 per 2734

worker on a large WPS farm. Costs are calculated as the average across all workers on an 2735

establishment considering that an ear ly entry event may not happen every year. 2736

2737

Safety displays. Under the revised requirements, WPS farms will have to place safety displays 2738

along with decontamination supplies , if there are 11 or more workers and handlers in the treated 2739

area , and at permanen t decontamination sites

. For most establishments, the permanent 2740

decontamination site will be the main location at which displays are maintained in the baseline. 2741

Further, the employer will be required to provide contact information for medical facilities and 2742

for the state agency responsible for WPS enforcement on the safety information display 2743

2744

Farms producing fruits and vegetables often employ large work crews at harvest and EPA 2745

anticipates that the large and large

- small farms of this type will be those i mpacted by the 2746

requirement for the additional safety display. Large greenhouses, which average over 100 2747

workers, will also likely have situations where more than 10 workers are at a treated area. 2748

2749

Table 3.3

- 2 4 presents the calculation of expected costs fo r a large

- small farm. EPA assumes that 2750

a poster is replaced about every three years. Given that 94.3% of large

- small farms are estimated 2751

to use pesticides in a given year (Appendix A), 31.4% of farms are expected to purchase a 2752

display for the central pos ting each year. EPA assumes that adding contact information to the 2753

display will take about three minutes. All large

- small farms using pesticides must post the 2754*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

75 display. Further, EPA estimates that there are about 13,500 large

- small fruit and vegetable fa rms 2755

using pesticides (Appendix A), implying almost 4,500 purchasing signs each year, or 4.4% of 2756

102,024 large

- small farms and nurseries. Farms of this size will likely find one display to be 2757

sufficient , to which contact information must be added . EPA assumes that a large

- small 2758

fruit/vegetable farm will have 4 occasions/year, on average, to employ a crew of 11 or more, 2759

based on information on the number of blocks of fruit on a typical Washington fruit farm 2760

(NASS, 2008). Thus, EPA estimates almos t 54,000 display or an average of 0.5 across all large

2761

small farms and nurseries. Given these parameters, EPA estimates that, across all large

- small 2762

farms, the average cost of the final requirements for safety displays is $4.48 per year. See 2763

Appendix B f

or details about farms of other sizes

. 2764

2765

Table 3.3

- 2 4 . Per

- Large

- Small WPS Farm Costs

, Safety Displays

. 2766

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Central Poster $ 6.25 e ach 1 display 0.314 $ 1.97

Add Contact Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0.314 $ 0.53

Post Central Display $ 33.44 /hr 0.033 hour 0.943 $ 1.05

Decontamination Displays $ 6.25 e ach 1 display 0.044 $ 0.28

Add Contact Information $ 33.44 /hr 0.05 hour 0 .044 $ 0.07

Post Decontamination

Displays $33.44/hr 0.033 hour 0 .529 $ 0.59

Expected Cost ( cost SafetyDisplay ,i, a F ) $ 4.48

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2767

2768

2769

Notification Costs under Revised WPS

. Table 3.3

- 2 5 presents the estimated costs of the 2770

individual components of the notification requirements, by actor, and the total notification costs 2771

under the revised WPS

. 2772

2773

Table 3.3

- 2 5 . Per

- Actor Costs under Revisions , Notification. 2774

Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Large WPS Farm $ 136.58 $ 2.53 $ 5.72 $1 44.83

Large

- Small

WPS Farm $ 131.53 $ 2. 52 $ 4.48 $1 38.53

Medium

- Small

WPS Farm $106.33 $ 2.13 $ 2.99 $11 1.44

Small

- Small

WPS Farm $ 6 5.07 $ 1.41 $ 1.98 $ 6 8.46

Large WPS

Greenhouse $179.76 $ 1.99 $ 14.05 $19 5.80

Small WPS

Greenhouse $111.33 $ 1.46 $ 2.05 $ 11 4

. 84*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

76 Actor REI

Notification Early Entry

Information Safety Display Total

Large Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3.19 $ 3.19

Small Handler

Only Farm $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3.03 $ 3.03

Worker, Large

WPS Farm $ 7.74 $ 0.2 8 $ 0.00 $ 8.02

Worker, Large

Small WPS Farm $ 7.73 $ 0.2 8 $ 0.00 $ 8.00

Worker, Other

Small WPS Farm $ 6. 74 $ 0.2 4 $ 0.00 $ 6.98

Worker, Large

Greenhouse $ 0. 92 $ 0.2 3 $ 0.00 $ 1. 15

Worker, Small

Greenhouse $ 1. 78 $ 0.1 5 $ 0.00 $ 1. 93

Source: EPA estimation. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2775

2776

Again, t he total cost for an establishment is a function of the per

- establishment cost and the cost 2777

per worker multiplied by the number of workers. For example , a small greenhouse, which 2778

employs an average of five wor kers, would be expected to bear costs associated with these 2779

notification requirements of $1 2 4.49 per year, including $11 4

. 84 in the cost of signs and 2780

employer time and $ 9.65 in employee time. This is a decrease from the baseline of almost 2781

$13.00 per year due to the cost savings from the option to notify workers orally for REIs of four 2782

hours or less. 2783

2784

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 2785

W e estimate the regional level baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of 2786

es tablishments or workers in each region that are affected by the requirements and summing 2787

across the various actors

. 2788

2789

RC

r

, i X

t = ∑

cost

r

, a X

t × N

a

, i t

a 2790

2791

In this case, we examine the impacts of the three requirements separately before summing the 2792

costs to determine the impacts of the notification component as a whole. Table s 3.3

- 2 6 a

- d 2793

present the baseline costs for REI notification , where the number of act ors is presented in Section 2794

3.2 . Under current requirements, the national cost is estimated to be $ 3 8.4 million per year. 2795

2796*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

77 Table 3.3

- 2 6 a. Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Farms with 2797

Workers 2798

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Medi um

Small WPS

Farm Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost REI ,a B $136.58 $ 65.31 $ 5 3.75 $ 35.20

Region N i a t

South 8,649 15,610 12,584 10,835 $ 3,258

California 3,392 6,121 4,935 4,249 $ 1,278

Southwest 1,922 3,469 2,796 2,408 $ 724

Subtropical 1,526 2,755 2,221 1,912 $ 575

Midwest 12,211 22,037 17,766 15,296 $ 4,600

Northeast 5,992 10,815 8,718 7,506 $ 2,257

Ohio Valley 12,550 22,649 18,259 15,721 $ 4,728

Texas/Mt West 7,236 13,059 10,528 9,064 $ 2,726

Northwest 3,053 5,509 4,441 3,824 $ 1,150

U.S. 56,532 102,024 82,248 70,816 $21,297

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2799

2800

Table 3.3

- 2 6 b . Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Farm and 2801

Nursery Workers 2802

Worker

Large WPS

Farm Worker

Large

- Small

WPS Farm Worker

Medium

Small WPS

Farm Worker

Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a B $ 7. 74 $ 11.04 $ 9.63 $ 9.63

Region N i a t

South 117,910 52,326 32,038 20,669 $ 1,998

California 169,871 75,385 46,157 29,777 $ 2,878

Southwest 32,975 14,634 8,960 5,780 $ 559

Subtropical 43,967 19,511 11,946 7,707 $ 745

Midwest 133,898 59,421 36,382 23,471 $ 2,268

Northeast 118,910 52,770 32,310 20,844 $ 2,015

Ohio Valley 153,883 68,290 41,812 26,974 $ 2,607

Texas/Mt West 79,939 35,475 21,721 14,013 $ 1,354

Northwest 147,888 65,629 40,183 25,923 $ 2,505

U.S. 999,240 443,442 271,509 175,158 $ 16,929

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2803

2804

Table 3.3

- 2 6 c . Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Greenhouses 2805

Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a B $ 179.76 $ 131.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.59

Region N i a t

South 2 2 12 3 1,932 511 $ 22

California 9 4 8 2,784 736 $ 11

Southwest 5 27 540 143 $ 5*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

78 Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a B $ 179.76 $ 131.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.59

Region N i a t Subtropical 4 2 2 720 191 $ 4

Midwest 3 1 17 3 2,194 580 $ 31

Northeast 1 5 8 5 1,948 515 $ 16

Ohio Valley 3 2 17 8 2,522 667 $ 32

Texas/Mt West 19 103 1,310 347 $ 18

Northwest 8 43 2,423 641 $ 10

U.S. 145 803 16,374 4,331 $ 149

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2806

2807

Table 3.3

- 2 6 d . Regional Baseline Costs, REI Notification Requirements, Total 2808

Region WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers WPS

Greenhouse RC Ri B 1

($1,000)

South $ 3,258 $ 1,998 $ 22 $ 5,278

California $ 1,278 $ 2,878 $ 11 $ 4,167

Southwest $ 724 $ 559 $ 5 $ 1,288

Subtropical $ 575 $ 745 $ 4 $ 1,324

Midwest $ 4,600 $ 2,268 $ 31 $ 6,899

Northeast $ 2,257 $ 2,015 $ 16 $ 4,288

Ohio Valley $ 4,728 $ 2,607 $ 32 $ 7,367

Texas/Mt West $ 2,726 $ 1,354 $ 18 $ 4,099

Northwest $ 1,150 $ 2,505 $ 10 $ 3,665

U.S. $21,297 $16,929 $ 149 $ 38,375

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2809

2810

Table s 3.3

- 2 7 a

- d present the estimates of regional costs under the final REI notification 2811

requirements . Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of 2812

$ 48.8 million dollars per year. This is an increase of $10.4 million over the baseline. 2813

Considerin g that EPA estimates nearly 313,000 farms employing farmworkers will be impacted, 2814

this represents an average incremental cost of around $33.40 per year per farm, nursery, and 2815

greenhouse. 2816

2817

Table 3.3

- 2 7 a. Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, Farms 2818

with Workers 2819

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Medium

Small WPS

Farm Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 136.58 $131.53 $106.33 $ 65.07

Region N i a t

South 8,649 15,610 12,584 10,835 $ 5,278

California 3,392 6,121 4,935 4,249 $ 2,070

Southwest 1,922 3,469 2,796 2,408 $ 1,173

Subtropical 1,526 2,755 2,221 1,912 $ 931*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

79 Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Medium

Small WPS

Farm Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 136.58 $131.53 $106.33 $ 65.07

Region N i a t

Midwest 12,211 22,037 17,766 15,296 $ 7,451

Northeast 5,992 10,815 8,718 7,506 $ 3,658

Ohio Valley 12,550 22,649 18,259 15,721 $ 7,658

Texas/Mt West 7,236 13,059 10,528 9,064 $ 4,415

Northwest 3,053 5,509 4,441 3,824 $ 1,863

U.S. 56,532 102,024 82,248 70,816 $3 4,494

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2820

2821

Table 3.3

- 2 7 b . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, Farm 2822

and Nursery Workers 2823

Worker

Large WPS

Farm Worker

Large

- Small

WPS Farm Worker

Medium

Small WPS

Farm Worker

Small

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 7. 74 $ 7.73 $ 6.74 $ 6.74

Region N i a t

South 117,910 52,326 32,038 20,669 $ 1,672

California 169,871 75,385 46,157 29,777 $ 2,409

Southwest 32,975 14,634 8,960 5,780 $ 468

Subtropical 43,967 19,511 11,946 7,707 $ 624

Midwest 133,898 59,421 36,382 23,471 $ 1,899

Northeast 118,910 52,770 32,310 20,844 $ 1,686

Ohio Valley 153,883 68,290 41,812 26,974 $ 2,182

Texas/Mt West 79,939 35,475 21,721 14,013 $ 1,134

Northwest 147,888 65,629 40,183 25,923 $ 2,097

U.S. 999,240 443,442 271,509 175,158 $ 14,171

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2824

2825

Table 3.3

- 2 7 c . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, 2826

Greenhouses 2827

Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 179.76 $ 111.33 $ 7.74 $ 7.73

Region N i a t

South 2 2 12 3 1,932 511 $ 20

California 9 4 8 2,784 736 $ 11

Southwest 5 27 540 143 $ 5

Subtropical 4 2 2 720 191 $ 4

Midwest 3 1 17 3 2,194 580 $ 28

Northeast 1 5 8 5 1,948 515 $ 15

Ohio Valley 3 2 17 8 2,522 667 $ 29*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

80 Large WPS

Greenhouse Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Large WPS

Greenhouse Worker

Small WPS

Greenhouse WPS

Greenhouse

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost NOTIFY ,a F $ 179.76 $ 111.33 $ 7.74 $ 7.73

Region N i a t

Texas/Mt West 19 103 1,310 347 $ 17

Northwest 8 43 2,423 641 $ 10

U.S. 145 803 16,374 4,331 $ 138

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2828

2829

Table 3.3

- 2 7 d . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, REI Notification Requirements, Total 2830

Region WPS Farm WPS Farm

workers WPS

Greenhouse RC Ri F 1

($1,000)

South $ 5,278 $ 1,672 $ 2 0 6,970

California $ 2,070 $ 2,409 $ 11 4,489

Southwest $ 1,173 $ 468 $ 5 1,645

Subtropical $ 931 $ 624 $ 4 1,559

Midwest $ 7,451 $ 1,899 $ 28 9,378

Northeast $ 3,658 $ 1,686 $ 15 5,358

Ohio Valley $ 7,658 $ 2,182 $ 29 9,869

Texas/Mt West $ 4,415 $ 1,134 $ 17 5,566

Northwest $ 1,863 $ 2,097 $ 10 3,970

U.S. $34,494 $14,171 $ 138 $ 48,803

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2831

2832

Table 3.3

- 2 8 presents the regional baseline costs of the three notification requirements, along 2833

with the total costs for notification component. Providing the required information for early 2834

entry activities is estimated to co st $481,000 per year nationally while providing pesticide safety 2835

displays at central locations costs $973,000 per year. Together with REI notifications, the 2836

notification requirements are estimated to cost WPS farms about $39.8 million per year. 2837

2838

Table 3.3

- 2 8 . Regional Baseline Costs, Notification Requirements, Total 2839

Region REI

Notifications Early Entry

Information Pesticide Safety

Displays RC Ri B 1

($1,000)

South $ 5,278 $ 65 $ 149 $ 5,492

California $ 4,167 $ 57 $ 58 $ 4,282

Southwest $ 1,288 $ 16 $ 33 $ 1,337

Subtropical $ 1,324 $ 17 $ 26 $ 1,368

Midwest $ 6,899 $ 83 $ 210 $ 7,192

Northeast $ 4,288 $ 54 $ 103 $ 4,445

Ohio Valley $ 7,367 $ 89 $ 216 $ 7,672

Texas/Mt West $ 4,099 $ 49 $ 124 $ 4,272

Northwest $ 3,665 $ 50 $ 53 $ 3,768

U.S. $ 38,375 $ 481 $ 973 $ 39,828

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2840*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

81 2841

The estimated regional costs under the final rule are presented in Table 3.3

- 2 9

. In total, 2842

notification requirements under the final WPS are expected to cost $51.4 million per year. Early 2843

entry information is estimated to cost $1.2 million per year, an increase of $706,000. Given 2844

nearly 313,000 WPS farms that may be impacted, the cos t per WPS farm is around $2.25 per 2845

year. Pesticide safety displays are expected to cost almost $1.4 million per year, implying an 2846

incremental cost of $389,000 per year. Almost 375,000 WPS farms may be affected, including 2847

farms that do not employ workers for hand labor activities. On average, the cost per WPS farm 2848

is just over $1.00 per year, but costs will be higher for farms using large labor crews. 2849

2850

Table 3.3

- 2 9 . Regional Costs under Final Rule

, Notification Requirements, Total 2851

Region REI

Notification s Early Entry

Information Pesticide Safety

Displays RC Ri F 1

($1,000)

South 6,970 $ 164 $ 208 $ 7,342

California 4,489 $ 127 $ 82 $ 4,699

Southwest 1,645 $ 40 $ 46 $ 1,731

Subtropical 1,559 $ 41 $ 37 $ 1,636

Midwest 9,378 $ 215 $ 294 $ 9,886

Northeast 5,358 $ 132 $ 144 $ 5,634

Ohio Valley 9,869 $ 229 $ 302 $ 10,400

Texas/Mt West 5,566 $ 127 $ 174 $ 5,867

Northwest 3,970 $ 112 $ 74 $ 4,155

U.S. $ 48,803 $ 1,187 $ 1,362 $51,352

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2852

2853

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. 2854

There are no changes over time in the requirements for notification. Thus, the PV of costs over 2855

the ten

- year time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in 2856

Chapter 3.2.2. 2857

2858

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2859

Table 3.3

- 30 presents the PV of notification costs under the final rule, under the baseline, and the 2860

incremental costs of the revisions. Incremental costs vary substantially across reg ions due to 2861

differences in the number of farms and workers covered by the WPS. 2862

2863*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

82 Table 3.3

- 30 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , Notification

. 2864

Region PV( RC

o F i ) PV( RC

o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South $64,510 $ 48,25 0 $ 16,259 $ 1,851

California $41,282 $ 37,6 21 $ 3,661 $ 417

Southwest $ 15, 211 $ 11,747 $ 3,464 $ 394

Subtropical $ 14, 378 $ 12,018 $ 2,361 $ 269

Midwest $86,836 $ 63,193 $ 23,670 $ 2,694

Northeast $49,505 $ 39,058 $ 10,447 $ 1,189

Ohio Valley $91,378 $ 67,408 $ 23,970 $ 2,728

Texas/Mountain West $51,551 $ 37,537 $ 14,013 $ 1,595

Northwest $36,508 $ 33,103 $ 3,405 $ 388

National $451,186 $349,936 $101,251 $11,524

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 2865

2866

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement. 2867

The PV national incremental cost of revisions to the notification requirement s is estimated to be 2868

$ 1 01 million over ten years, or about $ 1 1.5 million dollars annually. EPA estimates that there 2869

are 374,794 affected farms imp lying an annual cost of about $ 30.75 per farm. The cost per farm 2870

varies considerably across the type of farm, however . Estimated incremental costs range from 2871

only less than $0.50 per year for a farm that employs handlers, but not field workers, to $ 44 per 2872

year for a small farm that employs field workers . EPA estimates that small farms employing 2873

field workers incur higher costs than other kinds of farms because the requirement to post REIs 2874

longer than 48 hours. Large farms, employing m any workers, are already likely to post REIs 2875

rather than try to orally notify all workers . However, the cost to small farms may be 2876

overestimated since it is assumed that all workers are present throughout the entire growing 2877

season implying that they must be notified of all application s

. If most workers are present only 2878

during the harvest season, notification and posting of many early season pesticide applications 2879

are unnecessary. 2880

2881

Using more refined estimates of farmworkers implies that 272,172 farms woul d be impacted by 2882

revisions to the notification requirements at a total annual cost of $ 3.4 to $ 3.6 million. The 2883

estimated cost per farm would be less than $ 15 per year , on average, because so many of the 2884

farms, 182,263, would be considered ‘handler

- only’ and would not be impacted by either the 2885

REI or early entry requirements in either the baseline or under the final rule

. If all 465,766 farms 2886

estimated to produce crops and hire labor employ workers in hand labor activities, the 2887

incremental cost of the rev isions to the notification requirements is estimated to cost $16.4 2888

million per year for an average of $35 per year per farm. 2889

2890



### 3.3. 4 Age 2891

2892

EPA is placing minimum age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter 2893

areas subject to an REI if they are not an exempted family member . These restrictions could 2894

raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, bet ter paid 2895

employees in place of younger, lower paid s taff. 2896*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

83 2897

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 2898

In estimating the impact of age requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology 2899

described in Chapter 3.3.1. The baseline in these situations is no t the cost of complying with 2900

current requirements; the baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the difference 2901

with labor costs under the new requirement. 2902

2903

Minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is currently no federal age restriction within the 2904

WPS although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling 2905

pesticides classified as Category I or II toxicity

. California has a minimum age of 18 for 2906

handling pesticides in toxicity categories I and II and a few states have set minimum age 2907

requirements for handlers of Restricted Use Pesticides. 2908

2909

Table 3

. 3

- 31 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling 2910

tasks

. EPA has found no data regarding wage differentials by age categories , but it seems 2911

reasonable that factors such as age and experience would contribute to higher wages. We 2912

a ssum e that 14 to 15

- year olds are paid 60 percent of the hourly wage of adults and that 16 to 17 2913

year olds are paid 75 percent of adult wages. The unl oaded wage rate for adult handlers is 2914

$ 13.70 per hour ( BLS

, 20 14 b ). EPA calculates the wage for adole scent handlers on

- farm to be 2915

$8.22 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $ 10.28 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former 2916

is somewhat higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and seems reasonable for 2917

an adolescent in a skilled position

. Loaded wages are, therefore, $1 2.03 and $1 5.03 per hour for 2918

14 and 15 year olds and for 16 and 17 year olds , respectively. 2919

2920

Among employees surveyed by th e National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who 2921

indicate having mixed or applied pesticides in the previous five years, 0.4 1 percent were 14

- and 2922

15

- year olds, 1.87 percent were 16

- and 17

- year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. This 2923

propo rtion is then weighted by the likelihood that a handler works on a farm that uses pesticides. 2924

Table 3.3

- 31 presents the overall average for a WPS farm that employs farmworkers. The 2925

survey further indicated that handlers under the age of 18 performed on a verage 50 hours per 2926

year of handler

- related activities. Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of 2927

adolescent handlers, we calculate an expected cost per WPS handler for these tasks of about 2928

$1 5.60 per handler per year. For a WPS farm that only employs handl ers, the expected cost is 2929

$13.70 per handler per year since the proportion of those farms using pesticides is somewhat 2930

lower than that for farms employing farmworkers. 2931

2932

Table 3

. 3

- 31

. Baseline Labor C osts for Handlers, by Age , WPS Farm 2933

Age Ca tegory and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost

14

- 15 Year Old $ 12.03 50 0.004 $ 2.33

16

- 17 Year Old $ 1 5.03 50 0.01 8 $ 13.27

Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 15.60

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2934

2935

The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner. However, there are no data estimating the 2936

number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. According to the Current Population 2937*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

84 Survey (BLS, 2014a) , in 2013, about 77,000 people were employed in pest control occupations 2938

within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance, of which 1,000 were 2939

aged 16 to 19, or 1.3 percent of the workforce. This occupational category does not exactly align 2940

with agricultural handlers and potentially overstates the proportion of the workforce consisting of 2941

adolescents due to the potential liabilities of applying pesticides to crops. EPA assumes that no 2942

ha n dl e rs are less than 16 years of age due to the c ommercial nature of the work. Further, we 2943

assume that these handlers work part time, but seasonally, spending on average 16 weeks on the 2944

job and working 40 hours per week. This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer 2945

employment. Labor costs assume that 16 and 17 year

- olds are paid 75 percent of the average 2946

adult wage. The expected labor cost, averaged across all workers, is estimated to be $145.15. 2947

2948

Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. A s noted in the 2949

Notification section (Chapter 3.3.3), e ntry during a restricted

- entry interval may occur if there is 2950

an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no contact with 2951

treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities. 2952

2953

Tabl e 3.3

- 3 2 presents the estimated baseline costs for adolescents who may be asked to engage 2954

in agricultural activities in a field that is under a REI. The average unloaded wage rate of $ 10.01 2955

per hour is used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA ha s assumed that 16 and 17 year 2956

old field workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year old field 2957

workers would earn about 50% of the average wage. Thus, the unloaded wage rates are 2958

calculated as $ 6.01 per hour for 16 and 17 yea r olds and $ 5.01 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. 2959

EPA notes that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for 2960

young workers during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer. Loaded wages 2961

are calculated to be $8. 79 and $ 7.32 per hour, respectively. The hours worked in these early 2962

entry situations are expected to be of short duration , probably around four hours . For example, a 2963

grower may need to reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or 2964

vegetables from a freeze

. 2965

2966

Finally, the proportion of adolescent workers, out of all farm workers, engaged in these tasks will 2967

be very small. In this analysis, EPA has assumed that there will be one early entry event for 2968

every 50 pesticide applications a nd that, on average, half of the farm’s workers will be engaged 2969

in associated tasks. As shown in the analysis of the costs of providing information to workers 2970

engaged in early entry, less than one

- third of all workers are estimated to be involved in early 2971

entry situations each year, on average

. The fraction of workers under 18 is not known. 2972

According to information analyzed by USDA (ERS, 2014) , about 27 percent of farm laborers 2973

and supervisors are under 25 years of age. Assuming a nearly uniform distrib ution over 11 years 2974

between 14 and 25, we assume about five percent of workers under the age of 25 are 14, 7

. 5 2975

percent are 15 and 16, and nin e percent are 17 years old. Then only about 3

. 4 percent of the 2976

farm labor workforce is under 16 and 4 .5 percent ar e 16 and 17 years old. Weighting the 2977

estimated proportion of workers involved in early entry activities by the estimated proportion of 2978

adolescents in the workforce results in estimates of the proportion of adolescents in the 2979

workforce that might engage in early entry activities

. This fraction is then weighted by the 2980

likelihood that a WPS farm worker is employed on an establishment that uses pesticides , 91.3 2981

percent, resulting in the estimated fraction of adolescents engaged in early entry activities our o f 2982

all workers: 0.7 percent for 14 and 15 year olds and 0. 8 percent for 16 and 17 year olds

. 2983*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

85 2984

Table 3 .3

- 3 2

. Baseline Labor C osts for Early Entry, by Age 2985

Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost

Baseline, WPS Farm

14

- 15 Year Old $ 7.32 4 0.00 6 $ 0.1 8

16

- 17 Year Old $ 8.79 4 0.00 8 $ 0.2 9

Expected Cost ( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 0.4 7

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2986

2987

EPA estimates a cost of $0.4 7 per worker per year, on average, for labor costs associated with 2988

early entry activities by adolescents. This is an average across all workers, recognizing that the 2989

age distribution of workers will vary across time and that event requiring early entr y are 2990

infrequent. If we consider the average large WPS farm that employs 18 workers, the expected 2991

annual labor cost for early entry activities by adolescents would be about $ 8.5 0 per year, which 2992

amounts to slightly more than one hour of labor. 2993

2994

Step 2 . Ca lculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement 2995

Minimum age for pesticide handlers. To calculate labor costs under the final rule, the time of 2996

adolescent handlers is replaced by adult labor . For a WPS farm

, the expected cost is estimated to 2997

be $ 21.57 per handler per year ($1 8 .9 5 for a farm with handlers only) and for a CPHE, the cost is 2998

$19 3.54 per handler per year

. See Table 3.3

- 33

. 2999

3000

Table 3

. 3

- 33

. Labor C osts for Handlers under Final Rule , by Age 3001

Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost

Final Rule, WPS Farm with fieldworkers

Expected Cost

( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 20.04 50 0.0 2 2 $ 21.57

Final Rule, WPS Farm without fieldworkers

Expected Cost

( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 20.04 50 0.0 19 $ 18.95

Final Rule, CPHE

Expected Cost

( cost Labor ,i, a B ) $ 23.26 640 0.013 $193.54

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3002

3003

Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. As it is unlikely that a 3004

farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any 3005

under

- age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum 3006

age or older for these limited events. Thus, the req uirement is likely to impose negligible costs 3007

on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs associated with 3008

shifting employees between tasks or across time. 3009

3010*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

86 As an upper bound, however, we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher 3011

paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. The expected cost is estimated 3012

to be $ 0. 84 per worker per year, gi ven an adult wage rate of $14.64 per hour. 3013

3014

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Co sts 3015

As per the methodology described in Section 3.3.2, w e estimate the regional level baseline and 3016

compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in each region that 3017

are affected by the requirements and summing across the variou s actors

. 3018

3019

RC

r

, i X

t = ∑

cost

r

, a X

t × N

a

, i t

a 3020

3021

Table 3.3

- 3 4 present s the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Section 3.2

. 3022

Under current requirements, the national cost for adolescent labor, in handler and early entry 3023

activities, is estimated to be $ 7.5 million per year. 3024

3025

Table 3.3

- 3 4

. Baseline Labor Costs, Minimum Age 3026

WPS Handler

Farm with

Fieldworkers WPS Handler

Farm without

Fieldworkers CPHE

Handler WPS

Worker

RC R i B t=1

($1,000) cost Age ,a B $ 15.60 $ 13.70 $145.15 $ 0.4 7

South 32,993 13,002 2,076 225,386 $ 1,099

California 12,938 5,099 644 324,709 $ 517

Southwest 7,332 2,889 329 63,032 $ 231

Subtropical 1 5,822 2,295 372 84,042 $ 247

Midwest 46,578 18,356 3,480 255,947 $ 1,602

Northeast 22,858 9,008 1,360 227,297 $ 783

Ohio Valley 47,872 18,866 3,609 294,148 $ 1,666

Texas/Mt West 27,602 10,878 1,761 152,804 $ 906

Northwest 11,644 4,589 687 282,688 $ 476

U.S. 21 5 ,6 38 84,983 14,320 1,910,055 $ 7, 528

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3027

1 Basel ine cost per WPS worker is $0.84 because of state minimum age of 18 for workers to engage in 3028

early entry activities. 3029

3030

Table 3.3

- 3 5 present s the expected labor costs under the minimum age requirements

. T he 3031

national cost , replacing adolescent labor in handler and early entry activities with adult labor, is 3032

estimated to be $ 1 0 .6 million per year. 3033

3034*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

87 Table 3.3

- 3 5

. Labor Costs under Final Rule

, Minimum Age Restrictions 3035

W PS Handler

Farm with

Fieldworkers WPS Handler

Farm without

Fieldworkers CPHE

Handler WPS

Worker

RC R i F t=1

($1,000) cost Age ,a F $ 21.57 $ 18.95 $193.54 $ 0. 84

South 32,993 13,002 2,076 225,386 $ 1,549

California 12,938 5,099 644 324,709 $ 772

Southwest 7,332 2,889 329 63,032 $ 329

Subtropical 1 5,822 2,295 372 84,042 $ 311

Midwest 46,578 18,356 3,480 255,947 $ 2,240

Northeast 22,858 9,008 1,360 227,297 $ 1,117

Ohio Valley 47,872 18,866 3,609 294,148 $ 2,335

Texas/Mt West 27,602 10,878 1,761 152,804 $ 1,270

Northwest 11,644 4,589 687 282,688 $ 708

U.S. 215,638 84,983 14,320 1,910,055 $ 10,632

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3036

3037

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. 3038

There are no changes over time in the age requirements. Thus, the PV of costs over the ten

- year 3039

time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter 3040

3.2.2. 3041

3042

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 3043

Table 3.3

- 3 6 presents the PV of labor costs under the final rule, under the baseline, and the 3044

incremental costs of the minimum age requirements. Incremental costs vary substantially across 3045

regions due to the number of workers in each region. 3046

3047

Table 3.3

- 3 6 . PV of Final , Baseli ne , and Incremental Costs , Minimum Age

. 3048

Region PV( RC

o F i ) PV( RC

o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 13,632 9,677 3,955 450

California 6,793 4,545 2,248 256

Southwest 2,898 2,034 865 98

Subtropical 2,741 2,170 571 65

Midwest 19,726 14,111 5,616 639

Northeast 9,834 6,895 2,939 334

Ohio Valley 20,558 14,671 5,887 670

Texas/Mountain West 11,183 7,980 3,203 365

Northwest 6,227 4,189 2,038 232

National 93,593 66,272 27,321 3,110

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 3049

3050

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement. 3051

The PV national incremental cost of imposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers and workers 3052

entering a field under a REI is estimated to be $ 27.3 million over ten years, or about $ 3.1 million 3053

dollars annually. Agricultural establishments bear slightly more than $2. 4 million in annual 3054

costs while costs to C PHEs is estimated to be about $ 7 0 0,000 annually. Given an estimated 3055*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

88 1,936 CPHEs, the cost pe r firm is around $36 0 per year. This cost is likely overstated as it is 3056

based on very conservative assumptions regarding the amount of time adolescents are hired to 3057

handle pesticides. 3058

3059

EPA estimates that there are 374,791 affected farms implying an annual cost of about $ 8.3 0 per 3060

farm. The cost per farm varies considerably across the type of farm, however. Estimated costs 3061

range from only about a dollar per year for a small farm that employs field workers , but not 3062

handlers. Farms that employ handlers only are expected to bear costs of around seven dollars per 3063

year. Large farms with both handlers and fieldworkers are expected to incur additional costs of 3064

$10 to $ 30 per year

. 3065

3066

If the number of farmworkers is lower than the number of employees reported in th e Census of 3067

Agriculture , then EPA estimates that 272,172 farms would be impacted by the minimum age 3068

requirements at a total annual cost of about $ 2.9 million annually

. If we use the number of 3069

farmworkers estimated by USDA, the total cost of the minimum ag e requirement is estimated to 3070

be $2.8 million per year, with an average cost per farm of $ 10 .40 , on average, with large WPS 3071

farms incurring additional labor costs of about $ 30 per year, on average, and small WPS farms 3072

incurring incremental costs of less th an four dollars per year and about $1.50 per year if the farm 3073

does not employ a handler

. 3074

3075

These requirements could result in higher labor costs for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. 3076

Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be 3077

transfer of wages from adolescents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults. 3078

3079



### 3.3. 5 Entry 3080

3081

Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide 3082

residues. Unlike the training

, hazard communication, and notification provisions , which require 3083

farm operators, agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving 3084

information or to purchase materials, the entry restrictions do not require specific activitie s or 3085

materials. Primarily, the revisions provide greater specificity to existing regulations. At most, 3086

t he cos t of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management burden of scheduling 3087

work activities and pesticide applications to minimize c onflicts. This burden is not readily 3088

quantified and will be discussed qualitatively

. 3089

3090

Entry into treatment area s

. During an application, th e employer must ensure that workers do not 3091

e nt e r into the area being treated ; only appropriately trained and equipp ed handlers may be in the 3092

area

. Further, the handler must not apply a pesticide in a manner that results in contact to other 3093

people. 3094

3095

In the final rule, EPA is establishing an “application exclusion zone” extending 25 to 100 feet 3096

around the application eq uipment, depending on the application method. The employer must 3097

keep workers out of this zone and the handler must cease application if he or sh e observes 3098

someone other than a trained and equipped handler in the zone. 3099

3100*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

89 Compared to the existing requirement s, the application exclusion zone could require an employer 3101

to move workers away from the edge of the treatment area as the application equipment passes. 3102

This would be a very temporary disruption in any worker activity, however, and would not lead 3103

to quan tifiable impacts on the agricultural establishment

. On the part of the handler, the 3104

requirement to cease the application if someone is seen in the exclusion zone simply clarifies the 3105

applicator’s responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable cos ts. 3106

3107

E ntry into treated areas under REI

. Under certain situations , agricultural employers can send 3108

workers into treated areas even during the REI. There is an exception from the prohibition to 3109

enter an area under an REI when there is no possibility of contact, as when the person is in an 3110

enclosed vehicle. The other exceptions are for short

- term tasks, limited contact tasks, irrigation 3111

tasks, and in the case of an agricultural emergency. Most exceptions require early ent ry 3112

personnel to wear PPE, do not allow hand labor

, and may include other limitations such as 3113

specify ing that contact with treated surfaces must be limited to feet, lower legs, hands and 3114

forearms. A person is limited to one hour within the treated area und er the short

- term exception. 3115

Limited contact and irrigation tasks exceptions are limited to eight hours within the treated area. 3116

Hand labor activities are allowed in the case of an agricultural emergency, but there is currently 3117

no limit on the time a wor ker may be in the treated area. 3118

3119

The final rule will impose a time limit of four hours for workers to be in the treated area in the 3120

case of an agricultural emergency, if the pesticide product requires double notification. As 3121

explained in Chapter 3.3.3, a double notification product is one which the Agency has 3122

determined to pose sufficient risk to warrant that workers be informed both orally and by posting 3123

that a REI is in effect. This new restriction is not expected to have measureable impacts. 3124

Throughou t this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early 3125

entry event is about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide 3126

applications. This probability covers all early entry events, not just agricultu ral emergencies. 3127

Further, EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or ten percent, involve 3128

double notification products, i.e. , those requiring both oral notification and physical posting. 3129

Since the probability of a problem occurring shor tly after a pesticide application is independent 3130

of the pest icide, the likelihood of a situation arising after the use of a double notification product 3131

is small. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be involved in an early 3132

entry event . The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers if the time limit is 3133

reached. This will involve some management burden, but is unlikely to result in a significant 3134

impact

. 3135

3136

The exception, of course, would be small operations with only on e worker or two workers, both 3137

of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are 3138

needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely 3139

negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 3140

place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, a task that would not be of long 3141

duration on a small operation. Note that the limit is on the amount of time spent in the treated 3142

are a, meaning that a worker could enter and exit the area multiple times, so long as cumulative 3143

time within the treated area did not exceed four hours. 3144

3145*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

90 

### 3.3. 6 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 3146

3147

Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label to avo id unreasonable adverse effects that 3148

might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling pesticides or entering fields 3149

during a REI . The revisions to the WPS in this category are intended to improve the use and 3150

efficacy of PPE. Specifically, the revisions will (1) impose a requirement that handlers must 3151

obtain a respirator fit test before handling a pesticide that requires use of a respirator, (2) set 3152

performance standards for closed systems that are used in place of some PPE, an d (3) require 3153

employees working under Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs) to wear PPE if entering a field under 3154

a REI. Costs to establishments may be a combination of additional materials such as additional 3155

equipment or more frequent changes in filters and a dd itional time required for fit testing and 3156

record keeping. Most actions or material will be required only of WPS farms that use products 3157

that have certain label requirements, but costs are often assumed to affect a large proportion of 3158

WPS farms. This will lead to a substantial overestimation of costs

. 3159

3160

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 3161

3162

Respirator fit test. Currently, employers are required to insure that respirators fit properly but 3163

there are no specific procedures for doing so. Thus, in the baseline, procedures are probably 3164

minimal, consisting of some individual adjustments at the time of an application. As shown in 3165

Table 3.3

- 3 7 , EPA assumes this operation takes about six minutes of interaction, on average, 3166

between the employer and the handler. Pesticides bearing l abel requirements for respirators are 3167

not common, but there are a few commonly used pestic ides with the requirement. EPA assumes 3168

that about 60 percent of farms that primarily produce crops, i.e.

, not livestock operations , will 3169

use these products

. Accounting for the fact that not all farms will use pesticides every year, EPA 3170

estimates about 40 percent of large farms and large

- small farms will use a product requiring a 3171

respirator. A farm is unlikely to need more than one handler when using these products, so for 3172

ease we calculate costs at the farm level

. Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because 3173

the requirement has been incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil 3174

fumigants. The total estimated cost of a respirator fit test is estimated to be almost $ 18 0, as 3175

detailed in Appendix B . Based on data of fumigant u se from proprietary sources, EPA estimates 3176

about 1,000 farms apply fumigant s ap plications on farm, or about 0. 4 percent of farms

. 3177

3178

Table 3.3

- 3 7

. Baseline Costs

, per Large and Large

- Small WPS farm, Respirator F it

. 3179

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Employer instructs on

proper use $ 33.44 /hr 0.10 hour 0. 390 $ 1.31

Handler receives

instructions on use $ 20.04 /hr 0.10 hour 0. 390 $ 0. 78

Respirator fit test $ 178.59 1 0.00 4 $ 0. 80

Expected Cost cost r,i, a B $ 2.88

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3180

3181*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

91 EPA does not estimate costs for family farms whose operators use a respirator when required by 3182

the label, although the handler undoubtedly spends some time familiarizing him or herself with 3183

the use of a respirator , since this activity would be unchanged by the fit test requirement

. 3184

3185

The cost for CPHE handlers to be fit tested are part of the baseline since they must be fit tested 3186

under OSHA requirements. EPA assumes that CPHEs would mainly purchase fit test kits as 3187

there would be several handlers to be tested, as required by OSHA. A new kit may be needed 3188

every other year, while replacement tubes for the smoke or odor test would b e needed every year. 3189

Firm level costs are estimated to be $2 0 1 per year, on average. Assuming half the handlers in a 3190

fir m obtain the testing, the average cost per CPH E handler is estimated to be $40 per year. 3191

3192

C losed systems that substitute for PPE. Cur rent WPS exceptions allow handlers to reduce the 3193

PPE they wear if they transfer pesticides using a closed system in which a pesticide can be mixed 3194

and loaded into an application system without its release. The existing rule does not clearly 3195

describe the s pecific characteristics of an acceptable closed system, implying that there could be 3196

a wide range of systems currently in operation. In practice, however, a closed system is does not 3197

have to be complex. Simply put, it is designed for mixing and loading p esticides in a manner 3198

that allows transfer of a pesticide from its original container into a new container, mix tank, or 3199

application equipment, while limiting the handler's exposure to the pesticide. The expected per

3200

farm cost of a system, accounting for systems that are only partially closed, is estimated in Table 3201

3.3

- 3 8 for a large WPS farm

. This is not a regulatory cost; closed systems are not required. 3202

Based on a report from the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at the University 3203

of California at Davis (Giles and Billing , 2013), a fully closed system could cost $333.62. Given 3204

the components, and EPA’s observations in the field, there are two likely points where a n 3205

existing pesticide transfer system might not be fully closed: the lack of a tank fitting to transfer 3206

the diluted pesticide into the application equipment and the lack of an adaptor for the pesticide 3207

concentrate container to transfer it into the mix tank. The tank fitting costs app roximately $20 3208

and is not likely to be the common problem. A system that lacks an adaptor for the pesticide 3209

container would cost $149.75, according to Giles and Billing (2013) , but would not be fully 3210

closed. EPA estimates the annual cost for maintenance and replacement as the cost of the whole 3211

system, depreciated over ten years at an interest rate of eight percent. 3212

3213

EPA estimates that almost one

- third of large WPS farms use a closed system. We assume that 3214

about half the large WPS farms that primarily pro duce oilseeds and grains, fruits, vegetables, 3215

cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses

, will use a closed system. Other farms, 3216

such as those that primarily produce livestock or forage crops probably would not have a closed 3217

system. Simila r ly, we assume 40 percent of large

- small WPS farms that primarily produce 3218

fruits, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses

, will have a closed 3219

system ; thus, we estimate about 7.2 percent of large

- small WPS farms have a closed s ystem

. 3220

Finally, family farms are allowed to substitute a closed system for certain label

- required PPE 3221

through the WPS. We assume that one

- third of large family farms that primarily produce 3222

oilseeds and grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as well as nurseries and greenhouses, 3223

will use a closed system, which amounts to 18.8 percent of large family farms. 3224

3225

We conservatively estimate that only 40 percent of farms with closed systems have a fully closed 3226

system

. 3227*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

92 3228

Even with a closed system, employers must make PPE available. PPE consist of coveralls, 3229

overshoes, and gloves, which cost $27.65 and are expected to last five years , but these 3230

assumptions are unimportant as these costs are not expected to change under the revised 3231

definition . Final ly, each year the employer is anticipated to spend about 15 minutes instructing 3232

an employee in the operation of the system. The total expected cost of a closed system is 3233

estimated to average, across all large WPS farm $ 17.75 per year. Across all large

- sm all WPS 3234

farms, the expected annual cost is estimated to be $ 3.85 and across large family farms the 3235

expected cost is estimated at $ 10.09 per year. A CPHE may have two systems, but are more 3236

likely to have fully closed systems than are private farms. EPA as sumes 70 percent of the CPHE 3237

systems have all the appropriate fittings and adapters. A CPHE is assumed to train four of the 3238

handlers in their operation. Total annual costs are estimated to be $128. 27 . A self

- employed 3239

commerc ial handler may have one syst em but has no employees to train, implying annual costs 3240

of $48.42. 3241

3242

Table 3.3

- 3 8 . Per

- Large WPS Farm Baseline Costs , Closed System

. 3243

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Fully Closed System 1 $49.72 1 0

. 133 $ 6.59

Partially Closed System 2 $22.32 1 0

. 199 $ 4.44

PPE upkeep 3 $ 6.93 1 0. 331 $ 2.29

Employer provides

instruction $ 33.44 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 2.77

Employee receives

instruction $2 0.04 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 1.66

Expected Cost cost r,i, a B $ 17.75

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3244

1 A closed system is estimated to cost $ 333.62 ( Giles and Billing , 201 3 ). Annual cost calculated as the 3245

depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight percent. 3246

2 A system that lacks the adaptor for the pesticide container is estimated to cost $149.75 ( Giles and 3247

Billing, 2013 ). Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight 3248

percent. 3249

3 Total PPE cost is estimated to be $27.65. Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over five years 3250

at an interest of eight percent. 3251

3252

PPE e xceptions for e mployees under the supervision of CCAs. CCAs assist growers to plan 3253

production activities such as irrigation or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for 3254

soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically 3255

damaging level s . Under current exc eptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction 3256

of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. There is no particular baseline cost to be calculated in 3257

this situation

. 3258

3259*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

93 Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement 3260

3261

Respirator fit tes t. The requirement w ill specify the procedures to be used to ensure proper 3262

respirator fit, in line with OSHA requirements

. Further, the revisions require that the fitting must 3263

occur every year, provide for training the handler to wear a respirator, and r equire records of the 3264

fit test to be maintained. The costs of this requirement include the time required for handlers to 3265

complete a medical screening and have a fit test. The actions and materials required are shown 3266

in Table 3.3

- 3 9

. Medical screen ing i s available on line and, since 86 percent of all farms with 3267

revenue greater than $500,000 per year have internet access (NASS, 2015), most handlers would 3268

be able to complete the survey in about 30 minutes to complete and would receive results in a 3269

day or tw o. Costs are estimated at $27 per person (Affordable Safety Training, 2015). In some 3270

cases, the handler must o b tain further medical clearance, which EPA conservatively estimates to 3271

be in 25 percent of the cases. The medical exam is assumed to take about 90 minutes, including 3272

travel, and cost $72.17 , based on the medicaid reimbursement for a medical evaluation (see 3273

Section 4.5.4)

. Once cleared, the handler takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 3274

90 minutes, including some travel time. In a follow

- up to comments submitted by several state 3275

lead agencies, EPA requested additional information about the cost of fit tests. Oregon reported 3276

several sources with fit test cost between $35 and $80; we estimate $50 per handler in this 3277

scenario . It is also possible for employers to order fit tests, ranging in price from $80 to $140, 3278

which would last several years with replacement smoke or odor tubes. Kits also include training 3279

materials and might be a less expensive option. EPA also includes an hou r of the employer’s 3280

time to manage the process, including setting up the medical screen and arranging or 3281

administering the testing. Accounting for the possibility of a medical examination, the expected 3282

cost per handler of the fit test is $ 178.59 . In addi tion, the employer must collect and store the 3283

documentation. 3284

3285

In the baseline, EPA assumed that about 60 percent of most crop

- producing farms use products 3286

requiring a respirator. Under the rule, we assume 75 percent of these farms will have a handler 3287

obta in the necessary fit testing in case the need for such a product arises during the year. As a 3288

result, we estimate that 53.5 percent of large WPS farms and 13.5 percent of large

- small WPS 3289

farms , approximately 6 2 ,000 handlers per year, will take the respira tor fit test. The expected cost 3290

across all large WPS farms of the fit test requirement is calculated to be $ 96.76 , as shown in 3291

Table 3.3

- 34

. For large

- small WPS farms, the average cost is estimated to be $24.35 per year. 3292

See Appendix B. 3293

3294*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

94 Table 3.3

- 3 9 . Costs under Final Rule

, Large WPS Farm, Respirator F it T est. 3295

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Medical evaluation $ 20.04 /hr 0.5 hour 0. 535 $ 5.36

On

- line evaluation $27.00 1 0. 535 $ 14.45

Time for follow

- up exam 1 $ 20.04 /hr 2 hour 0. 134 $ 5.36

Follow

- up medical exam 1 $72.17 1 0. 134 $ 9.66

Time for fit test, with travel $ 20.04 /hr 1.5 hour 0. 535 $ 16.09

Fit test and training $50.00 1 0. 535 $ 26.76

Employer management $ 33.44 /hr 1 hour 0. 535 $ 17.90

Collect/Store documentation $ 33.44 /hr 0.067 hour 0. 535 $ 1.19

cost r,i, a F $ 96.76

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3296

1 EPA assumes approximately 25 percent of handlers taking the medical evaluation will be referred for 3297

a more complete medical examination. 3298

3299

Pesticide handlers on family farms will also be required to obtain a respirator fit test if they use a 3300

product requiring a respirator. EPA calculates that 22.6 percent of la rge family farms and 2.3 3301

percent of large

- small family farms, assuming 40 percent of large farms that primarily produce 3302

oilseeds and grains and 40 percent of large and large

- small farms that primarily produce fruits, 3303

vegetables, cotton, and tobacco, as wel l as nurseries and greenhouses, will choose to obtain the 3304

fit test. For CPHEs, the rule will entail some additional cost for record

- keeping , increasing the 3305

expected cost per handler to $ 41.06 per year

. 3306

3307

C losed systems that substitute for PPE. EPA is a dop ting a broad definition, a performance

- based 3308

standard, and basic operating standards for closed systems . The operating standards require the 3309

handler employer to ensure that written operating instructions for the closed system are available, 3310

that the handl er receives training on use of the closed system, and that the system is maintained 3311

according to the written instructions. The impacts of changing the definition will be to clarify 3312

that there must be a proper fitting into the spray tank and from the pesticide container. Thus, 3313

under the rule, all farms using a closed system will have a fully closed system and the associated 3314

depreciation costs. The employer or operator must have written operating instructions, which 3315

EPA estimates may take two hours to develop but which would only have to be rewritten about 3316

e v e ry five years. The instructions, however, may have to be replaced every two years due to 3317

wear and tear . Other c osts are the same as in the baseline, as shown in Table 3.3

- 40 . EPA 3318

calculates the cost f or a large WPS farm to be $ 27.63 per year, on average, across all large WPS 3319

farms. 3320

3321*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

95 Table 3.3

- 40 . Per

- Large WPS Farm Costs under Final Rule , Closed System

. 3322

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Fully Closed System 1 $49.72 1 0. 331 $ 16.47

PPE upkeep 3 $ 6.93 1 0. 331 $ 2.29

Write operating instructions $ 33.44 /hour 2 0. 066 $ 4.43

Operating instructions $ 0.02/sheet 1 0. 166 $ 0.0 0

Employer provides instruction $ 33.44 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 2.77

Employee receives instruction $ 20.04 /hour 0.25 hour 0. 331 $ 1.66

Expected Cost cost r,i, a F $ 27.63

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3323

1 A closed system is estimated to cost $333.62 ( Giles and Billing, 2013 ). Annual cost calculated as the 3324

depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight percent. 3325

2 A system that lacks the adaptor for the pe sticide container is estimated to cost $149.75 ( Giles and 3326

Billing, 2013 ). Annual cost calculated as the depreciation over 10 years at an interest of eight 3327

percent. 3328

3 Total PPE cost is estimated to be $27.65. Annual cost calculated as the depreciation ove r five years 3329

at an interest of eight percent. 3330

3331

Average costs under the revised rule are estimated to be lower for other farms because they are 3332

less likely to use closed systems. EPA estimates the cost under the revised rule to be $ 5.99 per 3333

year, on averag e, for large

- small WPS farms, and $ 15.71 per year for large family farms, given 3334

only 7.2 percent of the former and 18.8 percent of the latter are likely to use a closed system. 3335

The cost for CPHEs and self

- employed commercial handlers, including the writte n operating 3336

instruct ions, is estimated to be $157.80 per year and $ 69. 7 2 per year, respectively. 3337

3338

PPE e xceptions for employees under the supervision of CCAs. The final rule will not allow non

3339

certified employees of CCAs to forego the labeled use of PPE if they enter a field under a REI. 3340

The impacts of eliminating the exception will be negligible, consisting , at most, of the time it 3341

takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, coveralls) on rare occasions

. Moreover, it would 3342

be rare that scouting acti vities, particularly those conducted by someone not certified, would 3343

occur in fields under a REI. 3344

3345

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 3346

As per the methodology described in Section 3.3.2, w e estimate the regional level baseline and 3347

compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in each region that 3348

are affected by the requirements and summing across the various actors

. 3349

3350

RC

r

, i X

t = ∑

cost

r

, a X

t × N

a

, i t

a 3351

3352

As with the notification requirements, we examine the impacts of the respirator fit requirements 3353

and the new definition for closed systems separately before summing the costs to determine the 3354

impacts of the PPE component as a whole. Table 3.3

- 41 present s the baseline costs for the 3355

existing respir ator requirements for WPS farms , where the number of actors is presented in 3356*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

96 Section 3.2

. As noted above, EPA has not estimated costs for family farms. California and 3357

Washington have higher baseline costs for WPS handlers because they require fit testing for all 3358

handlers working with products requiring a respirator. C urrent ly

, EPA estimates the national 3359

cost for compliance with respirator requirements to be $ 1.8 million per year for WPS farms

. 3360

3361

Table 3.3

- 41

. Baseline Costs, Respirator Fit Requirement, WP S and Family Farms 3362

Large WPS Farm Large

- Small WPS

Farm WPS Farm

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost Respirator

,a B $ 2.88 $ 2.88

Region N i a t

South 12,153 21,688 $ 98

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 22

Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 17

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 138

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 68

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 142

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 $ 82

California, Northwest

cost Respirator

,a B $ 95.57 $ 24.05

California 4,766 8,505 $ 660

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 594

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $1,819

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3363

3364

The costs under the revised respirator fit requirements are presented in Table 3.3

- 42 for WPS and 3365

family farms

. EPA estimates that the new re quirements will cost these establishments about 3366

$ 11.1 million and $ 1.3 mil lion per year , respectively

. This is an estimated increase of $9.3 3367

million per year for WPS farms, which corresponds to an average cost per farm of $42 per year, 3368

given over 220,000 farms potentially affected. Impacts are likely to be concentrated in about 3369

62,000 farms, however, imp lying an average cost per farm of around $180 per year for those 3370

impacted

. Similarly, across 132,000 large and large

- small family farms the average incremental 3371

cost is about nine dollars per farm. There are probably only around 7,000 family farms that wi ll 3372

use products requiring a respirator, however , meaning costs are again about $180 per year for an 3373

impacted farm

. However, b ecause pest pressure varies from year to year and farmers may rotate 3374

the products they use to manage pesticide resistance, the sam e farms may not use products 3375

requiring respirators every year and therefore may not obtain a fit test every year

. 3376

3377*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

97 Table 3.3

- 42

. Costs under Final Rule

, Respirator Fit Requirement, WPS and Family 3378

Farms 3379

Large WPS

Farm Large

Small WPS

Farm WPS Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) Large

Family

Farm Large

- Small

Family

Farm Family

Farm

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost Resp i rator ,a F $ 96.76 $ 24.35 $ 40.89 $ 4.18

Region N i a t N i a t

South 12,153 21,688 $ 1,704 2,899 17,740 $ 193

California 4,766 8,505 $ 668 1,137 6,957 $ 76

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 379 644 3,942 $ 43

Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 301 512 3,131 $ 34

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 2,406 4,093 25,045 $ 272

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 1,181 2,009 12,291 $ 134

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 2,473 4,207 25,741 $ 280

Texas/Mt

West 10,168 18,144 $ 1,426 2,425 14,842 $ 161

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 601 1,023 6,261 $ 68

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $11,138 18,949 115,950 $ 1,260

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3380

3381

Table 3.3

- 4 3 presents the regional and national baseline cost for CPHEs regarding respirators 3382

and closed systems. EPA estimates that CPHEs are currently spending about $96 2 ,000 per year 3383

for respirator fit testing and training and about $2.2 million to purchase and maintain closed 3384

systems. Again, we no te that closed systems are not a requirement under the WPS; a closed 3385

system provides the user with an exception to some label

- required PPE. 3386

3387

Table 3.3

- 4 3

. Baseline Costs, PPE Requirements, CPHEs 3388

Respirator Fit Closed Systems

CPHE CPHE

Handler CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) CPHE CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost PPE ,a B $201.44 $39.97 $128.27

Region N i a t N i a t

South 281 2,076 $ 140 281 $ 144

California 1 87 644 $ 43 87 $ 155

Southwest 45 329 $ 22 45 $ 57

Subtropical 50 372 $ 25 50 $ 31

Midwest 470 3,480 $ 234 470 $ 885

Northeast 184 1,360 $ 91 184 $ 121

Ohio Valley 488 3,609 $ 243 488 $ 340

Texas/Mt West 238 1,761 $ 118 238 $ 173

Northwest 93 687 $ 46 93 $ 318

U.S. 1,936 14,320 $ 962 1,936 $2,224

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3389

1 Baseline costs for a closed system in California estimated to be $144.71. 3390

3391

Table 3.3

- 44 presents CPHE costs for respirators and closed systems under the final rule. 3392

Respirator fit testing and training is estimated to cost $978,000 per year, na tionally, and increase 3393

of about $16,000 over the baseline. The incremental cost to CPHEs is primarily due to new 3394*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

98 recordkeeping requirements and are expected to cost about eight dollars per year per firm. Under 3395

the new definition of closed systems, CPHEs are estimated to incur an incremental cost of about 3396

$894,000 per year or about $21 per firm per year. 3397

3398

Table 3.3

- 44

. Costs under Final Rule

, PPE Requirements, CPHEs 3399

Respirator Fit Closed Systems

CPHE CPHE

Handler CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) CPHE CPHE

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost PPE ,a F $201.44 $41.06 $157.80

Region N i a t N i a t

South 281 2,076 $ 142 281 $ 200

California 87 644 $ 44 87 $ 189

Southwest 45 329 $ 22 45 $ 82

Subtropical 50 372 $ 25 50 $ 43

Midwest 470 3,480 $ 238 470 $1,261

Northeast 184 1,360 $ 93 184 $ 169

Ohio Valley 488 3,609 $ 246 488 $ 476

Texas/Mt West 238 1,761 $ 120 238 $ 243

Northwest 93 687 $ 47 93 $ 455

U.S. 1,936 14,320 $ 978 1,936 $3,118

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3400

3401

Baseline costs for WPS and family farms that operate a closed system are presented in Table 3.3

- 3402

4 5 . Nationally, costs are estimated to be almost $2.0 million and $207 ,000 per year for WPS 3403

farms and family farms, respectively. 3404

3405

Table 3.3

- 4 5

. Baseline Costs, Closed System De finition, WPS and Family Farms 3406

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Farms

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) Large Family

Farm Family

Farms

RC R i B t=1 ($1,000) cost ClosedSystem

,a B $ 17.75 $ 3.85 $ 10.09

Region N i a t N i a t

South 12,153 21,688 $ 299 2,899 $ 31

California 4,766 8,505 $ 153 1,137 $ 1 6

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 66 644 $ 7

Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 53 512 $ 5

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 422 4,093 $ 4 4

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 207 2,009 $ 2 2

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 434 4,207 $ 4 5

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 $ 250 2,425 $ 2 6

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 106 1,023 $ 1 1

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $1,991 18,949 $ 207

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3407

1 Baseline costs for a closed system in California estimated to average $23.19 for large WPS farms, 3408

$5.03 for large

- small WPS farms, and $13.19 for large family farms. 3409

3410

Table 3.3

- 4 6 presents the estimated costs under the final rule, which revises the definition of a 3411

closed system. The cost for WPS farms is estimated to be $3.0 million per year nationally, an 3412*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

99 increase of almost $1.1 million per year over the baseline. The average ac ross all large and 3413

large

- small WPS farms is less than five dollars per year, but only about 36,500 farms will be 3414

impacted by the change in the final rule. The average cost across affected farms is under $30 per 3415

year. The incremental cost to family farms is estimated to be $103,000 per year, which is also 3416

about $30 per year for the estimated 3,600 family farms using closed systems. 3417

3418

Table 3.3

- 4 6

. Costs under Final Rule

, Closed System Definition, WPS and Family Farms 3419

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WP S Farms

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) Large Family

Farm Family

Farms

RC R i F t=1 ($1,000) cost ClosedSystem

,a F $ 27.63 $ 5.99 $ 15.71

Region N i a t N i a t

South 12,153 21,688 $ 466 2,899 $ 4 7

California 4,766 8,505 $ 183 1,137 $ 1 9

Southwest 2,701 4,820 $ 103 644 $ 1 1

Subtropical 2,145 3,827 $ 82 512 $ 8

Midwest 17,158 30,619 $ 657 4,093 $ 6 7

Northeast 8,420 15,026 $ 323 2,009 $ 3 3

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 $ 676 4,207 $ 6 9

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 $ 390 2,425 $ 40

Northwest 4,289 7,655 $ 164 1,023 $ 1 7

U.S. 79,434 141,753 $3,044 18,949 $ 310

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3420

3421

Table 3.3

- 4 7 sums the baseline costs, by actor for each requirement and then across actors for the 3422

region. EPA estimates baseline costs at $7.2 million for the relevant PPE requirements in the 3423

WPS. 3424

3425

Table 3.3

- 4 7

. Baseline Costs, PPE Requirements, Total 3426

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000) Family Farms

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000) CPHEs

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000) Total

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 39 7 $ 31 $ 284 $ 71 2

N a,California $ 813 $ 16 $ 198 $ 1,02 7

N a,Southwest $ 8 8 $ 7 $ 80 $ 175

N a,Subtropical $ 70 $ 5 $ 56 $13 1

N a,Midwest $ 56 0 $ 44 $1,118 $ 1,72 2

N a,Northeast $ 27 5 $ 22 $ 212 $ 509

N a,Ohio Valley $ 57 6 $ 45 $ 582 $ 1,20 3

N a,Texas $ 33 2 $ 22 $ 291 $ 6 49

N a,Northwest $ 700 $ 11 $ 364 $ 1,07 5

U.S. $3,8 11 $ 207 $3,186 $ 7,20 3

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3427

3428

The costs under the final rule are summed in Table 3.3

- 4 8 . EPA estimates costs at $19.8 million, 3429

an increase of $12.6 million. Over $10. 3 million of the incremental costs are borne by WPS 3430*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

100 farms and $1.4 million are borne by family farms , mostly for respirator fit testing. CPHEs bear 3431

about $910,000 of the incremental cost

. 3432

3433

Table 3.3

- 4 8 . Costs under Final Rule

, PPE Requirements, Total 3434

Region WPS Farms

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) Family Farms

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) CPHEs

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000) Total

RC Ri F

1 ($1,000)

N a,South $ 2,170 $ 2 40 $ 342 $ 2,75 2

N a,California $ 851 $ 9 4 $ 233 $ 1,17 8

N a,Southwest $ 482 $ 53 $ 104 $ 6 40

N a,Subtropical $ 383 $ 42 $ 69 $ 494

N a,Midwest $ 3,063 $ 33 3 $ 1,499 $ 4,901

N a,Northeast $ 1,503 $ 16 6 $ 262 $ 1,93 2

N a,Ohio Valley $ 3,148 $ 34 8 $722 $ 4,21 9

N a,Texas $ 1,815 $ 201 $ 363 $ 2,37 9

N a,Northwest $ 766 $ 8 5 $ 502 $ 1,35 3

U.S. $14,182 $ 1,5 70 $ 4,095 $19,847

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3435

3436

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. 3437

There are no changes over time in the PPE requirements. While there are some potential capital 3438

expenses in purchasing new parts for a closed system, we captured that by considering the cost 3439

of depreciation in the annual budget. Thus, the PV of costs over the ten

- year time horizon is 3440

simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter 3.2.2. 3441

3442

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 3443

Table 3.3

- 4 9 presents the PV of costs to meet PPE requirements under the final rule, under the 3444

baseline, as well as the incremental costs. Incremental costs vary substantially across regions 3445

due to the number of farms, CPHEs, and handlers in each region as well as state baselines

. The 3446

increm ental cost is low in California because the state baseline is near or even exceeds the final 3447

federal requirements. 3448

3449*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

101 Table 3.3

- 4 9 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , PPE

. 3450

Region PV( RC

o F i ) PV( RC

o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South $ 24,1 8 7 $ 6,260 $ 17,928 $ 2,040

California $ 10,34 9 $ 9,0 25 $ 1,324 $ 151

Southwest $ 5,621 $ 1,533 $ 4,085 $ 465

Subtropical $ 4,3 41 $ 1,156 $ 3,185 $ 362

Midwest $ 43,0 69 $ 15,142 $ 27,927 $ 3,179

Northeast $ 16,9 77 $ 4,474 $ 12,503 $ 1,423

Ohio Valley $ 37,0 79 $ 10,578 $ 26,502 $ 3,016

Texas/Mountain West $ 20, 909 $ 5,710 $ 15,199 $ 1,730

Northwest $ 11,88 6 $ 9,444 $ 2,442 $ 278

National $174, 419 $ 63,325 $111,094 $ 12,6 44

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 3451

3452

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement. 3453

The PV national incremental cost of revising PPE requirements is estimated to be $1 11 million 3454

over ten years , or about $1 2.6 million annually. Agricultural establishmen ts bear approximately 3455

$1 1.7 million in annual costs while costs to CPHEs is estimated to be about $ 910 ,000 annually. 3456

T he incremental cost per CPHE, including the self

- employed commercial handlers, is estimated 3457

to be less $ 40 per year and primarily results from up grades to existing closed systems

. 3458

3459

EPA estimates that as many as 109,000 farms , including family farms, could be affected by these 3460

provisions, implying an average annual cost of about $ 110 per farm and ranging from about $30 3461

per farm per year up to $210 p er year for a farm that upgrades a closed system and has a handler 3462

undergoing a respirator fit test . The average cost per farm also varies considerably across 3463

regions, depending on current state requirements

. 3464

3465

These cost estimates are not sensitive to our assumptions about the number of farms hiring field 3466

workers and the total number of field workers . All scenarios assume the same number of farms 3467

employing handlers. 3468

3469



### 3.3. 7 Decontamination Supplies 3470

3471

The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of 3472

exposure to pesticides. EPA is finalizing two requirements that better define expected standards 3473

for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees to mitigate 3474

exposures if they occur. The first requires employers to provide three gallons of wash water per 3475

worker if the worker is engaged in tasks in a field under a REI. The second requires employers 3476

to provide six gallons of water and a m eans for rinsing the eyes for handlers who are mixing or 3477

loading a pesticide when some kind of eye protection is needed. Costs to establishments stem 3478

from additional materials needed to meet the requirements

. 3479*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

102 3480

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 3481

3482

Quantity of water available for early entry events. F or tasks in treated areas during a REI , the 3483

WPS requires “sufficient” water be available for decontamination and the “How to Comply” 3484

manual ( EPA, 2006 ) indicates that one gallon per worker would be considered suff icient. Based 3485

on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. (NASS, 201 4a ), a 3486

gallon of water would cost about $0.00 4

. Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized 3487

the probability that an early event occurs on an esta blishment to be 40 percent and assumed that 3488

about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in the activity. Since about 90 3489

percent of workers are employed on farms that used pesticides in 2012, EPA calculates that 18.2 3490

percent of workers may be involved in early entry activities. This implies baseline costs of less 3491

than $0.001 per worker, on average

. 3492

3493

Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements specify that handlers 3494

must have at least one pint of water available w hen working with pesticides for which the label 3495

requires eye protection. Handlers must be provided a water bottle that allows them to rinse in 3496

and around the eyes if there is an exposure to the eye

. A water bottle costs $3.65 at Gempler’s 3497

on

- line store (2014). G iven that some commonly used herbicide products, such as 2,4

- D, and 3498

fungicide product s , such as chlorothalonil, have label requirements for eye protection , EPA 3499

estimates that 84.4 percent of large farms and 63.4 percent of large

- small farms will use a 3500

pesticide that requires eye protection. This includes farms whose primary production includes 3501

oilseeds and grains, cotton, tobacco, fruits

, and vegetables, as well as nurseries and greenhouses. 3502

We also include large farms producing cattle, hogs, sheep, and goats as well as dairy. Bottles are 3503

assumed to last about four years implying that about 21.1 percent of large farms and nearly 16 3504

percent of large and large

- small farms will purchase a wate r bottle every year. The cost per farm 3505

is calculated to be $0.77 per year for large farms , as shown in Table 3.3

- 5 0 . EPA assumes that 3506

the farm will have four occasions per year, if pesticides are applied, where the requirement is 3507

triggered, but water cos ts are negligible. The expected cost per large

- small farm is calculated to 3508

be $0.58, averaging across all farms , given the lower percentage of farms likely to be subject to 3509

the requirement . CPHEs are calculated to spend about $0.93 per handler per year, assuming that 3510

half the handlers need a water bottle and the bottles must be replaced every two years. 3511

3512

Table 3.3

- 5 0 . Per

- Large WPS Farm Baseline Cost , Handler Eye Flushing

. 3513

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Water bottle $ 3.65 1 0.211 $ 0.77

Water $0.004/gal 0.125 3.1 $ 0.00

Expected Cost cost r,i, a B $ 0.77

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3514

3515

Step 2 . Calculate Costs under Revised Regulatory Requirement 3516

3517

Quantity of water available for early entry events. F or tasks in treated areas during a REI , the 3518

WPS will require three gallons of water be available for decontamination in early entry 3519*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

103 situations. With all other par ameters the same as in the baseline, the cost per worker triples, to 3520

about $0.002 per worker, on average. 3521

3522

Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. The final rule require s there to be a 3523

sustained flow of water to allow for about 15 minutes of eyeflush

. This requirement would be 3524

satisfied in locations with running water or when using a large storage tank with flow controls, 3525

assuming the water is of sufficient quality and there is some control of the flow

. If mixing and 3526

loading is done at the field, the employer will need to supply at le a s t six g all ons and a container 3527

that would provide a steady flow of water for about 15 minutes

. Safety supply stores offer five

3528

gallon dispenser s designed for quick refilling in cases where eye flushing is need ed for about $21 3529

(Gempler’s, 2015). A dispenser is assumed to last about eight years, so the frequency or 3530

probability of p urchase is half that of a water bottle. See Table 3.3

- 51 . Wat er costs, assuming 3531

six gallons approximately three times per year, amo unt to about $0.07

. The water pint bottle will 3532

remain part of the handler’s gear. 3533

3534

Table 3.3

- 51

. Cost under Final Rule Per

- Large WPS Farm, Handler Eye Flushing

. 3535

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

freq ( j | i ) cost

Water dispenser $ 20.65 1 0.106 $ 2.18

Water bottle $ 3.65 1 0.211 $ 0.77

Water $0.004/gal 6 3.1 $ 0.07

Expected Cost cost r,i, a F $ 3.02

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3536

3537

The cost per large

- small farm is calculated in a similar manner, resulting in an annual expected 3538

cost of $1.91 . The expected cost per CPHE handler, assuming a dispenser lasts five years, is 3539

$ 3.81 per year. 3540

3541

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Co mpliance Costs 3542

As per the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.2, w e estimate the regional level baseline and 3543

compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in each region that 3544

are affected by the requirements and summing across the various actors

. 3545

3546

RC

r

, i X

t = ∑

cost

r

, a X

t × N

a

, i t

a 3547

3548

Table 3.3

- 52 present s the baseline costs, where the number of actors is presented in Chapter 3.2

. 3549

T he current national cost for decontamination water and materials to address potential 3550

emergencies during early entry events or where eye protection is estimated to be $ 158,000 per 3551

year. 3552

3553*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

104 Table 3.3

- 52

. Baseline Costs, Decontamination Supplies 3554

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Worker CPHE

Handler RC R i B t=1

($1,000) cost Decon ,a B $ 0.77 $ 0.58 $ 0.001 $ 0.93

South 12,153 21,688 225,386 2,076 $ 24.0

California 4,766 8,505 324,709 644 $ 9.4

Southwest 2,701 4,820 63,032 329 $ 5.2

Subtropical 2,145 3,827 84,042 372 $ 4.3

Midwest 17,158 30,619 255,947 3,480 $ 34.4

Northeast 8,420 15,026 227,297 1,360 $ 16.6

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 294,148 3,609 $ 35.4

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 152,804 1,761 $ 20.1

Northwest 4,289 7,655 282,688 687 $ 8.6

U.S. 79,434 141,753 1,910,055 14,320 $ 158.1

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3555

3556

Table 3.3

- 53 presents the costs under the final rule revisions. EPA estimates the cost of 3557

providing decontamination supplies for emergency eye wash and for workers engaged in 3558

activities in fields under a REI to be $ 570 ,000 per year. 3559

3560

Table 3.3

- 53

. Costs under Final Rule

, Decontamination Supplies 3561

Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm WPS Worker CPHE

Handler RC R i F t=1

($1,000) cost Decon ,a F $ 3.02 $ 1.91 $ 0.002 $ 3.81

South 12,153 21,688 225,386 2,076 $ 86. 6

California 4,766 8,505 324,709 644 $ 33.8

Southwest 2,701 4,820 63,032 329 $ 18.8

Subtropical 2,145 3,827 84,042 372 $ 15.4

Midwest 17,158 30,619 255,947 3,480 $124.3

Northeast 8,420 15,026 227,297 1,360 $ 59.9

Ohio Valley 17,634 31,469 294,148 3,609 $ 127.9

Texas/Mt West 10,168 18,144 152,804 1,761 $ 72.5

Northwest 4,289 7,655 282,688 687 $ 30.8

U.S. 79,434 141,753 1,910,055 14,320 $ 570.1

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3562

3563

Step 4. Calculate the P resent V alue of Costs. 3564

There are no changes over time in the PPE requirements. Thus, the PV of costs over the ten

- year 3565

time horizon is simply the annual regional costs multiplied by 8.79, as explained in Chapter 3566

3.2.2. 3567

3568

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 3569

Table 3.3

- 5 4 presents the PV of costs incurred to provide decontamination materials for handler 3570

eye flush and workers engaged in early entry activities under the final rule, under the baseline, as 3571

well as the incremental costs. V ar iations in costs across regions are due to the differing numb er 3572

of farms, workers , and CPHE handlers in each region. 3573

3574*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

105 Table 3.3

- 5 4 . PV of Final , Baseline

, and Incremental Costs , Decontamination Supplies

. 3575

Region PV( RC

o F i ) PV( RC

o B i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South $ 762 $ 211 $ 550.4 $ 62.6

California $ 297 $ 83 $ 214.4 $ 24.4

Southwest $ 165 $ 46 $ 119.1 $ 13.6

Subtropical $ 135 $ 38 $ 97.8 $ 11.1

Midwest $ 1,093 $ 302 $ 790.3 $ 89.9

Northeast $ 526 $ 146 $ 380.2 $ 43.3

Ohio Valley $ 1,125 $ 311 $ 813.4 $ 92.6

Texas/Mountain West $ 637 $ 177 $ 460.7 $ 52.4

Northwest $ 271 $ 75 $ 195.6 $ 22.3

National $5,012 $ 1,390 $3,6 22 $412.2

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 3576

3577

Step s 6 and 7

. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Requirement. 3578

The PV national incremental cost of revising the decontamination supply requirements is 3579

estimated to be $ 3.6 million over ten years, or about $ 41 2,000 annually. About $ 371 ,000 of 3580

costs accrue to WPS farms. A ll 375,000 WPS farms may be affected by the decontamination 3581

requirements at some point, implying an annual cost per farm of about one dollar . Large WPS 3582

farms will likely incur incremental costs of about $ 2

. 6 0 per year to provide decontamination 3583

supplies t o both workers and handlers, while the cost to small WPS farms will average around 3584

$0. 8 0 per year. The cost for an average CPHE, employing about seven handlers, is estimated to 3585

be about $ 2 1. 3 0 per year

. 3586

3587

The estimated incremental costs associated with the final decontamination supply requirements 3588

depend primarily on the cost of the eyeflush requirement. Depending on the assumptions as to 3589

the number of farms hiring field workers and the number of field workers, the estimated 3590

incremental cost ranges from $4 11,000 to $413,000 per year. 3591

3592



### 3.3. 8 Total Cost of Final Rule 3593

3594

T he total cost of the final rule can be estimated by summing the costs of the seven components 3595

evaluated in the previous sections. Table 3.3

- 55 presents the PV of the baseline and final 3596

regulatory costs , assuming all elements are implemented simultaneously and given EPA’s 3597

primary estimate of the number of affected entities and employees . Nationally, the final rule is 3598

es timated to increase the cost of complying with the W orker P rotection S tandard by $ 5 8 7 million 3599

over a ten year time horizon, using a three percent discount rate and assuming all requirements 3600

are implemented simultaneously . The annual incremental cost under this assumption is 3601

estimated to be about $ 6 6.9 million. If implementation of all the training requirements is 3602

delayed for two years after other components

, the 10

- year accumulated cost is estimated to be 3603

$ 5 28 million and the annual incremental cos t is estimated to be about $ 60.2 million. Only the 3604

ad ditional training material will be delayed to allow for development and dissemination, so the 3605

true cost of the rule will likely be between these two bounds

. With a seven percent discount rate, 3606

the annual incremental cost of the final regulations is estima ted to be between $ 5 6 .2 and $ 6 6.9 3607*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

106 million. Because costs recur annually, the choice of discount rate does not change the estimates, 3608

except when some requirements are delayed. 3609

3610

Table 3.3

- 55 . PV of Final Rule and Baseline Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total) 3611

Region RC

o F i RC

o B i RIC o i Annual IC

($1,000)

South $ 205,631 $ 113,463 $ 9 2,168 $ 10,490

California $ 120,755 $ 96,954 $ 2 3,801 $ 2,709

Southwest $ 47,844 $ 26,748 $ 21,097 $ 2,401

Subtropical $ 43,789 $ 27,138 $ 16,651 $ 1,895

Midwest $ 289,902 $ 171,279 $ 118,623 $ 13,501

Northeast $ 154,446 $ 86,584 $ 67,862 $ 7,724

Ohio Valley $ 296,042 $ 161,077 $ 134,965 $ 15,361

Texas/Mountain

West $ 166,764 $ 93,386 $ 73,378 $ 8,352

Northwest $ 109,868 $ 71,059 $ 38,809 $ 4,417

U.S. $1, 435,041 $ 847,686 $ 587,355 $ 66,850

S ource: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 3612

3613

As noted in Section 3.2.3, EPA has conservatively included nearly all employees reported in the 3614

2012 Census of Agriculture in this analysis as if they are all engaged in hand labor activities 3615

and/or handling pesticides and are covered by the WPS

, i.e. , nearly 2.0 million workers and/or 3616

handlers on almost 375,000 agricultural establishments . Using more narrow assumptions as to 3617

the farms and employee s covered would result in an estimate of total costs between $4 1.5 million 3618

and $45. 8 million per year. The lower bound estimate s are based on 272,000 farms employing 3619

1.1 million farm workers

, as estimated by USDA (ERS, 2014) , and about 248,000 pesticide 3620

h andlers . If all crop

- producing farms that hire labor and all their employees are covered by the 3621

WPS , 2.4 million workers and/or handlers on 466,000 establishments , the incremental cost of the 3622

final revisions to the WPS is estimated to be between $7 2 .6 and $81.0 million per year. 3623

3624

Figure 3.3

- 1 shows the contribution of the seven categories of the final rule to the total 3625

incremental cost , using the primary estimate of $6 6.9 million per year . The informational 3626

regulations, i.e. , the t raining , hazard communic ation, and notification requirements, make up 3627

almost three

- fourths of the total incremental costs. The protective regulations (minimum age, 3628

entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of the remaining cost , with the PPE 3629

requirements accounting for nearly one

- fifth of the total incremental cost. The decontamination 3630

supply requirements , which are focused on mitigation in the event of an incident contribute less 3631

than one percent of the cost. Shares are roughly similar across all assumptions about farm 3632

worker numbers. Given the upper bound assumptions of establishments and employees affected, 3633

the information requirements comprise about 80 percent of the total cost while these 3634

requirements account for about two

- t hirds of the costs if the lower bound assumptions are used. 3635

Notification costs decrease most rapidly if the number of farms and farm workers is lower than 3636

assumed; PPE costs do not vary across the different assumptions. 3637

3638*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

107 Figure 3.3

- 1

. Contribution of com ponents of the final W orker P rotection S tandard to 3639

total annualized incremental cost

, $ 6 6.9 million

. 3640

3641

3642

3643

Average per

- entity costs are presented in Table 3.3

- 5 6 . As explained above, these costs are 3644

calculated by taking the per

- farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per

- worker and handler 3645

costs, multiplying by the average number of workers and handlers given the size of the operation 3646

and the region . Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations , but often 3647

only slightly. The cost estimates assume that all requirements become effective simultaneously

, 3648

which overstates the expected cost of the final rule . Incremental costs for large WPS farms with 3649

farmworkers are expected to average just over $ 35 0 per year, ranging from an additional $ 3 07 3650

per year in the Texas/Mountain West region to $ 5 14 per year in the Northwest where there is a 3651

high average number of workers per farm. California also has a high average number of workers 3652

per farm, but current r egulations imply a higher baseline cost and lower incremental cost . Small 3653

farms are likely to face impacts of nearly $1 40 per year, on average, ranging from less than $ 1 00 3654

per year in California to $1 5 9 per year in the Northwest where the number of worker s per farm is 3655

above average . In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 3656

The incremental cost for farms that have handlers but not workers engaged in hand labor 3657

activities is estimated to be less than half that of simila rly sized farms with field workers with the 3658

incremental cost for large farms employing handlers only estimated to be $1 70 per year, on 3659

average, and for small farms employing handlers only estimated at $ 71 per year, on average

. 3660

3661 

## Training

45% HazCom

14%

Notification

17%

Age

5% Entry

0% 

## PPE

19% Supply

0% 

## Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$23.2

- 29.9 million

$11.5 million

$3.1 million $12.6 million

$412,000 $9.3 million*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

108 Table 3.3

- 5 6 . A verage Worke r Per

- Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total) 3662

Region Large WPS Farm

with farm workers Small WPS Farm

with farm workers

workers/farm EIC o i workers/farm EIC o i

South 13.8 $ 3 5 4 2.7 $ 14 7

California 50.8 $ 3 08 9.9 $ 88

Southwest 17.4 $ 37 8 3.4 $ 1 4 9

Subtropical 29.2 $ 4 34 5.7 $ 1 3 9

Midwest 11.1 $ 3 22 2.2 $ 1 31

Northeast 20.1 $ 40 3 3.9 $ 15 3

Ohio Valley 12.4 $ 3 5 4 2.4 $ 1 4 9

Texas/Mountain

West 11.2 $ 3 07 2.2 $ 1 4 9

Northwest 49.1 $ 5 1 4 9.6 $ 1 5 9

U.S. 17.9 $ 35 5 3.5 $ 1 42

Source: EPA estimates. 3663

3664

Upper bound assumptions about the number of establishments and workers lead to lower average 3665

per

- farm costs. Conversely, estimates based on the lower bound assumptions focus on fewer 3666

establishments that have more workers and are illustrative o f farms that will likely bear higher

3667

than

- average costs. There are about 13,000 large establishments averaging almost 50 workers 3668

per entity ; the estimated incremental cost for these establishments is $659 per year. Similarly, 3669

there are over 76,000 small WPS farms averaging 5 workers per entity for which EPA estimates 3670

incremental costs between $112 and $209 per year. 3671

3672

The incremental cost to CPHEs is estimated to be between $ 5 30 and $ 5 6 5 per year. The 3673

incremental cost for self

- employed commercial handlers is only about $ 210 to $225 per year and 3674

is largely a function of the revised definition for closed systems

. Costs to family farms also 3675

result from revisions to the definition of closed systems and the requirements for respirator fit 3676

testing and are estim ated to be less than $50 per year, on average. There is wide variability in 3677

impacts, however, with many family farms facing little or no impacts and others, which use 3678

pesticide products requiring a respirator, facing costs of $180 per year, at least in ye ars that 3679

respirators are used. 3680

3681

A final way to consider the costs of the final revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is the 3682

cost per employee covered by the regulations since they are the primary beneficiaries of the 3683

added protections. Considering t he 1.9 million farm workers, the additional 85,000 handlers on 3684

farms , and 14,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs 3685

implies the average cost to be between $ 2 9 .90 and $3 3 .30 per year per employee, including 3686

handlers employed at CPHEs. This measure does not consider the family farm operators that 3687

will also benefit from greater protections stemming from properly fitting respirators and 3688

improved closed systems. 3689

3690

All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many 3691

current practices and the effect of the final requirements. EPA has made a number of 3692

assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state 3693*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

109 regulators and other stakeholders. Many assu mptions, because they apply to both the baseline 3694

and the final rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While 3695

assumptions a ttempt to re present the average or typical farm or CPHE , in practice EPA has 3696

tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than 3697

would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is 3698

unknown. 3699

3700



### 3. 4 Impact on Jobs and Employment 3701

3702

EPA also calculate s the per

- employee incremental co st of the final requirements as the difference 3703

between the cost in the baseline and under the final rule . The incremental cost per WPS farm 3704

wo rker ( i.e.

, not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is estimated to be about $ 5

. 3 0 3705

per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on employment decisions

. The 3706

estimated incremental cost ranges from $5.10 per year, given the upper bound estimate of 1.9 3707

million workers, to $6.20 per year, using EPA’s lower bound estimate of 1.2 million workers. 3708

The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training requirements, which are 3709

expected to cost about $ 6 .10 per year. This is offset by a reduction in the per

- worker cost of the 3710

notification requirements of $ 1

. 3 0 per year as greater emphasi s is placed on posting REI 3711

information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0. 4 0 per year to the cost of 3712

employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0. 01 per year. Table 3 .4

- 1 3713

presents this information. 3714

3715

Table 3 .4

- 1 . Annualized Per

- Employee Cost of Final Requirements 3716

Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler

Training $ 6.08 $14. 32 $17. 05

Hazard Communication $ 0. 13 $ 0. 13 $ 0.00

Notification

- $ 1. 31 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

Age $ 0. 3 5 $ 5.77 $48.74

Entry $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

PPE $ 0.00 $ 29.81 $ 1.10

Supply $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.90

Total $ 5. 26 $ 50.04 $ 69. 79

Source: EPA estimates. 3717

3718

The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but i s still relatively 3719

minor. T raining requirements add about $1 4

. 30 per year to employment costs, but t he main 3720

driver is the PPE category at $ 29.80 per year as a result of the requirement for fit testing 3721

respirators. This cost is estimated across all handlers. The age restriction may add about $ 5. 8 0 3722

per year to employme nt costs by restricting farms from using lower

- wage adolescents to mix, 3723

load, and apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around 3724

$ 50 per year, assuming the average baseline costs and EPA’s primary estimate of the numbe r of 3725

establishments and handlers

. EPA estimates the incremental cost of employing a handler to 3726

range from $40.23 per year, using the upper bound estimates of numbers, to $123.87 per year, 3727

using the lower bound estimate of establishments and handlers. We estimate that the cost to 3728

agricultural employers of a handler is $ 20.04 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight 3729*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

110 hours per day and assuming only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $2 4 ,000 3730

per year. An increase in cost of $ 5 0 to $125 per year represents about 0. 2 to 0.5 percent of the 3731

total cost of a handler , a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact on jobs. 3732

3733

The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be about $ 70 per year

. The marginal cost 3734

to a CPHE is primarily a result of the minimum age requirements, which is largely driven by 3735

assumptions about the time adolescents are employed in handling agricultural pesticides

. PPE 3736

costs per handler are very low since fit testing for respirators is alrea dy an OSHA requirement. 3737

3738



### 3. 5 Small Business Impacts 3739

3740

This section presents estimates of the impact the final changes to the WPS rule may have on 3741

small entities by examining the relationship between the incremental cost and revenue for small 3742

WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should 3743

have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions. 3744

3745

Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 3.5 .1, 3746

an d the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in 3747

September 2008. The current analysis presented here takes into account comments received 3748

from the panel that influenced the final requirements as well as comments rec eived on the 3749

proposed revisions . Based on th is analysis, EPA concludes that there will not be a significant 3750

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 3751

3752

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 3753

Enforc ement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of 3754

regulations on small entities, including businesses, non

- profit organizations, and governments. 3755

W hen significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities a re expected, 3756

agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 3757

effects on significantly impacted small entities. 3758

3759

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 3760

economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 3761

incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sales as significant , costs less 3762

than one percent of annual sales as not significant , and costs betw een one and three percent of 3763

sales as inconclusive . If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA 3764

considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if 3765

a s ubstantial number of firms w ill be impacted. 3766

3767

Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008) , we use the following 3768

thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial” : 3769

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 3770

30% of all small farms; 3771

 Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents 3772

less than 20% of all small farms; or 3773

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 3774

10% of all small farms. 3775*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

111 If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 3776

substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows: 3777

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 3778

20% of all small farms; 3779

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small 3780

farms; or 3781

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5% 3782

of all small farms. 3783

3784

Therefore, to determine the magnitud e of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 3785

incremental costs on a per

- company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to 3786

develop cost

- to

- sales ratios. 3787

3788

In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. In 3789

Section 3.5 .2, we present the estimated compliance cost by type and size of WPS farms and 3790

estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a percentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are 3791

estimated assuming both immediate implementation of the final requirements as well as a two

3792

year delayed implementation of the training requirements

. 3793

3794

We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA 3795

also estimates that small CPHEs will n ot face a significant impact as a result of this rule. The 3796

estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, which average over seven handlers, is between $ 530 3797

and $ 565 per year

. The average revenue for small CPHEs, a ccording to publicly available data

, 3798

is $1.4 million per year (D&B, 2014), implying impacts of less than 0.05 percent. Moreover, 3799

s mall CPHEs average four employees and would have lower incremental costs than across all 3800

CP H Es . Assuming all four employees of small CPHEs are handlers, expected increme ntal cost 3801

per small CPHE is estimated to be $21 5 to $23 5 per year

. Thus, even firms with incomes well 3802

below average would not be expected to incur impacts in excess of one percent of annual 3803

revenue. 3804

3805



### 3.5 .1 Industry Profile 3806

3807

EPA uses data from the 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014 and 2008) to 3808

identify the number of small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The 3809

Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as 3810

well as the people who operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, 3811

operator characteristics, production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas. 3812

3813

EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic p rofiles 3814

for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 3815

greenhouse s, and nurseries). Results of this special tabulation were used to estimate similar 3816

profiles using publicly available data from the 2012 Census. See Appendix A. Crop producing 3817

farms a re separated into two main size classifications (large and small) according to the SBA 3818

size definitions. Small farms are defined as those with annual gross reve nue less than $750,000 3819

and small feedlots have less th an $2.5 million in annual sales. Table 3.5

- 1 presents the estimated 3820

number of farms, by type, and the proportion of the total that are small farms. The WPS applies 3821*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

112 to all crop

- producing farms that use pesticides, although family labor is exempt from most 3822

provisions. About 40 percent of all farms produce crops and use pesticides and , proportionally, 3823

there are fewer small farms , by SBA standards, than over all types of farms. For purposes of this 3824

analysis, EPA assumes that most crop

- producing farms that h ire labor ( i.e. , do not rely solely on 3825

family labor) are subject to the WPS. W e exc lude farms with less than $100,000 in agricultural 3826

production and whose primary production is livestock as these farms are unlikely to hire 3827

employees to handle pesticides o r engage in hand labor activities related to crop production

. 3828

There fore, EPA estimates that there are almost 375,000 farms covered by the WPS. These farms 3829

tend to be larger, in terms of revenue, than all farms , with less than 80 percent classified as sma ll 3830

by the SBA . In fact, only about 8 0 percent of these farms use pesticides, at least in 2012, and 3831

must meet WPS requirements. This subset of farms tend to have still higher revenues than do 3832

other types of farms , with about three

- fourths classified as small by SBA standards

. 3833

3834

Table 3.5

- 1

. F arms, by type and size , and average number of employees

. 3835

Farm Type Number of

Farms Small Farms 1

(%) Employees Workers &

Handlers

All Farms 2,109,303 95% 2,736,417 1,995,037

All Crop Farms using

pesticides 871,935 89% 2,408,452 1,995,037

Crop Farms, no hired

labor 517,715 96% 0 0

WPS Farms 2 374,794 79% 1,995,037 1,995,037

WPS Farms 2 using

pesticides 304,106 76% 1,813,476 1,813,476

Source: EPA estimates based on 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014 ) and Special tabulation, 3836

2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008). 3837

1 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue and feedlots with less than $2.5 million in revenue

. 3838

2 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire workers for hand labor activities and /or 3839

hire pesticide handlers. Does not include 90,969 primarily livestock operations with total annual 3840

sales, including livestock, of less than $100,000. 3841

3842

The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests 3843

and ef

ficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enterprise. 3844

If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can 3845

jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of crops pr oduced. Similarly, labor 3846

remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand 3847

the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms

, i.e.

, 3848

those with less than $750,000 in annual sa les as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 3849

define ‘small

- small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium

- small farms 3850

as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large

- small farms as those with 3851

annual sales betwe en $100,000 and $750,000. Table 3. 5

- 2 presents the number of farms , annual 3852

value of crops sold, and number of workers , by type and size

. These categories of farms provide 3853

the typology we use to characterize the impacts of revisions to the WPS on small fa rms

. 3854

3855*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

113 Table 3. 5

- 2

. Average annual revenu e s and employee s, by Farm type and size. 3856

Type All Small 1 Large

- Small 1 Medium

- Small 1 Small

- Small 1

All Farms

number 2,001,477 285,502 566,515 1,149,460

average revenue 2 $ 57,469 $323,343 $ 34,656 $ 2,674

employee s 0. 7 2. 0 0.8 0. 4

Crop

- Producing Farms Using Pesticides

number 780,077 244,186 315,092 220,799

average sales 2 $ 130,894 $ 365,161 $ 38,742 $ 3,320

employees 1.6 2.1 1.0 0.8

WPS Farms

number 295,360 141,753 82,690 70,917

average sales 2 $ 203,489 $ 400,097 $ 38,468 $ 2,914

workers /handlers 3.2 4 .4 3.3 2.5

WPS Farms Using Pesticides

number 231,198 128,237 65,627 37,334

average sales 3 $233,309 $400,097 $ 38,468 $ 2,914

workers/handlers 3. 9 4. 3 3.5 3.7

Source: EPA estimates based on 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2015) and Special tabulation, 3857

2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008 ). 3858

1 The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three 3859

subgroups: large

- small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per 3860

year; medium

- small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small

3861

small farms, with annual sales less than $10,0 00 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 3862

those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large

- small 3863

feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium

- small feedlots, with 3864

an nual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small

- small feedlots, with annual sales less than 3865

$50,000 per year. 3866

2 Average revenue by economic category reported in the Census, weighted by the number of farms in 3867

each aggregate category defined by EPA ; feedl ots in cluded in the same revenue categories as all other 3868

farms to avoid biasing estimates

. 3869

3 Weighted average of EPA defined categories, given average sales of all WPS farms

. 3870

3871

It is worth noting that small

- small WPS farms, defined as those reporting less t han $10,000 in 3872

annual sales, also employ an average of nearly 2.5 laborers. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile 3873

the low revenue with multiple employees. It may be that these employees are very temporary 3874

and are associated with a few tasks such as harve st that demand relatively high labor input over a 3875

short period of time. About 75 percent of the small

- small farms that hire labor incur labor costs 3876

less than $5,000 per year (NASS, 2015). Given an average wage rate of $14 per hour and 3877

assuming employment for an eight

- hour day, labor costs of less than $5,000 per year suggest less 3878

45 total days the farm employs a worker and with an average of 2.5 workers, it further suggests 3879

only about 18 days of employment per worker. It may also be that these employees are engaged 3880

in other revenue

- generating activities not directly related to the farm's own crop or livestock 3881

production. Ninety

- two percent of farms with less than $10,000 in revenue from sales of crops 3882

and/or livestock report that less than 25 percent of household income is derived from agriculture. 3883

3884*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

114 

### 3.5 .2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost 3885

3886

The incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline 3887

regulations and the cost of the regulations in the final rule , summed over the protective 3888

categories. Per

- entity unit cost is added to the per

- worker cost times the number of workers on 3889

the establishment . Large

- small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler , on average

, 3890

while medium

- small and small

- small WPS fa rms are assumed to rely on commercial applicators 3891

or the owner/operator to make pesticide applications. 3892

3893

Table 3. 5

- 3 presents the number of WPS farms , average sales, and estimated annual incremental 3894

cost of the rule by farm size using EPA’s primary estimat es of the number of affected farms and 3895

workers/handlers . Annual incremental costs are based on existing requirements in most areas of 3896

the country except for California. As shown in Section 3.3.8

, the incremental cost for a small 3897

WPS farm in California is less than the national average due to the regulatory baseline even 3898

accounting for the relatively higher number of workers per farm

. Despite variation in the 3899

number of workers across the different regions of the United States, estimated incremental costs 3900

are fairly consistent with the North west region somewhat higher and the Texas / Mountain West 3901

region expected to have incremental costs per entity less than the national average. 3902

3903

EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue and does not find a 3904

significant impact from the rule . Overall, the impact of the rule is less than 0.1 percent of 3905

average sales. Only the very smallest farms, with sales of less than $ 10

, 0 00 per year, may face 3906

impacts of $83 to $111 per year or nearly three perc ent of sales. The number of entities that may 3907

be impacted in excess of one percent of sales could be about 37 ,000 per year , given the number 3908

of small

- small establishments that use pesticides in a year . However, this is likely an 3909

overestimate of the number of farms impacted as includes the over 2 ,000 small

- small farms in 3910

California that use pesticides and that would face impacts well below the national average. It 3911

also includes nearly 2 3,000 small

- sma ll farms that are primarily field crop and forage producers 3912

whose employees are unlikely to engage in hand labor activities that would trigger WPS 3913

provisions. These farms are likely to bear little or no cost as a result of the final revisions. The 3914

remain ing 1 2 ,000 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses are those most likely to face the expected 3915

incremental cost, representing about six percent of all small WPS farms. 3916

3917

Table 3.5

- 3. Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms 3918

All Small WPS

Farms Large

- Small

WPS Farms Med ium

- Small

WPS Farms Small

- Small

WPS Farms

Number 295,360 141,753 82,690 70,917

Average Sales $203,489 $400,097 $ 38,468 $ 2,914

Simultaneous Implementation

Incremental Cost $ 142 $ 204 $ 120 $ 86

Percent of Sales 0.07% 0.05% 0.31% 2.94%

Two

- Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 119 $ 185 $ 109 $ 76

Percent of Sales 0.06% 0.05% 0.28% 2.60%

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008); EPA calculations. 3919

1 Training only. 3920*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

115 3921

EPA examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small

- small farms in order to 3922

gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two 3923

sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small

- small WPS farms. First, is whether 3924

WPS training requirements will apply to small

- small farms every year of a ten

- year time period, 3925

which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 3. 5

- 3. Less than 55 percent 3926

of small

- small WPS farms used pestic ides in 2007 (NASS, 2008) and if these farms hire workers 3927

late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety training 3928

if an application has been made. Under this scenario, the expected incremental cost to small

3929

smal l WPS farms would be $ 61 to $96 per year or 2.1 to 3.3 percent of annual sales of 3930

agricultural products

. 3931

3932

A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small

- small farms 3933

employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely th at labor is employed on a temporary 3934

basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications 3935

made more than a month before workers are hired. For small

- small farms, the hazard 3936

communication and notification requir ements comprise nearly half of the cost at $ 41 per year, 3937

based on 20 pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. If workers are 3938

only present for a limited period of time, however, this assumption greatly overstates the number 3939

of applications per year when workers are or will be present and small

- small farms will have 3940

fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small

- small farms make only five 3941

applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required ( e.g.

, with in 3942

about 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the final rule is 3943

about $ 5 4 to $ 6 8 per year or 1.9 to 2.3 percent of annual sales

. 3944

3945

If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been made and only five 3946

applications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements, the incremental 3947

cost of the rule for small

- small farms averages only $ 3 2 to $53 per year , or 1.2 to 1.8 percent of 3948

annual revenue from agricultural products

. 3949

3950

Given that, for small

- small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard 3951

communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated to a significant degree , EPA 3952

conclude s that, even for the smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the final rule w ould generally 3953

not be considered significant

. 3954

3955



### 3. 6 S t a te Cos ts 3956

3957

EPA does not anticipate that states or other lead agencies will bear direct costs as a result of the 3958

revisions to the WP S. 3959

3960

States are responsible for enforcing the WPS, which they do through a combination of outreach 3961

to employers and inspections of employers. Typically, some inspections are done randomly 3962

while others are made as a result of complaints. Revisions to the WPS should not change the 3963

total number of inspections over time although they may change the way inspections are 3964

conducted on an establishment. Some revisions, such as the record keeping requirements, may 3965

facilitate inspections by providing more tangible evidence of compliance or noncompliance than 3966*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

116 has previously been available. Other revisions may alter the items an inspector will check, for 3967

example that there is a safety display provided with decontamination supplies when required

. 3968

However, the revisi ons should not substantially extend the time required for a typical inspection

. 3969

3970

In the short term, EPA anticipates states and other lead agencies may need to redirect resources 3971

planned for outreach and training of inspectors as a result of revisions to the WPS. That is, 3972

agencies may plan to highlight certain aspects of the rule in pr ograms for employers and/or 3973

inspectors each year. State agencies may choose to alter s ome planned programs may in order to 3974

focus on changes to the WPS

. However, EPA does not anticipate that agencies will need 3975

additional resources . There will be an imple mentation phase for the new requirements, which 3976

will allow time for states to prepare for the changes utilizing existing resources. 3977

3978

New materials will have to be developed to cover new pesticide safety training requirements, 3979

particularly materials on how to protect family members from pesticide residues transported 3980

from work to the home. However, EPA does not expect states to develop the material. The 3981

materials will be developed by EPA in collaboration with the states and disseminated through 3982

existing pa rtnership programs. 3983

3984

3985

3986

3987

3988*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

117 

## Chapter 4 . Benefits of the Revised Rule 3989

3990

Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in acute effects on workers and handlers as well 3991

as latent health effects to workers and handlers. Under the final rule, it is expected that workers 3992

and pesticide handlers will have better information and protection s that will enable them to 3993

reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to better protection of their health and a 3994

better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the cha nges will provide a range of benefits to 3995

agricultural workers and handlers. The final rule ensure s that workers and handlers have the 3996

information needed to best protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure , and 3997

that they are provided addi tional protection and mitigation compared to the existing rule

. 3998

3999

By combining several interrelated exposure

- reduction measures, the final rule is expected to 4000

substantially mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for adverse health effects 4001

(a cute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include 4002

requirements intended to reduce exposure by: 4003

 Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides

– The 4004

final rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as changes to 4005

ensure that the training is more effective. 4006

 Reducing exposure to pesticides

– Among other things, the final rule changes and 4007

clarifies the requirements for personal prote ctive equipment and changes when 4008

pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should 4009

directly reduce pesticide exposure to the agricultural workforce. 4010

 Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur

– Accidental exposu res are inevitable, 4011

and the final rule i mproves safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to respond 4012

to exposures. 4013

4014

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the final rule to agricultural workers, 4015

handlers and their families. Ch apter 2 provided a summary of the changes made in the rule. The 4016

preamble describes in detail the requirements of the final rule , and responds to key comments 4017

from the public. This chapter discusses how the three measure s itemized above will reduce the 4018

health effects of exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that pesticide 4019

exposure can have to bystanders and families of workers and handlers

. 4020

4021

The final rule includes improved training requirements, in terms of the f requency of training 4022

workers and handlers are receive, and the content of that training. The o ther requirements 4023

summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in combination with training 4024

to improve workers’ and pesticide handlers’ ab ility to protect themselves. Training can be an 4025

effective tool to increase workplace safety. Within agriculture, Barnett et al . (1984) found a pilot 4026

education project dramatically increased the understanding of routes of exposure, safer storage of 4027

pestic ides, and a greater understanding of how to protect children from take home exposure. 4028

Both Strong et al . (2008) and Salvatore et al . (2009) report better self

- protection practices after 4029

safety training for Hispanic workers. 4030

4031*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

118 

### 4.1 Which Benefits Can Be Q uantified 4032

4033

EPA expects the changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers and 4034

handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their families. 4035

However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This section 4036

provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced acute 4037

exposures to workers and handlers) and those that cannot. 4038

4039

Benefits from the rule changes include reductions in adverse health effects by: 4040

 avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to farm 4041

workers and handlers

, and to bystanders 4042

 mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents through a 4043

better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers

, 4044

 avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents ( e.g.

, 4045

developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers , and 4046

 reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers

, handlers and their fa milies, 4047

resulting potentially in reduced chronic illnesses

. 4048

4049

Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 4050

have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these only represent a portion of 4051

the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 4052

as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and 4053

adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to 4054

appear in pesticide poiso ning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 4055

the benefit estimates in this chapter. These effects from exposures that go unreported are not 4056

possible to quantify. 4057

4058

Also, provisions in the final rule are designed to clarify the amou nt of decontamination supplies 4059

available

, and improved and more frequent training should increase workers’ and handlers’ 4060

understanding of the need to decontaminate thoroughly and seek medical attention when they are 4061

exposed to pesticides . These provisions can reduce the severity of the accidental poisoning 4062

events, and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. Because our estimates are 4063

based on preventable incidents, the benefits to reduced severity are underestimated. There is not 4064

enough available information to determine how much severity would be reduced in a given 4065

incident. 4066

4067

The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, 4068

are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncertain 4069

causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore

, it is 4070

impossible to quantify many important health effects from reduced pesticide exposure. These 4071

health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to workers and handlers 4072

will be discussed in a semi

- quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are 4073

described, but cannot be quantified. 4074

4075

The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticid e exposure, followed by a discussion of 4076

the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 4077*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

119 families. Section 4. 5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 4078

benefits can be quantifie d. Section 4. 6 discusses the potential long

- term effects that may result 4079

from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 4080

surveillance databases, but are potentially very important to human health, and may be red uced 4081

by the rule. The final section of the chapter presents a n analysis that shows some of the benefits 4082

that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness. 4083

4084



### 4.2 Who is at Risk? 4085

4086



### 4.2.1 Workers & Handlers in Agriculture 4087

4088

Pesticides of one type or an other are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 4089

large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the 4090

approximately 2. 4 million farm workers (see Table 3. 2

- 4) that are hired by agricultural 4091

establishments, all of whom are potentially exposed to pesticides and risks of adverse health 4092

effects (NASS, 2008b). W orkers do not necessarily handle pesticides directly, but they may be 4093

exposed to agricultural

- plant pe sticides either through contact with residues on treated plants, 4094

soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected application. EPA assumes 4095

there are 300,000 pesticide handlers , included in the farm worker population, that handle 4096

pest icides directly ; another 7 2 ,000 handlers are employed or self

- employed at commercial 4097

pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 201 4, See Section 3.2.3 ). T he agricultural workforce 4098

as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues and that exposure can 4099

pose long and short term health risks. It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and 4100

project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because workers and handlers are 4101

potentially exposed to a wide range of pestici des with different toxicities and risks and are 4102

exposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of frequencies

. However, as a result of 4103

an extensive review of the epidemiologic evidence published in the peer

- reviewed literature, 4104

there is strong e vidence that pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health outcomes. 4105

4106



### 4.2. 2 Children and families 4107

4108

Several of the changes to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections for 4109

children. These include training components designed t o minimize exposure to family members 4110

to pesticides inadvertently taken home by workers and handlers ; measures that reduce exposure 4111

to workers and handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits 4112

for certain worker activities and for handler s ; and training on decontamination practices. These 4113

changes are particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and 4114

unborn children may be particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience 4115

d ifferent exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and 4116

putting objects into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their 4117

organ systems are still developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 4118

2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural 4119

employees are incidentally exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health 4120

effects from this pesticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (discussed below) may be particularly 4121

important for long

- term development. 4122*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

120 4123

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for 4124

chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on gr owth and development, which 4125

means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 4126

lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 4127

continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 4128

developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and other chemicals differently than adults 4129

metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008)

. The changes to the WPS also include 4130

restrictions on allowing adolescents to serve as pesticide handlers. These changes are important 4131

because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, which is also 4132

discussed below. 4133

4134

Take Home Exposure 4135

4136

Several recent studies have shown that the children and other family members of people engaged 4137

in agriculture can be exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al

. (2007) found metabolites of 4138

13 pesticides in the urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four 4139

different metabolites in a sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face 4140

multiple non

- dietary sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for 4141

long periods of time. Bradman et al . (2 009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, 4142

found 29 different pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas 4143

Valley of California, and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) 4144

compared 25 far m and 25 non

- farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination 4145

inside the homes. They found significantly higher levels of some agricultural pesticides in farm 4146

households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (high er levels in 4147

the worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported 4148

home on farmers ’ clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in 4149

home vehicles for farm families , indicating anot her possible exposure route for both children and 4150

pregnant women. In a literature review of the take home exposure pathway, Vida et al . (2007), 4151

reported results that indicate th at take home exposure is an important source of exposure for 4152

children. The st udies cited above consistently found higher levels of pesticides in the 4153

agricultural households compared to non

- agricultural households, and that levels of 4154

O rganophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest levels of 4155

azinph os

- methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a farmworker 4156

would perform, for example (Coronado et al ., 2004, Coronado et al ., 2006). Curl et al ., (2002) 4157

found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in veh icles, which suggest 4158

the take home pathway is the source for the residues. Exposure studies on organophosphate 4159

metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home pathway is leading to 4160

exposure in farm families (Bradman et al ., 2003 , 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 4161

2007). 4162

4163

Research has shown that agricultural workers are generally unaware that occupational exposure 4164

to pesticides can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al ., 2009 conducted 4165

interviews wi th 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several 4166

misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed 4167

through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less 4168*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

121 ha rmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to 4169

work quickly, and , as the article states “ previous research has [shown] that farmworkers often 4170

report delaying showering for over an hour after work in order to a llow their bodies to cool fully 4171

for fear of developing arthritis or other health problems .” Quandt et al . (1998) found that 4172

farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target, and that acute 4173

(not chronic) exposure was the primar y danger (referenced in Rao et al ., 2007). Other exposure 4174

routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, 4175

or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures (discussed 4176

below) m ay be particularly important for long

- term development. 4177

4178

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 4179

4180

Adolescents face more risks from occupational pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by 4181

establishing a minimum age for pesticide handlers and early entry workers . There is evidence 4182

that adolescents and children do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. 4183

Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality 4184

rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway 4185

Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness 4186

of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own 4187

per ception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming 4188

equipment and occurs during worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al. , 1998). When teens were 4189

asked whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self

- reported frequency for use of 4190

respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 4191

was required. According to the autho rs, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 4192

teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 4193

attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 4194

le ading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006). 4195

4196

The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 4197

risk

- taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through 4198

t hese maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 4199

risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international 4200

setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, 4201

neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 4202

applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 4203

in this country, but it does sugges t risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high 4204

levels. 4205

4206

Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 4207

teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions exist ed 4208

among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to 4209

be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In the focus group, when asked whether they 4210

washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, parti cipants responded that they did 4211

not have the time and/ or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, 4212

participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they 4213

appear ed to be clean. The ado lescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it 4214*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

122 was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss 4215

machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et 4216

al

. , 2004). 4217

4218

According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 4219

youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed 4220

to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and gr eater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The 4221

literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. 4222

Therefore

, it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 4223

decisions. It is not certai n why risky behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a 4224

consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors 4225

and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adu lts, 4226

but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). The 4227

cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which 4228

indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important part s of the risk taking 4229

process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that 4230

more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the rulemaking, will not protect 4231

adolescents to the degree they will protect adul ts. These potentially at risk adolescents do not 4232

respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections , such as the 4233

establishment of minimum age for certain activities (with an exception for adolescents covered 4234

by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety. 4235

4236



### 4.3 What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families 4237

4238

This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 4239

exposure, specifically acu te pesticide exposures to workers and handlers and their families

, 4240

including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of 4241

these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of 4242

developme ntal effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic 4243

occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 4. 6 and Section 4244

4. 8. 4245

4246



### 4.3.1 Acute Exposures and Effects 4247

4248

The u se of pesticides, substanc es designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 4249

narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a 4250

broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many 4251

w ays, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al ., 2010). 4252

E xposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute 4253

symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irrita tion to more 4254

severe effects. Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure

. 4255

Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and 4256

dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision an d other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). 4257

Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness 4258

( Roberts and Reigart, 2013 ). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. 4259*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

123 These are just a few o f the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide 4260

exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 4261

different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure 4262

( Robe rts and Reigart, 2013 ). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers 4263

and handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including 4264

several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail in Sect ion 4. 6. 4265

4266

Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide

- related 4267

illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and 4268

handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer

- reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 4269

reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 4270

Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisonin g incidents in the agriculture 4271

industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning 4272

incidents among agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates 4273

varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order 4274

of magnitude higher than for non

- agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the 4275

sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers 4276

for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et 4277

al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California 4278

surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the 4279

poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms 4280

were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), 4281

and the most common route of exposure was skin co ntact, followed by inhalation and eye 4282

contact. 4283

4284

Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 4285

high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 4286

period were low sever ity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 4287

one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, i t 4288

is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low sever ity” cases 4289

can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 4290

of work days. To be included in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at 4291

least two post

- exposure symptoms must have been re ported by a health

- care professional. 4292

Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 4293

and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 4294

up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases 3

. 4295

The impact on the financial situation of a low

- income farmworker can be dramatic. 4296

4297



### 4.3.2 Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families 4298

4299

This section discusses reprodu ctive effects and other risks to children of workers and handlers. 4300

These are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm 4301

families; many others, including some cancers

, also have an association with pesticide exposure

. 4302

The discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 4. 6, because 4303

3 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/ pest

- sitablev6.pdf*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

124 most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides and cancer has been based 4304

on occupational exposure. 4305

4306

Reproductive Risks 4307

4308

Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 4309

reproductive outcomes ; exposure that may be reduced due to the final rule . Sanborn et al . (2007) 4310

found 59 studies that examined the relationship between pesticides and reproduc tive outcomes 4311

and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. A summary of their findings is found in Table 4312

4. 3

- 1

. 4313

Table 4. 3

- 1. Summary of Findings on Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al. , 2007

Outcome Examined Number of Papers

Found Number of Papers Found that

Display an Association Between the

Outcome Examined and Pesticide

Exposure*

Birth Defect 15 14 (+)

Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+)

Fertility** 14 7 (

- )

Altered Growth 10 7 (+)

Fetal Death 11 9 (+)

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

* The direction of the association is shown in parentheses.

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality

and infertility.

4314

As seen in Table 4. 3

- 1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 4315

between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 4316

defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalie s, central 4317

nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 4318

studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death which includes 4319

“spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 4320

preconception exposure was associated with early first

- trimester abortions and post

- conception 4321

exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most 4322

effects, half or more of the studi es evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 4323

exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 4324

the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 4325

publ ication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 4326

suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 4327

4328

Potential Health Effects in Children 4329

4330

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre

- nat al occupational exposure to 4331

pregnant women may affect children. Pre

- natal exposure may have particularly important 4332

effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) studies 4333*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

125 have found an association between pre

- nata l exposure to the mother and future childhood 4334

leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 4335

of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth 4336

and fetal lo ss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 4337

pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 4338

Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exen cephaly (brain 4339

tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes 4340

often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 4341

occur, for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an 4342

application. 4343

4344

Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 4345

exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 4346

the systems in adults

. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than those of 4347

younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood

. In 4348

particular

, brain changes continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebr al cortex through 4349

synaptic pruning and myelination , an important physiological process that reduce s excess neuron 4350

connections in the brain and enclos es individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase s 4351

the efficiency of information processing (Go lub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 4352

during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 4353

particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). A dolescents may be subject to incidental exposures by 4354

nearby pesticide app lications or from take home exposures via parents who work with or around 4355

pesticides, all of which can result in adverse health effects. In addition, adolescent workers can 4356

be subject to direct occupational exposure , which is a concern due to fact that acu te exposure at 4357

important stages of development may cause significant health effects and also because 4358

employment at a younger age increases the likelihood of chronic exposure, both of which may 4359

result in delayed health effects over a full lifetime. 4360

4361

Sever al studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and 4362

development are on

- going. Three key cohorts

, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 4363

are looking at pre

- and post

- natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth 4364

outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long

- term childhood neurobehavioral and 4365

neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are: 4366

4367

 The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and 4368

Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord 4369

blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental 4370

outcomes. T his cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 4371

pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 4372

comparisons between pre

- and post

- cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 4373

 The Mount Sinai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican 4374

Hispanic, African American, and Caucasian. This team has associated urinary 4375

metabolites (TCP and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. 4376

The enrollment of the Mt. Sinai cohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential 4377

uses of chlorpyrifos. However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the 4378*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

126 phase

- out of residential uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their 4379

publications. 4380

 The C enter for Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS ) 4381

cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in the Salinas Valley, 4382

California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This cohort is exposed to 4383

many pesti cides from multiple pathways such as occupational exposures and take

- home 4384

exposures. This team has associated urinary metabolites with some birth and 4385

neurodevelopmental outcomes. 4386

4387

M ost relevant to the WPS rule is the CHAMACOS cohort . The CHAMACOS co hort, being 4388

studied by research ers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily Latina 4389

women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from this 4390

cohort, several studies have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during pregnancy 4391

on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi et al

., 4392

1999; Bradman et al ., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and their children 4393

(Bradman et al ., 2005; Eskenazi et al ., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2004; Young and 4394

Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2007). These studies have 4395

investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure during pregnancy on fetal growth 4396

and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al ., 2004), and the relationship between prenatal and child 4397

organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et 4398

al ., 2007). 4399

4400

The published exposure studies from the CHAMACOS cohor t have focused on the six generic 4401

organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as 4402

well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos 4403

(TCP), and parathion (4

- nitrophenol) meta bolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 4404

commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children 4405

(Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007). 4406

4407

The CHAMACOS findings suggest tha t young children in a farmworker community are exposed 4408

to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated 4409

with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al ., 2007), abnormal 4410

reflexes (Young et al ., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al ., 2004). 4411

4412

Similar research in other cohorts is being conducted by both Columbia University and the Mt. 4413

Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban women and their children, so the 4414

pathway s of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are 4415

exposed are smaller, but these studies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three 4416

cohorts report delayed mental development associated with an increase d exposure to OP 4417

pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Engel et al ., 2007). The CHAMACOS and 4418

Mt. Sinai cohorts both report positive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes 4419

in children (Engel et al ., 2007, Young et al ., 2005) . Increased developmental disorders were 4420

reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al

., 4421

2006, Lovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). 4422

4423*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

127 Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate (OP ) pesticides and 4424

the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 4425

hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded 4426

that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, a nd, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were 4427

associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al ., 2010). Similar 4428

associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, 4429

chlorpyrifos and attenti on problems, attention

- deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 4430

pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, L o vasi, et al

., 4431

2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (201 0), 4432

found an association between OP metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to 4433

children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median 4434

had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. 4435

4436

The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 4437

epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 4438

However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 4439

between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 4440

that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro

- developmental and 4441

neurobehavioral outcomes than children with out OP exposur es. The changes to the WPS will 4442

reduce some of these exposures. 4443

4444



### 4.4 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 4445

4446

In the next section, quantified estimate s of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 4447

these quantified e stimates are based only on the value of reduced illness from acute pesticide 4448

exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 4449

sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide exposure exists to make a reasonab le estimate. 4450

The estimates, however, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for 4451

which sufficient data are not available to quantify these benefits. 4452

4453

Included in the list of benefits to the rule which we are unable to quanti fy is the value of 4454

mitigating the harm from a pesticide exposure. Certain provisions of the rule are designed to 4455

enable workers to take action to decontaminate themselves or others after a pesticide exposure, 4456

and to seek treatment after a pesticide exposu re occurs. Although Section 4.5 discusses the 4457

available incident data on pesticide exposures to agricultural farmworkers and attempts to value 4458

the benefits from preventable pesticide incidents, many of the incidents that were deemed not 4459

preventable could have been mitigated had the victim either been better trained to recognize the 4460

potential harm from pesticide exposure or how to respond when an exposure occurs. During the 4461

course of the incident review, EPA staff identified cases where mitigation could pr obably have 4462

improved the outcome (see Section 4.5.3), but we do not have a way to value those benefits. 4463

These incidents were determined to not be preventable by the WPS changes for various reasons 4464

(e.g. exposure to fumigants, where recent changes to fumig ant application requirements would 4465

have prevented the exposure, or drift from a distance beyond which the WPS would be 4466

protective), but workers did not respond by prompt decontamination, or delayed seeking medical 4467

care. Included in the incident reports ar e workers who were drenched with pesticides, but did not 4468

attempt decontamination until after the end of the work day, as well as those who did not seek 4469*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

128 medical care for days or weeks after the exposure. In such cases, the WPS would not prevent the 4470

exposur e

, so these cases were not included in the preventable cases. Because we do not know all 4471

of the details about the exposure levels, we cannot say for certain that the how much of the ill 4472

effects from the exposure would have been prevented with proper mitig ation, including 4473

immediate decontamination, changing clothes if necessary and quickly seeking medical care. 4474

However, many of the cases involved workers or handlers being exposed dermally to pesticides 4475

that splashed or were sprayed on them or to residues i n fields that had been treated (in the 4476

situations of improper early entry). In these situations, it is reasonable to expect that the effects 4477

of a short dermal exposure of several minutes are likely to be less severe than the symptoms of a 4478

longer dermal ex posure of several hours of more. 4479

4480

Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will 4481

result from the WPS, and the dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value 4482

of reducing pesticide expos ure that may have reproductive effects for women is not quantified in 4483

this analysis. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic 4484

exposure to families can result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in 4485

ch ildren . The WPS rule changes that may reduce these effects , but those benefits are difficult to 4486

quantify, so that is not attempted here. 4487

4488

The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non

- quantifiable 4489

benefits from chroni c exposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 4. 8, based on 4490

the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 4. 6. 4491

4492



### 4.5 Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 4493

4494

EPA expects that the changes to the WPS will result in benefits by further protecting workers 4495

and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 4496

families. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute pesticide exposure that ca n be 4497

quantified to be between $ 5 75 ,000 and $ 2. 6 million annually, although this is a substantial 4498

underestimate . There are important non

- quantifiable benefits that are not included in this 4499

estimate, including farmworkers willingness to pay to avoid illness for themselves and their 4500

families, as well as the benefit of avoiding illness associated with chronic pesticide exposure

. 4501

This section quantif ies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 4502

handlers associated with acute p esticide exposure. 4503

4504



### 4.5.1 Methodology and Data 4505

4506

A two

- step process is used to estimate the benefits of the rule that accrue through avoiding acute 4507

effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents that will be 4508

avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of pesticide incident 4509

reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines whether the 4510

provisions of the rule address the causes of the exposure to estimate the proporti on of pesticide 4511

incidents that would be avoided . This proportion is applied to the total number of reported 4512

incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents

. As explained in Section 4. 5.2, 4513

under

- reporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated benefits. 4514*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

129 This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of under

- reporting was known. A 4515

discussion of under

- reporting and the effect on the estimated number of incidents is provided at 4516

the end of this section ; the effect of under

- reporting on the estimated benefits is provided at the 4517

end of Section 4. 5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event 4518

Notification System for Occupational Risks

– Pesticides (SENSOR

- Pesticides), administered b y 4519

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. SENSOR

- Pesticides is a surveillance 4520

program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure. 4521

4522

The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the sever ity of the effects. 4523

The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss . Because 4524

these estimates do not include a victim’s willingness to pay to avoid illness, they underestimate 4525

the value of prevented incidents. 4526

4527

Inform ation on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the 4528

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 4529

related software tools and products developed through a Federal

- State

- Indus try partnership and 4530

sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 4

. HCUP databases bring 4531

together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data 4532

organizations, and the federal government t o create a national information resource of patient

4533

level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 4534

the United States, with all

- payer, encounter

- level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 4535

costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 4536

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 4537

services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals 5

. 4538

4539

Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 4540

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 4.5.4. 4541

4542

4543



### 4.5.2 Underreporting of worker/handler incidents 4544

4545

There is concern that pestici de incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 4546

particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before a n occupational pesticide

4547

related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they ha ve 4548

treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 4549

the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report 4550

the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incid ent must be recorded as pesticide 4551

related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being 4552

tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al ., 2001). 4553

4554

(1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illnes s. 4555

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 4556

4 More information on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project is available here:

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/

5 More information on the Healthcare Common Procedure Code system and codes is available here :

http://www.cms.g ov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

130 uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 4557

rashes and eye irritation, also have many other ca uses. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 4558

common pesticides results in flu

- like or cold

- like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 4559

dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper

- respiratory 4560

problems that mimi c hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 4561

exposure to poison ivy. Symptoms such as weakness, headaches, dizziness, loss of 4562

consciousness, nausea and vomiting, or loss of consciousness are also associated with heat stress 4563

or heat stroke. Many farmworkers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to pesticide 4564

exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and may not 4565

realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues. 4566

4567

(2) Workers an d handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life

- threatening emergencies, 4568

many pesticide

- related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical 4569

intervention. For example, inhibition of the cholinesterase enzyme by pesticide exposure results 4570

in some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this inhibition 4571

will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of exposure) 4572

dissipate without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and opht halmologic effects will , in most 4573

cases, gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many 4574

agricultural workers with treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of 4575

California workers whose illnesses had bee n reported to a surveillance system showed that in 4576

40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment 4577

(Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. 4578

4579

Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handle rs’ access to medical care is poor. A report on 4580

migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 4581

20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 4582

reduced health care a ccess were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005). 4583

These findings are supported by the 2011

- 12 National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 4584

data (DoL, 2011

– 2012). In general, agricultural workers surveyed by NAWS do not have 4585

access to employer

- provided health insurance

– in 2011

- 2012, only 21% of farmworkers 4586

reported having the option for employer

- provided health insurance. USDA research, based on 4587

NAWS data, also reports that workers have difficulty entering the health care system to r eceive 4588

treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for two

- thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed 4589

language barriers as an impediment to receiving care. The problem is more severe among 4590

undocumented workers because they fear seeking treatment will lead to deportation or other 4591

adverse legal action (Kandel, 2008). 4592

4593

The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low

- income persons. 4594

Although low

- income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or 4595

have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs: 4596

 Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significant 4597

barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to non

4598

disabled low

- income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 4599

immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 4600

five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, 4601

some states use monthly budgeting rules a nd have restrictive asset tests, which make it 4602*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

131 difficult for low

- income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for 4603

employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify. 4604

 Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. 4605

M igrant and seasonal farmworkers who are eligible for Medicaid may have difficulty 4606

completing the application and enrollment process. Given their limited English skills, 4607

it can be very difficult for them to complete long application forms or meet extensive 4608

verification requirements, particularly if there is limited availability of language 4609

assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and 4610

Shin, 2005). 4611

4612

A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeki ng medical care for 4613

agricultural workers, including the loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through 4614

retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington 4615

State Department of Health, 2003). 4616

4617

Ma ny agricultural workers average 6

- day work weeks during their peak work season. Without 4618

sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 4619

miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek 4620

medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their 4621

medical bills would be covered by workers compensation and feared employer disapproval if it 4622

were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm 4623

(Washington State Department of Health, 2003). 4624

4625

(3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 4626

treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specifically diagnose the illness or 4627

injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 4628

such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 4629

drawn. Like their patients, physicia ns and other healthcare providers often have difficulty in 4630

ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 4631

those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 4632

poisoni ngs for other causes, because they may not associate vague or common symptoms with 4633

pesticide poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the 4634

poisoning as a pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of 4635

pesticide exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than 4636

confirming the causes. 4637

4638

(4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 4639

recorded as pesticide relat ed. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under

4640

reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 4641

Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 4642

compensa tion records, even when clear

- cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 4643

difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work

- related." (Washington, 1991)

. 4644

4645

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awa reness of reporting 4646

requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 4647

bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 4648*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

132 completing records and reporting incidents (Aza roff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For 4649

example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 4650

healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 4651

becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they might have to defend 4652

an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 4653

statement" (Arizona, 1990). A California Department of Pesticide Regul ation project to 4654

f amiliarize physicians with the reporting requirement and a definition of pesticide determined 4655

that focused outreach to physicians substantially increased physician reporting (Orr and Mehler, 4656

2000). 4657

4658

If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 4659

not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 4660

literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, are underreported, 4661

although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 4662

to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute 4663

symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms

, whi ch may 4664

occur many years after exposure, as discussed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate 4665

symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under

- reporting of illness is 4666

common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of 4667

underreporting ranging from 20

– 70%. These studies are listed in Table 4. 5

- 1 , and are 4668

summarized after the table. 4669

4670

In addition to the four steps listed above, there is another step whereby exposure incidents are 4671

not reporte d to the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used in this analysis. If a record does not meet 4672

the criteria for inclusion in a surveillance database, it means that an exposure will not be 4673

recorded, reported and available for review. This fifth step can exclude man y potential cases that 4674

would be relevant to evaluating the changes to the WPS. It is discussed below with evidence of 4675

the amount of underreporting in this step based on information from California pesticide 4676

exposure incidents. 4677

4678*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

133 Table 4. 5

- 1 Summary of Resu lts from Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990 Treated vs. Reported Toxic

Exposures: Discrepancies

Between a Poison Control

Center and a Member

Hospital (Harchelroad et al

., 1990) Compare poison control

center reports to actual toxic

exposures presented to an

urban area hospital 74% a

1983 Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of

a Regional Poison

Information Center (Chafee

Bahamon 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%

2006 California Surveillance for

Pesticide

- Related Illness and

Injury: Coverage, Bias, and

Limitations (Mehler, et al

. , 2006) Evaluate the strengths and

weaknesses of the California

Pesticide Illness Surveillance

Pro gram 47% of hospitalizations

for agricultural workers,

84% of poison control

reports for all

occupational exposure

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 underreporting for

the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

and how they can be corrected 20

- 70% c

2008 Acute Pesticide Poisoning

Among Agricultural

Workers in the United

States, 1998

– 2005 (Calvert,

et al. , 2008) Identifying agricultural

pesticide exposure incidents

and estimate incident rates 88% to 95%, when

compared to the

Department of Labor

National Agricultural

Workers Survey d

Notes:

a The E mergency M edical D ispatcher evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional P oison C ontrol C enter ;

resulting in underreport of 74%

b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the

hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS

d Based on calculat ion in Calvert et al., 2008, comparing SENSOR

- Pesticides to the National Agricultural Workers Survey

4679

The next few paragraphs summarize and provide more information on the studies listed in Table 4680

4.5

- 1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual S urvey of Occupational Injuries and 4681

Illnesses (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser 4682

estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 4683

70 percent (Ruser, 2008). Alth ough attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national 4684

scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self

- employed, household and 4685*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

134 small

- farm workers are not recorded in the SOII. Work

- related deaths are also unaccounted for 4686

within t he survey. The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, 4687

notably those caused by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the 4688

workplace, although some correlation may exist. 4689

4690

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 4691

injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 4692

According to experts, a major cause of underreporting may be due to the fact that employers may 4693

have cert ain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and 4694

illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 4695

(OSHA). 4696

4697

There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison c ontrol data. The studies each 4698

focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control with those poisonings 4699

for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial 4700

underreporting of poisoning incidents . Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting 4701

by physicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded)

– poisoned people 4702

not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these 4703

studies. 4704

4705

Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 4706

toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 4707

470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26 % were ever 4708

documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 4709

exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non

- reporting. 4710

4711

Chafee

- Bahamon et al . (1983) investigated the variabi lity of reporting by different hospitals. In 4712

similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 4713

among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 4714

hospitals is due t o diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 4715

hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 4716

poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisonin g databases. 4717

4718

The third study, by Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 4719

illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may 4720

occur. In this case, only about one

- third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center 4721

could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and 4722

injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 4723

poisonings may b e consistently low

. 4724

4725

A study by Mehler et al. (2006) evaluated the efficacy of the California Department of Pesticide 4726

Regulation (CDPR) surveillance database, the Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP). 4727

The California PISP is widely regarded as the best pesticide illness surveillance data among the 4728

states. Even so, by comparing PISP incident data to hospitalization records and poison control 4729

center records, Mehler et al. reported that only 16% of occupational pesticide incidents were 4730

reported to th e PISP. Among occupational agricultural incidents involving fewer than five 4731*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

135 people, only 53% of hospitalizations and 52% of poison control center incidents were 4732

represented in PISP data. Among non

- occupational agricultural incidents involving fewer than 4733

five people, only 38% of hospitalizations and 43% of poison control center records were found in 4734

PISP records. This problem, however, did not appear to extend to serious cases with multiple 4735

victims, as the authors did not find underreporting for cases wit h five or more people involved. 4736

Of course, the study only covers cases that were already a part of the health care system, 4737

otherwise they could not ha ve been compared to the PISP. 4738

4739

Calvert et al. , (2008), estimated incidence rates of agricultural pesticid e poisoning, finding that, 4740

among agricultural workers annual pesticide poisonings occurred at a rate of 51 per 100,000 4741

farmworkers. Calvert compares these to results from the Department of Labor’s National 4742

Agricultural Worker’s Survey (NAWS), which in 199 9 survey farmworkers about pesticide 4743

exposure, illness and medical treatment. Calvert et al. report, based on the SENSOR

- Pesticides 4744

data, that 0.07% of farmworkers suffer acute occupational pesticide poisonings annually. They 4745

compare that to the NAWS, wh ich reports that 1.4% of agricultural workers suffered medical 4746

symptoms as a result of pesticide exposure, and that 0.6% received medical treatment for illness 4747

from pesticide exposure. If these numbers are correct, that suggest 0.53% (the difference 4748

betwe en 0.6% and 0.07%) of farmworkers received medical treatment but were not reported to 4749

the pesticide illness surveillance system, and 1.33% (the difference between 1.4% and 0.07%) 4750

suffered symptoms that were not recorded in counts of pesticide incidents. T hese number 4751

suggest substantial underreporting: if 0.53% of the 0.6% were not recorded, that is an 4752

underreporting rate of 88%. If we were to think about incidents including those where medical 4753

treatment is not sought, then 1.4% of farmworkers had illness from pesticide exposure, but 4754

1.33% were not recorded, which is an underreporting rate of 95%. 4755

4756

There are additional reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 4757

OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 4758

incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 4759

above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 4760

4761

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report in cidents; 4762

 No central reporting point for all incidents; 4763

 Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes; 4764

 Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects; 4765

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to i dentify the pesticide that caused the 4766

effects; 4767

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects; 4768

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; 4769

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. 4770

4771

There are also good reasons to think th at underreporting is at least as significant in the 4772

agricultural sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the 4773

characteristics of the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) describes the hired farmworker 4774

population as “... younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign

- born, and less likely to be 4775

citizens or authorized to work in the United States.” These attributes reflect a relatively 4776

disadvantaged workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or repor t pesticide 4777*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

136 incidents to their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and 4778

immigration status described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek 4779

medical care, which would be a primary route for pesticide incide nts to be reported and available 4780

to be counted in poisoning databases. Calvert et al. , (2008), reports on data from an earlier 4781

National Agricultural Worker Survey that indicates 3.2% of agricultural workers reported a 4782

known exposure, and 43% of those had physical symptoms from the exposure. Only 0.6% in the 4783

survey had received medical car e for a pesticide exposure. Although these characteristics do not 4784

describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a population that does not have a lot of 4785

resources to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to interact with health workers because of their 4786

immigration status, or have difficulty communicating with health workers when they do seek 4787

medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure. 4788

4789

Although EPA’s estimates of acute pesticide illnesses prevented by the changes to the WPS are 4790

based on repo rted incidents, other measures show that pesticide exposure to farmworkers is more 4791

common than the incident data show. As an example, Arcury et al. (2010) tested urine samples 4792

among seasonal farmworkers in North Carolina for metabolites of pesticides, whi ch indicate 4793

pesticide exposure, even if the farmworkers were unaware. The authors report that all of the 4794

cohort of 196 farmworkers who were tested four times during a growing season, had detections 4795

of four or more metabolites. About 2/3 of tested farmwor kers had detections for seven or more 4796

different metabolites. The study does not report whether the exposures were sufficient to require 4797

medical care, but the results do indicate that exposure is common. Also, this kind of low level, 4798

common exposure has t he potential to cause chronic illnesses, which are discussed in Section 4.6 4799

and 4.8. 4800

4801

SENSOR

- Pesticides 4802

4803

The primary source of pesticide exposure incidents that EPA uses in this analysis to estimate 4804

prevented acute illness is the SENSOR

- Pesticides database. The SENSOR

- Pesticides databas e 4805

covers 12 states from 1998

- 2011 , although reporting varies from state t o state and from year to 4806

year . Cases of pesticide

- related illnesses are ascertained from a variety of sources, including: 4807

reports from local Poison Control Centers, state Department of Labor workers’ compensation 4808

claims when reported by physicians, reports from State Departments of Agriculture, and 4809

physician reports to state Departments of Health. Although both occupational and non

4810

occupational incidents are included in the database, SENSOR

- Pesticides focuses on occupational 4811

pesticide incidents, and is of p articular value in providing that information. A state SENSOR

4812

Pesticides specialist attempts to follow

- up with occupational and high priority cases (high 4813

severity and multiple case events, for example) and obtains medical records to verify symptoms, 4814

circum stances surrounding the exposure, severity, and outcome. Using standardized case 4815

definition and list of variables, SENSOR

- Pesticides coordinators at State Departments of Health 4816

enter the incident interview description provided by the case, medical report, physician and 4817

patient into the SENSO R

- Pesticides s ystem. 4818

4819

A case is considered by CDC/NIOSH to be reportable to SENSOR

- Pesticides when any adverse 4820

health effect, resulting from exposure to a FIFRA

- defined pesticide product, occurs. Cases, 4821

including all l ow severity cases, must report at least two symptoms to be included in the 4822

database. Cases must also be categorized as definite, probable, possible, or suspicious based 4823*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

137 upon a rigorous case classification matrix that takes into account: the temporal relat ionship 4824

between adverse health effects and exposure, evidence of a causal relationship between 4825

symptoms and the pesticides. “Unlikely” cases are not reportable to SENSOR

- Pesticides. 4826

4827

EPA’s attempt to quantify preventable poisoning cases also indicates tha t there are a substantial 4828

number of cases that do not get reported in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used for estimating 4829

the benefits here. As part of the process to determine if SENSOR

- Pesticides cases are relevant to 4830

the WPS rule changes and determine i f they are preventable (see Section 4.5.3), EPA staff 4831

investigated the SENSOR

- Pesticides incident reports and sought out additional information from 4832

the CDPR PISP for those cases from California. 4833

4834

California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) 4835

4836

The California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) maintains a database of pesticide

4837

related illnesses and injuries. Case reports are received from physicians and via workers’ 4838

compensation records. The local County Agricultural Commissioner inves tigates circumstances 4839

of exposure. Medical records and investigative findings are then evaluated by DPR technical 4840

experts and entered into an illness registry. 4841

4842

PISP contains both residential and occupational pesticide incidents. PISP has limited coverage 4843

(only California) and is not particularly useful for national trend information. However, the 4844

incident information is entered by professionals with expertise in pesticides, with extensive 4845

follow

- up on each reported case so there is a high level of confid ence in the information 4846

provided for each reported incident. PISP is an active surveillance program. 4847

4848

SENSOR

- Pesticides, which is populated by the California Department of Public Health, did not 4849

capture many pesticide incidents that were identified in t he CDPR PISP , which is an example of 4850

the fifth step in which exposure incidents can be underreported

. Because the estimates of 4851

pesticide incidents avoided i n Section 4.5.3 are based on SENSOR

- Pesticides, these are incidents 4852

that are not included in our be nefits estimates. T he number of cases not captured in the 4853

SENSOR

- Pesticides data that are found in PISP may be important to consider in this analysis to 4854

characterize part of the underreporting. It appears that the number of SENSOR

- Pesticides 4855

incidents th at were found to be relevant for the WPS changes and proposed changes to the 4856

certification standards 6 is substantially smaller than the potentially relevant cases in the PISP 4857

data. From 2008

– 2011, the PISP data show 1,043 cases potentially relevant to at least one of 4858

the two rules, and the SENSOR

- Pesticides reports for relevant cases show 326 cases, so only 4859

31% of potentially relevant PISP cases appear in SENSOR

- Pesticides

. 4860

4861

EPA reviewed the individual cases for 2008, where there were 324 cases in PISP. Only 78 of 4862

these cases (24%) were in SENSOR. EPA selected 2008 as a reference year to investigate the 4863

differences between PISP and SENSOR

- Pesticides because it was more likely that all relevant 4864

investigations had been concluded for the cases from 2008 c ompared to 2011

. EPA identified 4865

6 EPA is engaged in another rulemaking proposing changes to the standards for competence of certified pesticide

applicators. SENSOR pesticide incidents are allocated to this rule or that one, to ensure no doub le

- counting of

incidents.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

138 the following reasons why the 246 remaining PISP cases were not included in our query of the 4866

SENSOR data: 4867

4868

 In 96 cases, the worker did not seek medical attention, which is a criterion for a case 4869

being included in SENSOR

- Pes ticides. This was also discussed earlier as a reason for 4870

an incident not being reported. For the 324 cases in PISP for 2008, these 96 workers 4871

account for 30% of the cases. 4872

 For 21 of the cases, the worker only exhibited one symptom from the pesticide 4873

expo sure. A case must include two or more symptoms to be included in SENSOR

4874

Pesticides. 4875

 Thirty

- one cases involved drift of an agricultural pesticide into a residential area. While 4876

SENSOR

- Pesticides does include some incidents like this, the focus of SENSOR

4877

P esticides is on occupational exposures. It is possible that these 31 cases were not 4878

included because they were not occupational exposures. 4879

 There were 23 cases associated with an incident involving an antimicrobial pesticide, 4880

which may not have been identi fied as a pesticide and therefore not included. 4881

 Twenty

- one cases were not included for other reasons, including being part of a high 4882

profile incident that may not have been reported to the database at the time (because of 4883

the sensitivity), being based on a n initial report but not final investigation, being 4884

identified for different years (e.g., 2007 in SENSOR and 2008 in PISP), and being 4885

entered into the system late. 4886

 Finally, there were 54 cases where we could not identify a reason that the incident was 4887

not included in SENSOR

- Pesticides. 4888

4889

As shown by the analysis of the 2008 cases, a number of factors could account for the difference 4890

in cases between SENSOR

- Pesticides and PISP. As explained above, t he two surveillance 4891

programs have different standards for case inclusion and ascertainment. In most of the cases, the 4892

incidents in PISP may not have met the standards to be included in SENSOR

- Pesticides (e.g. 4893

there was only one poisoning symptom, or the victim was not evaluated by a health professional) 4894

or the i ncident may have seemed otherwise outside the scope of SENSOR

- Pesticides (e.g., the 4895

incident did not involve occupational exposure or it did not seem to involve a pesticide). In other 4896

cases, particularly those that involve 5 or more people, the report in SENSOR

- Pesticides may be 4897

based on an initial notification of an incident but not the final investigation summary that is in 4898

PISP, resulting in differences in the number of people injured. The active ingredient, 4899

enforcement response or other information ma y also be different, resulting in our inability to 4900

categorize an incident in SENSOR

- Pesticides as relevant. CDPR also has the County 4901

Agricultural Commissioner investigate every case of illness exposure that is entered into PISP. 4902

Thus, the evaluation of t he likelihood of the illness being associated with pesticide exposure is a 4903

combination of medical evaluation and information from the field. Finally, cases that are 4904

reported to DPR from poison control, County Agricultural Commissioner investigations, or t ips 4905

and complaints from the general public may not get reported to CDPR and consequently to 4906

SENSOR

- Pesticides. While the two state agencies invest considerable time in ensuring one 4907

uniform list of statewide occupational illnesses, differences remain. Thes e figures indicate that 4908

many pesticide exposure incidents are not included in the data used for the quantified benefit 4909

estimates of this rule. 4910

4911*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

139 Comparing SENSOR

- Pesticides to PISP 4912

4913

The analysis of the differences between PISP and California cases in SEN SOR

- Pesticides for 4914

2008 can be used to estimate the underreporting that occurs at other points in the process than the 4915

estimates in the studies shown in Table 4.5

- 1. In particular, 4916

4917

 Seeking medical attention is discussed as the second of the steps identif ied by Das et al. 4918

(2001) that lead to underreporting (see Section 4.5.2). For the 2008 PISP data, the 4919

worker did not seek medical attention in 30% of the cases (96 cases out of 324 total 4920

cases). We assume that 30% of the cases are not reported because of this reason (or that 4921

70% of the cases are reported). 4922

 The studies discussed in Table 4.5

- 1 estimate the share of incidents that are reported by 4923

physicians into a recordkeeping system, which is discussed as step 4 by Das et al . (2001). 4924

Based on the inform ation reported in those studies, we assume that 70% of cases are not 4925

reported for this step (or that 30% of the case are reported). 4926

 For a variety of reasons, including not meeting the criteria for inclusion in SENSOR

4927

Pesticides, possibly being outside the focus of SENSOR

- Pesticides, and for logistical 4928

reasons other than those discussed above, known pesticide incidents do not appear in 4929

SENSOR

- Pesticides. In addition to the 96 cases that did not seek medical care in the 4930

2008 PISP data, there were 150 other c ases that were in PISP but not SENSOR

4931

Pesticides. This means that 46% of the cases (150 out of 324 cases) were not reported for 4932

other reasons, so we estimate that 46% of cases do not get into SENSOR

- Pesticides (or 4933

54% of the cases are reported). 4934

4935

Conside ring only the underreporting due to these three factors, EPA estimates that in California, 4936

about 11.3% of incidents in 2008 were reported to SENSOR

- Pesticides. While this estimate may 4937

seem low, it is calculated by multiplying the percent of cases that are reported in each step: 0.7 4938

(sought medical attention) * 0.3 (cases reported by medical staff) * 0.54 (made it into SENSOR

4939

Pesticides by meeting the criteria, being in the scope of the database

, etc. ). While this analysis 4940

covered the incidents reported fo r only one year, it is important information because it deals 4941

specifically with cases involving occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides. 4942

4943

This is still a conservative estimate that does not quantify the impact of all of the reasons 4944

incidents may not be counted that are discussed in this section , such as step 1 (workers and 4945

handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness) and step 3 (the physician 4946

must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide

- related). The description of the SENSOR

4947

Pesticide cases indicated that some workers or employers attributed their symptoms to other 4948

causes, such as a virus, general fatigue, heat, or something they ate. However, EPA does not 4949

have enough information to attempt to quantify this factor. W e also do not have information 4950

available to attempt to identify the percent of incidents that are underreported by physicians 4951

diagnosing symptoms as being caused by something other than pesticides. 4952

4953

The limited available data for pesticide poisonings of fa rmworkers are consistent with the 4954

conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to 4955

medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of acute benefits from 4956*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

140 avoided pesticide incide nts are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 4957

underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 4.5. 4958

4959

4960



### 4.5.3 Pesticide Incidents Avoided 4961

4962

As described above, the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure 4963

(SENSOR

- Pesticides) is a surveillance program from the National Institute for Occupational 4964

Safety and Health (NIOSH) designed to monitor occupational illnesses related to pesticide 4965

exposure

. T his database contains detail on the occupa tional exposures that led to the incident 4966

report, their severity and their causes

. SENSOR

- Pesticides reports generally contain sufficient 4967

detail to identify the type of pesticide involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances 4968

of the incident. These data are used to estimate the final rule’s effect on pesticide incidents by 4969

evaluating the proportion of incidents that would be avoided due to the rule. 4970

4971

The database from SENSOR

- Pesticides is used for estimating the final rule’s effect. EPA 4972

obtained data for a four

- year period, 2008 to 2011, during which time ten states (California, 4973

Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) 4974

reported incidents involving pesticides to SENSOR

- Pesticides. Al though SENSOR

- Pesticides 4975

data are available for earlier years, only data from 2008

– 2011 are used in this evaluation 4976

because it is the most recent multi

- year data available and therefore are most likely to represent 4977

the pesticides, equipment and agricultu ral practices used today. Because only ten states reported 4978

to SENSOR

- Pesticides over this time frame, we extrapolate the expected number of incidents 4979

and incidents avoided to the national level. 4980

4981

To estimate the annual national number of pesticide inciden ts avoided by this rule, we need to 4982

scale the data from the SENSOR

- Pesticides states to the national level. If we let PI s,l be the 4983

number of preventable incidents in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, and FW

s be the number of 4984

farmworkers in the SENSOR

- Pesticid es states, then we can define RP s,l = PI s,l /FW

s , which will 4985

be an estimate of the number of preventable incidents per farmworker, which is done for each 4986

level of likelihood for the incident being avoided. We will assume that the rate of preventable 4987

incide nts per farmworker nationally, RP n,l , is equal to RP s,l . Therefore, we can estimate the 4988

national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RP n,l by the number of farmworkers 4989

nationally. We can do a similar estimation using farms, rather than farmwork ers. 4990

4991

RP

s ,l

, the rate of preventable incidents per farmworker, is estimated by taking the number of 4992

avoided incidents annually, and dividing it by the number of farmworker in the SENSOR

4993

Pesticides states, and then scaling the result into preventable incidents per 1,000 farmworkers, 4994

and similarly for farms. The estimates for farmworkers and farms are from the same data as in 4995

Chapter 3, although more disaggregated

. The estimated incident rates and national estimates of 4996

avoided incidents are shown in Table 4.5

- 3 , below. 4997

4998

EPA did not use all the available SENSOR

- Pesticides case reports for this determination. 4999

Certain pesticides, identified as Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be applied by certified 5000

applicators or applicators under their direct supervision . T hes e applicators are subject to separate 5001

regulations, which are also being revised. To avoid double counting avoided incidents, EPA 5002*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

141 reviewed each of the RUP cases to determine whether it should be used to support the WPS 5003

changes, the certification rule chang es, or neither. 5004

5005

To ensure a consistent approach in reviewing incidents and to avoid double counting incidents by 5006

using them to support both the proposed changes to the pesticide applicator certification 5007

regulations and the final regulations on the Worker Protection Standard, EPA compiled cases 5008

from three separate queries of SENSOR

- Pesticides into one database. These three queries were: 5009

• Cases from 2009 and 2010 that involved a restricted use product and had at least one 5010

contributing factor (also known as a prevention code) identified. EPA initially focused 5011

this query on cases with prevention codes to draw upon the training and expertise of 5012

NIOSH and the SENSOR

- Pesticides state surveillance coordinators who investigate 5013

and code these cases. However, furthe r investigation revealed that some relevant 5014

incidents were not captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or 5015

“unknown.” The cases from this query focused on incidents related to the proposed 5016

certification rule and, at the time of the q uery, represented the two most recent years of 5017

available data. 5018

• Cases from 2008 through 2011 that occurred in an agricultural setting, which was identified 5019

based on the occupational and industry codes in SENSOR

- Pesticides. This query 5020

focused on incidents r elated to the WPS and, at the time of the query, represented the 5021

four most recent years of available data. 5022

• Cases from 2008 through 2010 that involved drift from an agricultural application. This 5023

query was run to ensure that we captured all relevant drift cases. If a pesticide applied 5024

to an agricultural crop drifted onto bystanders in a different profession (such as teachers 5025

or cooks at a school), the industry and occupational codes of the bystanders would 5026

reflect their industry and may not be captured by the query in the previous bullet that 5027

searched for agricultural occupational and industry codes. This query focused on drift 5028

incidents related to the WPS and, at the time of the query, represented the three most 5029

recent years of available data. 5030

5031

The cases f

rom these three queries were combined into one data set to account for duplicate 5032

cases (i.e., cases identified by more than one of the queries). The pesticide (or pesticides) 5033

involved with each case was analyzed to determine whether or not it was a restri cted use 5034

pesticide (RUP). In many cases, the specific pesticide product EPA registration number was 5035

identified so a definite determination could be made about whether the pesticide was an RUP. In 5036

some cases, only the active ingredient was identified so t he determination of the product’s RUP 5037

status could not be made definitively. 5038

5039

The cases that involved an RUP (or that likely involved an RUP if the specific product was not 5040

known) were initially assumed to be related to the certification rule. However, EP A reviewed 5041

each of these cases to determine whether it was more related to the certification regulation or the 5042

WPS. For example, if an incident involved workers entering a field before the restricted entry 5043

interval of an RUP expired, this would be related to the WPS even though it involved an RUP 5044

because Certification is relevant to the competency of the applicator, not protection of workers 5045

after the application is complete. If an RUP incident was determined to be more likely to be 5046

prevented by the chang es to the WPS, it is included in this analysis of the WPS and will not be 5047

used to inform the certification rule changes to avoid double counting. 5048*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

142 5049

EPA also reviewed all of the cases to identify the ones that could not be used to inform either the 5050

proposed certification changes or the final WPS regulations. For example, incidents that 5051

happened at a formulating or manufacturing plant do not involve certified applicators, so they are 5052

not relevant to the certification rule, and also would not be covered by the WPS. Also, incidents 5053

that involved pesticides that were not RUPs used in activities that are not covered by WPS, such 5054

as post

- harvest uses of antimicrobial pesticides, are not related to either rule. 5055

5056

As a result of this exercise, EPA identified 854 case s that could potentially be used to inform the 5057

final WPS or the proposed certification rule, which were categorized as follows: 5058

• 402 cases could potentially were relevant to the final WPS rule 5059

• 301 cases could potentially were relevant to the proposed certification rule 5060

• 151 cases, upon review, were not related to either the WPS or certification rules. 5061

5062

The rest of this discussion focuses on the 402 cases that are relevant to the final WPS rule. 5063

Nebraska, a new SENSOR

- pesticides state in 2011, did not report any cases in the earlier years 5064

and reported four cases in 2011. To ensure that our data are in fact from a four year period, four 5065

reported incidents from Nebraska were removed from the data, leaving 398 cases. 5066

5067

Using the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR

- Pesticides and any additional information 5068

provided by the state (for California and Washington), EPA was able to identify the proximate 5069

causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA reviewed the narrative description of these 5070

cases, the information identified in the SENSOR

- Pesticide database and, additional information 5071

from the state if it was available for the cause of the incident and determined whether the 5072

provisions of the final W PS rule could prevent the exposure that caused the incident and whether 5073

the provisions of the final WPS rule could mitigate any pesticide exposures that could not be 5074

prevented. In other words, incidents were assessed to determine both preventability and w hether 5075

the effects could be mitigated by the final WPS rule. 5076

5077

In terms of preventability, each case was categorized as “preventable”, “possibly preventable”, 5078

“not preventable” or “not enough information” by the final WPS rule. Categories were assigned 5079

usi ng the following guidelines: 5080

• Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and the 5081

effect and the information demonstrated a set of circumstances that would be prevented 5082

by compliance with the final WPS rule. For examp le, pesticide drift from an aerial 5083

application onto a bystander 60 feet from the field would be prevented by the 5084

requirement for handlers (applicators) to suspend applications if workers or other 5085

persons were in the application exclusion zone. Other types of incidents included in this 5086

category are handlers who did not wear the required PPE (which would be addressed by 5087

improved handler training) and exposure to handlers resulting from respirators that did 5088

not fit or were not used properly (which would be add ressed by the requirements for 5089

respirator medical evaluation, fit tests and training). 5090

• Possibly Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the 5091

exposure and the effect and the set of circumstances might be prevented by compliance 5092

with the final WPS rule but there was some uncertainty. The uncertainty could involve 5093

not having enough details to know exactly how the exposure happened, or some 5094*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

143 ambiguity about whether the final WPS provisions would prevent the circumstances. 5095

Many of t hese cases were drift incidents where drift was not confirmed by sampling or 5096

where the potentially exposed people were outside of the application exclusion zone but 5097

close enough that it is possible the applicator could see them and suspend application to 5098

e nsure that the pesticide spray did not contact the person. Other common scenarios 5099

involve handlers taking an action that may not be prohibited by the label (like taking off 5100

safety glasses that weren’t required by the label) but that could be prevented by better 5101

handler training and good management practices resulting from that training. 5102

• Not Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the exposure and 5103

the effect but the set of circumstances would not be prevented by compliance with the 5104

final WPS rule or incidents where there was not a clear link between the exposure and 5105

the effect. For example, a worker might experience symptoms while working in a field 5106

where the restricted entry interval had expired. In this case, the worker coul d legally 5107

work in the field without any personal protective equipment and some other WPS 5108

provisions would not apply, so there would not be any requirements in the final WPS 5109

rule that would prevent this from happening. (There are some provisions that could 5110

mitigate exposure to any pesticides, as described below.) Also, many of the cases in 5111

this category involve soil fumigants and would have been prevented by the recent 5112

changes to those product labels. 5113

• Not Enough Information: Incidents where there is not en ough information to make a 5114

determination about whether the final WPS rule would have prevented the incident. 5115

5116

It should be noted that the distribution of cases from SENSOR

- pesticide states is not even. 5117

Almost 50% of the cases are from California, and 33% are from Washington. Although there 5118

may be reasons for a higher number of cases in these two states, which are relatively large 5119

employers of farm labor who perform a lot of handwork, differences in reporting rates between 5120

states are likely. All PISP cas es in California are investigated by the County Agricultural 5121

Commissioners (Mehler, et al. , 2006), and California and Washington have higher staffing levels 5122

for surveillance, and identify pesticide exposure cases through workers’ compensation records 5123

(Calv ert et al. , 2008). The difference in state reports of incidents may indicate substantial 5124

underreporting in other states. Florida, for example, reported 6 incidents over the four years, an 5125

annual rate of 0.017 per thousand farmworkers, quite a bit lower w hen compared to California 5126

(0.116 incidents per thousand farmworkers) or Washington (0.136 incidents per thousand 5127

farmworkers). Because there is no reason to believe that workers in Florida have substantially 5128

different behaviors and practices than worker s in California and Washington, a major difference 5129

in the worker incident rates between states with comparable agricultural work is likely to reflect 5130

a difference in the incident surveillance systems. 5131

5132

In many cases, after an exposure occurs, the harm caus ed by the pesticide exposure could be 5133

mitigated by prompt action to decontaminate and seek medical care (see Section 4.4). EPA also 5134

looked at the SENSOR

- pesticides incidents to determine if the incidents could have been 5135

mitigated. 5136

5137

In terms of “mitigate

- ability”, each case was categorized as “could be mitigated”, “possibly 5138

could be mitigated”, or “not mitigate

- able” by the final WPS rule. Categories were assigned 5139

using the following guidelines: 5140*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

144 • Incidents that could be mitigated: incidents where there wa s a clear link between the 5141

exposure and the effect and the effects of the exposure would have been mitigated by 5142

compliance with the final WPS rule. For example, this category includes cases where a 5143

worker or handler was exposed to pesticides and did not d econtaminate right away, e.g., 5144

they waited to shower until they went home that night. This category also includes 5145

cases where an exposed worker or handler waited a long time to inform their employer 5146

about the exposure or to seek medical attention. Improv ed worker and handler training 5147

should increase understanding about the importance of promptly mitigating any 5148

pesticide exposures and lead to more thorough decontamination and quicker medical 5149

care. 5150

• Incidents that possibly could be mitigated: incidents wh ere there was a clear link between 5151

the exposure and the effect and the effects of the exposure might have been mitigated 5152

by compliance with the final WPS rule but there was some uncertainty. For example, 5153

many cases don’t include any information about deco ntamination or how long the 5154

person waited before seeking medical care. 5155

• Incidents that are not mitigate

- able: incidents where the proper decontamination and 5156

emergency assistance were followed or cases involving a person who would not be 5157

required to take th e worker or handler training, such as a certified applicator or a 5158

farmer. 5159

5160

Although we do not attempt to value the benefits of additional mitigation here for the reasons 5161

described in Section 4.4, we do note that using the method just described we find that of the 398 5162

WPS relevant cases in SENSOR

- pesticides, 57 were classified as mitigatible and 86 appear to be 5163

possibly mitigatible, which represents 36% of all WPS relevant cases evaluated by EPA. 5164

5165

The review of the four years of SENSOR

- Pesticides data identified 119 cases that were 5166

preventable under the revisions to the WPS. Ano ther 102 cases were possibly preventable. 5167

Cases deemed “preventable” were used to calculate the low

- end ratio of acute exposure cases to 5168

total unintentional pesticide incidents. 5169

5170

Table 4. 5

- 2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation 5171

of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 30 % and 56% of pesticide illnesses where the 5172

WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases 5173

similar to those deemed preventable due to the rul e changes, as discussed above. The higher 5174

estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibly preventable after the rule 5175

changes. 5176

5177

5178

5179*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

145 Table 4.5

- 2: Estimated SENSOR

- Pesticides Cases Avoided, 2008

– 2011

Likelihood of being avoided by

Rule Changes Number of Cases

Avoided, 2008

-

2011 Average Annual

Number of Cases

Avoided, 2008

-

2011 Percent of WPS

Cases

(398 Cases)

Preventable 119 29.8 30%

Possibly Preventable 102 25.5 26%

Both Preventable and Possibly

Preventable 221 55.3 56%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data.

5180

5181

The number of incidents that could have been prevented or possibly prevented annually in the 5182

SENSOR states, is shown in the third column of Table 4.5

- 2 . This number is one

- fourth what is 5183

shown in the second column, because the prevented incidents are from a four year period . These 5184

estimates are presented for both preventable and possibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the 5185

table. As shown in Table 4.5

- 3 , f or every 1 ,000 farmworkers in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, 5186

there are an estimated 0.0 50 pesticide illness incidents that are preventable or possibly 5187

preventable by the rule. For every 1,000 farms, there are 0. 433 preventable or possibly 5188

preventable pesticide incid ents. Also shown in Table 4.5

- 3 is the national estimate of avoided 5189

pesticide incidents, estimated using both the number of farms and farmworkers. The estimates in 5190

this column were calculated by multiplying the annual preventable incident rate per farm o r 5191

farmworker ( RP n,l = RP s,l ) times the number of farms or farmworkers nationally. These 5192

calculations yield an estimate of annual pesticide incidents prevented by the rule of 9 9 on the low 5193

end, and 1 62 on the upper end. This estimate accounts only for rep orted incidents, which are 5194

likely to be a small proportion of the total number of incidents. 5195

5196*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

146 Table 4.5

- 3: Estimated SENSOR

- Pesticides Cases Avoided, 2008

– 2011

Likelihood of

being

avoided by

Rule

Changes Annual

Avoidable

Incident rate

per 1,000

Farmworkers National Estimate

of WPS Cases

Avoided Annually

Based on

Farmworker

Incident Rate Annual

Avoidable

Incident rate per

1,000 Farms National Estimate of

WPS Cases Avoided

Annually Based on

Farm Incident Rate

Preventable 0.027 54 0.233 87

Possibly

Preventable 0.023 46 0.200 75

Both

Preventable

and Possibly

Preventable 0.050 99 0.433 162

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data. The incident rates are based on a count of 1,1 08

, 211

farmworkers or 1 27,664 farms in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states during 2012, and the national estimates are based

on an average of 1,995,037 farmworkers or 374,791 farms in 2012.

Note: The number of cases avoided is based on four years of information, while the final column is an annual

estimate.

5197

5198

The analysis of the differences between California PISP data and SENSOR

- Pesticides indicated 5199

that in 2008, 11.3% of pesticide exposure incidents are reported into SENSOR

- Pesticides, which 5200

we use for quantifying acute benefits of the rule. California has a very robust reporting, 5201

investigation and surveillance system, and underreported incidents are likely to b e higher in other 5202

states. If, for that reason, we assume that 10% of cases are reported into SENSOR

- Pesticides, 5203

the estimated number of incidents per year is 540

– 990 using the estimates from Table 4.5

- 3 5204

based on the number of workers, and 870 to 1,620 u sing the estimates based on the number of 5205

farms. 5206

5207

Another factor that was discussed in this section regarding the number of incidents identified in 5208

SENSOR is that the distribution of case s from SENSOR

- Pesticides states is not even. 5209

Specifically, Californi a accounts for nearly 50% of the annual cases in SENSOR (while having 5210

about 21% of the workers) and Washington accounts for about 33% of the annual cases in 5211

SENSOR (while having 12% of the workers). The reported rate of SENSOR

- Pesticides 5212

incidents is 5 to 8 times higher in California and Washington than in some of the other states, 5213

such as Oregon and Florida, where the average annual number of cases per thousand workers is: 5214

5215

 0.136 for Washington 5216

 0.116 for California 5217

 0.021 for Oregon 5218

 0.017 for Florida. 5219

5220

The re may be a number of reasons that the rate of incidents varies between states, including 5221

differences in the crops, agricultural practices, length of growing seasons, state and local 5222*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

147 regulations, and the proximity of urban and agricultural areas. We also know that California and 5223

Washington have higher staffing levels for surveillance and review workers’ compensation 5224

records to identify potential pesticide exposure cases. Assuming that the difference in incident 5225

rates largely reflects the difference in inc ident surveillance systems, we can use the average of 5226

the rates in California and Washington to estimate the number of cases that could have been 5227

included in SENSOR if other states had surveillance systems comparable to California and 5228

Washington . For exam ple, the Washington/California average annual number of cases per 5229

thousand workers is 0.126. Using this value to estimate the number of anticipated incidents each 5230

year based on the number of workers in Florida and Oregon results in an estimate of 10.8

– 1 0.9 5231

cases per year in both states, compared to the actual average of 1.75 cases per year for Oregon 5232

and 1.5 cases per year for Florida. Using the same process of extrapolation to a national estimate 5233

based on the incident rate per farmworker, this would re sult in a national estimate of 117 total 5234

cases per year. Compare this to the initial estimate based only on the SENSOR

- Pesticides 5235

reported data, which was 99 cases per year (see Table 4.5

- 2). If, as above, only ten percent of 5236

pesticide exposure incidents are reported in SENSOR

- Pesticides, this would mean the estimated 5237

number of incidents annually would be 630

– 1170 based on the number of farmworkers, and 5238

1,020

– 1,900 based on the number of farms. In other words, a change of just 18 cases per year 5239

in SE NSOR by adjusting the rate in only two states has a relatively large impact to the overall 5240

estimate of number of cases. 5241

5242



### 4.5.4 Value of Incidents Avoided 5243

5244

As explained in Section 4.5.1, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 5245

medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 5246

These are not the only sources of value, but they are quantifiable. Other unquantifiable benefits 5247

are discussed in Section 4.4 and 4.6. The value of avoided incide nts depends on the severity of 5248

the effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 5249

require more treatment, including hospitalization. People suffering from more severe effects are 5250

more likely to seek medical trea tment. Further, a more severe effect is likely to result in a longer 5251

period of recovery during which the victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. 5252

Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to 5253

estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality. 5254

5255

Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 5256

given the severity of effects. For each severity level i , the value of an avoided case is given by 5257

5258

V i Av

= E [ MedCost i ] + VPL i 5259

5260

where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] i s the expected medical cost for the case, 5261

and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We use the four severity levels 5262

described in th e SENSOR

- Pesticides database as described below: Low Severity, Moderate 5263

Severity, High Severity, and Death. 5264

5265

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 5266

5267

E [ MedCost i ]

= Prob ( HCF | i ) × [ OutPtnt i + InPtnt i ] 5268*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

148 5269

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 5270

severity of the effect, OutPtnt i is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 5271

InPtnt i is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of co st only includes expenses at 5272

health care facilities, so any self

- treatment expenses will be underestimated. 5273

5274

The value of lost productivity is 5275

5276

VPL i = (ω

w ∙work + ω H ∙housekeeping + ω L ∙leisure)∙DUR i 5277

5278

where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the t ime spent at work, housekeeping is the 5279

time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 5280

activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 5281

5282

The value of a reduction in premature mortality is simply the value o f a statistical life (VSL). 5283

The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortality risk 5284

experienced by a large number of people (EPA, 2010a). In the SENSOR data used for this 5285

analysis, there were no preventable deaths, so the VSL is not used. 5286

5287

Probability of Effect 5288

5289

The SENSOR

- Pesticides data on pesticide illnesses contains information about the severity of 5290

the illness for each incident. As shown in Table 4.5

- 4 , considering only the preventable and 5291

possibly preventable incidents, about 77% of the acute cases considered resulted in “low severity 5292

illness or injury”, almost 22% percent in “moderate severity illness or injury,” under 2% in “high 5293

severity illness or injury,” and no deaths. The majority of cases prevented are in the categories 5294

of low or moderate severity. Deaths due to pesticide exposure are fortunately rare, and none 5295

appeared during our sample. However, the probability of death occurring in the farmworker 5296

population is merely low, not zero. Deaths are more likely to be associated with exposure to 5297

RUPs , even though farmworkers may be exposed to RUPs through activities for which the WPS 5298

provides protection. Our analysis here uses a probability of death as zero rather than some 5299

positive number, and this is an other reason the acute benefits are underestimated. 5300

5301

5302

Table 4.5

- 4 : Severity of Symptoms from Preventable SENSOR

- Pesticides Cases

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury 1 69 76. 5 %

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 49 2 2.2 %

Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 3 1. 4 %

Category S

- 1: Death 0 0.0%

Total 22 1 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data, 2008

- 2011

5303*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

149 The four severity categories in the SENSOR

- Pesticides data are defined as follows (NIOSH, 5304

2001): 5305

5306

 S

- 4 Low severity illness or injury 5307

This is the category of lowest severity. It is often manifested by skin, eye or upper 5308

respiratory irritation. It may also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Typically 5309

the illness or injury resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (<3 days) from 5310

work or normal activities

. 5311

5312

 S

- 3 Moderate severity illness or injury 5313

This category includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving systemic 5314

manifestations. Generally, treatment was provided. The individual is able to return to 5315

normal functioning without any residual disability. Usually, less time is lost from work or 5316

normal activities (3

- 5 day s), compared to those with severe illness or injury. No residual 5317

impairment is present (altho ugh effects may be persistent). 5318

5319

 S

- 2 High severity illness or injury 5320

The illness or injury is severe enough to be considered life threatening and typically 5321

requir es treatment. This level of effect commonly involves hospitalization to prevent 5322

death. Signs and symptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal 5323

failure and/or respiratory depression. The individual sustains substantial loss of time ( > 5 5324

days) from regular work (this can include assignment to limited/light work duties) or 5325

normal activities (if not employed). This level of severity might include the need for 5326

continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and 5327

limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 5328

permanent functional impairment

. 5329

5330

 S

- 1 Death 5331

This category describes a human fatality resulting from exp osure to one or more 5332

pesticides. 5333

5334

Given the distribution of ef fects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 4.5

- 4 and 5335

the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 4.5

- 3 , EPA estimates the distribution of 5336

preventable WPS incidents across the four severity levels. Table 4.5

- 5 shows the estimated 5337

number of national incidents , with no adjustment for underreporting

, that may be prevented by 5338

the rule for each severity level, based on the high and low estimates of cases prevented from 5339

Table 4.5

- 3 . Estimates are included based on n ational estimate created using the number of 5340

farms and the number of farmworkers. 5341

5342*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

150 Table 4.5

- 5 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of

Cases Prevented

Annually Based on

Farmworkers Estimate of

Number of Cases

Prevented

Annually Based on

Farms

Clinical Effect Share of

Total Low End

Estimate

(30%) High End

Estimate

(56%) Low

End

Estimate

(30%) High

End

Estimate

(56%)

Category S

- 4: Low

severity illness or injury 76. 5 % 41 7 6 67 1 24

Category S

- 3: Moderate

severity illness or injury 2 2.2 % 1 2 2 2 1 9 3 6

Category S

- 2:High

severity illness or injury 1. 4 % 1 1 1 2

Category S

- 1: Death 0.0% 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0% 5 4 9 9 87 1 62

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 4.5

- 3 and 4.5

- 4

.

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers. Unadjusted for underreporting of incidents.

5343

Valuation of Illnesses Prevented 5344

5345

The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 4.5

- 10 through 4.5

- 1 3 ). The 5346

estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated 5347

number of cases prevented is based on the number of reported cases annually, which is likely to 5348

be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 4.5.2. 5349

5350

Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those 5351

affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 5352

illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 5353

for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particular, these estimates do not: (1) address the value 5354

of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness (i.e., 5355

defensive or averting expenditures) ; (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 5356

consider person’s anticipated value of preventing illness values (they are based on ex post costs); 5357

and (5) consider whether treatment returns individuals to their original health state (i.e., is 5358

equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely). In the descriptions above of the SENSOR

- Pesticides 5359

severity classifications, cases classed as “major severity” might need “continued health care” and 5360

“limitations or modification of work or normal activitie s.” In addition, the victim “may sustain 5361

permanent functional impairment.” None of these longer term effects are visible in the SENSOR 5362

data other than a severity classification, so they are not captured in the estimates here , but they 5363

are examples of indi viduals not returning to their original health. Obviously, these longer term 5364*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

151 effects from acute exposure could have an important effect on the quality of life for someone 5365

who suffers a major severity incident 5366

5367

It is also important to recognize that the fi nancial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 5368

farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 5369

paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 5370

jobs if they can not work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a 5371

greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 5372

because agricultural work is often seasonal. 5373

5374

In Table 4.5

- 5 , estimates of the nu mber of cases that may be avoided as a result of the rule were 5375

presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases are 5376

estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 5377

hospitalizatio ns, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except 5378

“death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 5379

sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death ,” the value of lost 5380

productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 5381

illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 5382

For each severity level, an average le ngth of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 5383

work, household activities, and leisure. 5384

5385

Direct Medical Costs 5386

5387

As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by 5388

5389

E [ MedCost i ]

= Prob ( HCF | i ) × [ OutPtnt i + InPtnt i ] 5390

5391

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 5392

treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 5393

5394

In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 5395

used the SENSOR

- Pesticides information for those cases which were deemed preventable or 5396

possibly preventable for 2008

– 2011. The SENSOR

- Pesticides data i ndicates whether medical 5397

care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a physician’s office, an 5398

emergency room, employee health center, or admitted to a hospital. Table 4.5

- 6 presents the 5399

number of cases that were seen at a health care facility, the total number of cases over these 5400

years, as well as the each category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity 5401

level). As our measure of the probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we 5402

use the share of cases from that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 5403

4.5

- 6 . It is not surprising that the share receiving medical care is so high, because to be included 5404

in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database requires at least two reportable s ymptoms of pesticide 5405

exposure, and because the cases treated by medical professionals are more likely to be reported 5406

to SENSOR

- Pesticides. 5407

5408

5409*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

152 Table 4.5

- 6 : Health Care Sought for Preventable Pesticide

- Related Acute Exposures,

SENSOR

- Pesticides 2008

- 2011.

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 13 2 1 69 78%

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 45 49 92%

Category S

- 2: High severity illness or injury 3 3 100%

Source: SENSOR

- Pesticides data, 2008

– 2011.

5410

5411

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 5412

specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3

– Hospital Inpatient Statistics for 20 12

. 5413

For Diagnosis Related Group 2 43 ( P oisoning by Substances other than Medicine ) the average 5414

charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $ 35,623 7

. 5415

5416

Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data f rom physician visit benchmark fees for 5417

evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 5418

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 5419

medical services and procedures furnishe d by physicians and other health care professionals) 8

. 5420

Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 5421

established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213 and 99203

, 5422

which describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. 5423

For 2012 , the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC 5424

category was $ 71

. 39 for patients with an existing relationship wit h a doctor (HCPC Criteria 5425

99213) and $ 106.45 for new patients (HCPC Criteria 99203) . Given an equal chance that the 5426

person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the average cost of an outpatient visit is 5427

estimated to be $ 88

. 92 . Th ese data ref lects the maximum allowable reimbursement that 5428

Medicaid has authorized for those services. This may be an underestimate, which would imply 5429

that the outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment 5430

costs. 5431

5432

Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 5433

treatment, are shown in Table 4.5

- 7

. 5434

5435

7 The inpatient costs can be queried here:

http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp?Id=B97AB29AA72E4376&Form=DispTab&GoTo=MAINSEL&JS=Y

8 The average facility charge for all providers in 2009

- 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Sch edule, from

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

153 Table 4.5

- 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 78 % $ 88.92 $0 $ 69.45

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity

illness or injury 92% $ 88.92 $0 $ 81. 66

Category S

- 2:High severity illness

or injury 100% $ 88.92 $ 35,623 $3 5

, 711

. 92

Source: EPA estimation.

1 Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

5436

5437

The Value of Lost Productivity 5438

5439

The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is 5440

typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 5441

As noted above, we calculate this value as 5442

5443

E [ VPL i ]

= ( ω w work + ω H h ousekeeping + ω L leisure ) × DUR i 5444

5445

where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work , housekeeping is the 5446

time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 5447

activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 5448

5449

BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 5450

leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2013 a ), 5451

an employed person works an average of 38.6 hours per week or 5.51 hours per day over a 5452

seven

- day week. According to the American Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2013 b ), the a verage 5453

time spent by those over 16 in housekeeping is 1.78 hours per day. Leisure is calculated as the 5454

remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 8.71 hours per day. Agricultural 5455

workers probably work more hours than the average work er, at least during the growing season, 5456

so using the national average would be an underestimate. 5457

5458

The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for handlers and 5459

farmworkers , weighted using the number of each in 201 2 (see Section 3. 2

. 3 of this economic 5460

analysis), or $ 16.10 per hour. This analysis assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. The 5461

value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for a personal/home care aide, $11.23 5462

(BLS, 2013 a ). This labor category was chosen as most closely representative, given the 5463

occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an injured worker had to hire 5464

outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the after

- tax wage rate, 5465

because th eoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work and leisure are traded. The 5466

overall average tax rate in the United States is 29.4 percent (Tax Foundation, 2013), which 5467

leaves an after

- tax return of $ 19.15 per hour for leisure. 5468*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

154 5469

Table 4.5

- 8 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 5470

in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 5471

Table 4.5

- 8 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day f or a seven

- day 5472

week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 5473

estimated to be $ 275.45 per day. 5474

5475

Table 4.5

- 8 : Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value

(ω) Total Value per

Day

Work 5.51 a $ 16.10 c $ 88.69

Housekeeping 1.78 a $11.23 d $ 19.99

Leisure 8.71 b $ 19.15 e $ 166.77

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $ 275.45

Sources:

a BLS, 2013 b , 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, 2013 a

, CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($449) and

assuming an average o f 40 hours per week: $11.23 per hour.

e Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (29.4%).

5476

The SENSOR

- Pesticides data do not report the duration of illness from the pesticide incident, 5477

although the bounds of the duration can be inferred by the severity category. The definitions of 5478

the severity categories contain ranges of time lost from work 9 . For the lowest severity category, 5479

time lost from work is less than three days, while for moderate severity incidents, between three 5480

a nd five days of work are lost. For high severity incidents, time lost from work is greater than 5481

five days, although the description of the category cautions that “[t]his level of severity might 5482

include the need for continued health care following the expo sure event, prolonged time off of 5483

work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain 5484

permanent functional impairment.” This description indicates that the damage from a pesticide 5485

incident could last substantiall y longer than five days. As shown in Table 4.5

- 9 , for the 5486

moderate severity category, we use the low end (three days) and the high end (five days) of the 5487

range as the estimate of the time lost from the pesticide exposure. For the low severity category, 5488

t he high end (three days) is defined, but the low end is not, so we use the midpoint of the range 5489

between zero and three days, or 1.5 days. For the high severity category, the low end of the 5490

range is defined as five days, but the upper end is not defined, and could be permanent. For this 5491

analysis, we assume that the upper end is 30 days, which is somewhat arbitrary. 5492

5493

Table 4.5

- 9 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 5494

with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 5495

9 The description of the severity indices can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

sevindexv6.pdf*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

155 days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($ 275.45 ) to yield high and low 5496

estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 5497

5498

Table 4.5

- 9 : Average Clinical Effect Duration an d Value of Lost Productivity by

Clinical Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Duration of

Clinical

Effect (Days) E[VPL i ] a

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury Low

- End 1.5 $413.17

Category S

- 4: Low severity illness or injury High

- end 3 $826.34

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or

injury Low

- End 3 $826.34

Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or

injury High

- end 5 $1,377.24

Category S

- 2: High severity illness or injury Low

- End 5 $1,377.24

Category S

- 2: High severity illness or injury High

- end 30 $8,263.43

Sources: EPA calculations

a The unit cost for lost productivity day by severity category was calculated by multiplying the average

duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($ 275.45 ).

5499

5500

Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents 5501

5502

The estimates of the total annual health and productivity cost avoided by the rule are given in 5503

Tables 4.5

- 10 , 4.5

- 1 1 , 4.5

- 1 2 and 4.5

- 1 3 . For each level of severity, cost is the sum of direct 5504

medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of premature mortality multiplied by the 5505

number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity levels to estimate the total avoided 5506

costs for the rule. Tables 4 .5

- 10 and 4.5

- 1 1 show the estimates based on extrapolation from 5507

SENSOR

- Pesticides states to national estimates based on the number of farmworkers , and Tables 5508

4.5

- 1 2 and 4.5

- 1 3 show the estimates based on the number of farms . The low end estimates are 5509

base d on the low end estimates of medical and productivity c osts and the low end estimate of the 5510

number of prevented cases, while the high end estimates are based on higher estimates of 5511

medical and productivity costs and the high

- end number of prevented cases. 5512

5513*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

156 Table 4.5

- 10 : “Low

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farmworker

Clinical Effect Avoided

Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity

per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided

Category S

- 4: Low severity

illness or injury 41 $69.45 $ 413.17 $19,766

Category S

- 3: Moderate

severity illness or injury 12 $81.66 $ 826.34 $10,782

Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 1 $35,711.92 $ 1337.24 $26,965

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 54 $57,513

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

5514

5515

Table 4.5

- 1 1 : “ High

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farmworker

Clinical Effect Avoided

Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity

per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided

Category S

- 4: Low severity

illness or injury 7 6 $69.45 $826.34 $68,134

Category S

- 3: Moderate

severity illness or injury 2 2 $81.66 $1,377.24 $32,173

Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 1 $35,711.92 $8,263.43 $59,374

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 9 9 $159,681

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

5516

5517

5518*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

157 Table 4.5

- 1 2 : “ Low

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farm

Clinical Effect Avoided

Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity

per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided

Category S

- 4: Low severity

illness or injury 6 7 $69.45 $413.17 $32,336

Category S

- 3: Moderate

severity illness or injury 1 9 $81.66 $826.34 $17,252

Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 1 $35,711.92 $1,377.24 $37,089

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 8 7 $86,677

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

5519

5520

Table 4.5

- 1 3 : “High

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Changes to the

WPS , Based on Incidents per Farm

Clinical Effect Avoided

Cases per

Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity

per Case Average

Annual Total

Cost Avoided

Category S

- 4: Low severity

illness or injury 1 24 $69.45 $826.34 $111,078

Category S

- 3: Moderate

severity illness or injury 3 6 $81.66 $1,377.24 $52,520

Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 2 $35,711.92 $8,263.43 $96,746

Category S

- 1: Death 0 $0

Total 1 62 $260,345

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

5521

The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from 5522

$ 58,000 to 260,000 . Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is : 5523

 between $ 491,000 and $1.4 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied to estimates 5524

based on the incident rate per farmworker 5525

 b etween $ 404,000 and $1.1million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied to estimates 5526

based on the incident rate per farmworker 5527*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

158  between $ 740,000 and $2.2 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied to estimates 5528

based on the incident rate per farm 5529

 b etween $ 609,000 and $1.8 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied to estimates 5530

based on the incident rate per farm 5531

5532

There are limitations to these estimates. As discussed above, we expect that a large proportion of 5533

accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning never get reported or inv estigated for various reasons. All 5534

indications are that under

- reporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in 5535

the poisoning surveillance databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. This under

5536

reporting will bias estimate s of acute benefits downward. 5537

5538

In Table 4.5

- 1 4 , we show the effect of under

- reporting at different rates on the monetized 5539

estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings, using the estimates based on incidents per farm. 5540

With 100% reporting (or 0% under

- r eporting), the actual benefit of preventing acute illness is 5541

equal to the estimated benefit. If there is under

- reporting, then the actual benefits can be 5542

substantially higher. Table 4.5

- 1 4 shows a range of benefit estimates corresponding to different 5543

rep orting rates (100%, 25%, 20%, 10%, and 5 %), which provide a range of values and show the 5544

sensitivity to different assumptions about under

- reporting. Under EPA’s best estimate , if only 5545

10% of cases are reported, and if under

- reporting is equally likely in all poisoning cases across 5546

all severity levels, then the low

- end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due to the rule 5547

would be about $870,000 per year, and the high

- end estimate would be about $2. 6 million per 5548

year. The estimates in Table 4.5

- 1 4 a re based on extrapolating to national estimates from 5549

SENSOR

- Pesticides data based on the number of recorded pesticide exposure incidents per farm. 5550

These are higher than the estimates based on the number of incidents per farmworker (compare 5551

tables 4.5

- 10 t hrough 4.5

- 1 3 ). If we assume 10% reporting, using the estimates based on 5552

incidents per farmworker from tables 4.5

- 10 and 4.5

- 1 1 , the estimate of prevented cases would 5553

range from a low of 536 to a high of 995. The estimates of benefits are $575,000 to $1. 6 million. 5554

5555

Table 4.5

- 1 4 . Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about

Under

- reporting

Share of

Cases

Reported Low

- End

Estimate of

Prevented

Cases Low

- End

Estimate of

Benefits High

- End

Estimate of

Prevented Cases High

- End Estimate

of Benefits

100% 87 $86,677 162 $260,345

25% 348 $346,708 648 $1,041,378

20% 435 $433,385 810 $1,301,723

10% 870 $866,769 1,620 $2,603,446

5% 1,740 $1,733,538 3,240 $5,206,892

Source: EPA Calculations , based on the number of farms.

5556

E ven without underreporting, the estimates are undervalued . T he estimates are based solely on 5557

the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. W e are unable to measure the 5558*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

159 willingness to pay to avoid illness , which is EPA’s preferre d approach for valuation of reduced 5559

risk ( EPA , 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure consists of four components: 5560

5561

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 5562

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 5563

 Indirec t costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 5564

activities; and 5565

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 5566

5567

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group woul d pay to receive the 5568

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 5569

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 5570

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 5571

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected. 5572

5573

All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section include only the effects of reduced 5574

illness from acute exposure based only on the cases that were included in the SENSOR

5575

Pesticides database

– the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section, which will 5576

discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and families, or 5577

acute ex posures that have developmental effects. 5578

5579

It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesses are borne primarily by 5580

farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the members of our society with the least ability to 5581

absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) 5582

farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 5583

a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relativel y 5584

greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families live 5585

below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000

- $12,499 per year, and 5586

average family income is $15,000

- $17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can 5587

consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005). 5588

5589

The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 5590

families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 5591

5592



### 4.6 What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers 5593



### and Handlers 5594

5595

In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 5596

presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 5597

reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under

- reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 5598

are chronic health effects associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. EPA 5599

anticipates that benefits would accrue to agr icultural workers from reduced chronic health 5600

effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning 5601

surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects 5602

to farmworkers, p esticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this 5603*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

160 section, EPA presents a semi

- quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break

- even analysis”) 5604

of improved chronic health conditions, i.e. , chronic cases avoided due to the rule. 5605

5606

T his section presents evidence of well

- documented associations between pesticide exposure and 5607

certain cancer and non

- cancer chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. It is 5608

important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal l ink between certain health 5609

outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a 5610

causal link between these health outcomes and exposure to any specific pesticides . Typically 5611

several epidemiology studies conducted o ver time, using different study designs, and taking 5612

place within different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are 5613

required before researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. 5614

Even thoug h there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real 5615

world pesticide exposure and long

- term health effects in human populations, many exposure

5616

chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critical ly evaluated in 5617

the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. Therefore, overall pesticide 5618

exposure reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this 5619

time. The environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly , however, in terms of both 5620

quantity and quality of pesticide epidemiology studies

. EPA believes additional causal links 5621

between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be 5622

provided over time. 5623

5624

There ar e several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by governments in the U.S. and 5625

abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest plausible hypotheses between pesticide 5626

exposure and several chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the Unite d States is 5627

the Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute 5628

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co

- sponsored by EPA, among other 5629

collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in I owa and North Carolina, 5630

including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses, investigating a broad 5631

array of potential illnesses. A study in Norway to investigate s links between cancer and other 5632

diseases and agricultural chemicals in a cohort of over 245,000 people (Kristensen et al ., 1996, 5633

Nordby et al ., 2005). In France

, a large study is underway to investigate the links between 5634

agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean 5635

Multi

- Ce nter Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 5636

as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 5637

(Yoo et al ., 2002). The National Cancer Institute initiated a collabor ative effort, AGRICOH

, 5638

which is designed to encourage international collaboration

. I t encompasses 22 cohorts from nine 5639

countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from pesticide exposure 5640

and other causes (Leon, et al ., 2011). 5641

5642

Studying chronic health effects of long

- term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is 5643

complicated by many factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals, not just pesticides; 5644

exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e.

, intermittent or sustained; and 5645

multiple routes of exposure, e.g. , dermal and inhalation. Many epidemiologic studies that include 5646

certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 5647

other occupational cohorts reflec t exposure profiles that largely result from appropriate, l awful 5648

use of pesticides ; however, misuse does occur (Bell et al ., 2006). These certified applicators that 5649*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

161 form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural 5650

workers and handlers. 5651

5652

A nother complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 5653

implemented risk mitigation measures including r equirements for the use of additional personal 5654

protective equipment, revised re

- entry i ntervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide 5655

products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 5656

contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 5657

necessarily have cu rrent regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or 5658

withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 5659

pesticide product formulation changes and other factors may have resulted in significan t changes 5660

in the use of pesticides over the last several decades, which is the relevant period for 5661

investigating chronic effects with typically long latency periods such as cancer

. As a result, 5662

studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpr eted with caution when applied to 5663

current use patterns

. 5664

5665

Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre

- natal or in early childhood, may be 5666

linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early life exposures may occur from 5667

pesticides t hat are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pesticide applicators , workers, or 5668

handlers and brought into the home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential 5669

for “take home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or a n agricultural work er may bring 5670

pesticide residues home on their body or clothing (see Section 4 .2.2). Because one of the 5671

changes in the rule is an increased focus on training about the take home pathway, this type of 5672

exposure should be reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their 5673

families, including children. 5674

5675

These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be 5676

evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long

- term he alth 5677

impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 5678

pesticides, but there are also instances in which there is cause for concern over generalized 5679

pesticide exposure (beyond those that can be modeled using a ggregate and/or cumulative risk 5680

assessment practices). The WPS rule changes are designed to protect against agricultural worker 5681

or handler exposures even when the current state of the science does not support action on 5682

individual chemicals. 5683

5684

I n this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic health effects that result from 5685

pesticide exposure . These include possible links to blood and prostate cancers, neurological 5686

effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity d isorder, fertility effects like 5687

impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes , and respiratory problems like asthma

. These 5688

illnesses are selected for discussion here because they have been associated with pesticide 5689

exposures in studies that meet EPA ’s da ta quality standards, and due to e ither the relative 5690

strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of studies available, or the 5691

relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular pesticide exposure. 5692

Overall, the total ity of reported findings suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but, 5693

due to the state of scientific research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, estimates of 5694

the quantitative benefits from the final rule are not possible

. 5695*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

162 5696

A discussio n of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from reduced 5697

chronic exposure is presented in Section 4. 8. 5698

5699



### 4.6.1 Cancer Risks 5700

5701

Although o nly a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 5702

various peer

- re view bodies , t here is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 5703

associations between pesticide exposure and some anatomical cancer sites

, with plausible 5704

biological mechanisms identified through experimental toxicology studies. M any studies have 5705

evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. While it is premature to 5706

state there is a causal association between the studied occupational pesticide exposure s and 5707

cancer, EPA presents this information to demonstrate the growing bod y of knowledge as to 5708

possible chronic health effects of pesticide exposure. 5709

5710

Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 5711

articles and meta

- analytic results indicate an association between various pesticide exposure s and 5712

lymphohematopoetic cancers (non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); 5713

among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in 5714

association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et 5715

al ., 2007; Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010 a ; Van Maele et al

., 2011, Wigle 5716

et al ., 2009, Turner et al ., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al ., 2013). This 5717

section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between pesticide exposure 5718

and these cancer effects. 5719

5720

Blair and Beane

- Free man (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 5721

agricultural populations. They report that meta

- analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 5722

excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple mye loma 5723

and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and reduced total mortality, heart disease, total 5724

cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta

- analyses 5725

of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identi fying specific exposures that lead 5726

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 5727

pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 5728

engaged in agriculture relative to the general population (Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009). 5729

5730

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 5731

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researche rs (for 5732

example, Alavanja et al ., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al ., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 5733

2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 5734

stomach at higher rates than the general population have al so been noted (Mills et al.

, 2009). 5735

5736

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 5737

5738

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 5739

example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 5740*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

163 exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997). 5741

Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between 1973 and 1990, a time period 5742

coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environm ental chemicals (Hardell 5743

and Eriksson , 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu 5744

and Blair 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, 5745

possibly as a result of pesticide exposur e; however

, this link is not known with certainty at this 5746

time. Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general 5747

population, Koutros, et al . (2010 a ) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 5748

lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 5749

population

- based case

- control study in Sweden (Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link 5750

between pesticide exposure and these cancers ; however additional research is necess ary to 5751

understand whether the link is causal in nature, and the degree to which pesticide exposures and 5752

other farm related exposures may contribute to the risk of these cancers. 5753

5754

In a review by Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the associ ation between 5755

leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case

- control studies 5756

with statistically significant results. Several case

- control studies looked at children that had been 5757

exposed to pesticides and found increased rat es of all types of leukemia among those whose 5758

parents used insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those whose mothers were 5759

exposed while pregnant (Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of 5760

the studies includ ed in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 5761

population bias was a factor in the results of this review. 5762

5763

In the Bassil et al . review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 5764

examined the associatio n between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 5765

the case

- control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 5766

associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s expo sure to 5767

pesticide s, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 5768

pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 5769

postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupati onally exposed. The elevated 5770

risks were reported from several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007). 5771

5772

Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 5773

exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers ’ children. They found no evidence of a direct 5774

link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they do report an 5775

association between a mother’s occupational exposure to insecticides and pesticides in general 5776

and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for mothers working on 5777

farm s and with other significant related exposures. 5778

5779

Prostate Cancer 5780

5781

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 5782

are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 5783

disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al. , 2005). However, fa rmers have an increased risk of 5784

prostate cancer

, which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm

- or 5785

non

- farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 5786*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

164 members of the general population, researche rs have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 5787

increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 a ). Case

- control analysis within the AHS 5788

suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 5789

only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al

. , 2003). Additional follow

5790

up within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007; 5791

Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with exposure to certain pes ticide s 5792

varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 5793

that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 5794

not yet complete. However, initial investigations recen tly released indicate that a genetic 5795

variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 5796

and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 b )

. T hese genetic variations do not fully explain the 5797

cancer relationships with in a family, so other shared environmental exposures may play an 5798

important role. Overall, however, across studies published to date , results are not consistent, 5799

possibly due to differing study designs used. 5800

5801

In investigations of farmworker populations, p rostate cancer associations have also been found. 5802

For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in 5803

California, and concluded that high levels of exposure to various types of pesticides left Hispanic 5804

workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer. 5805

5806

Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 5807

this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the 5808

purposes of th e study, aggressive p rostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 5809

outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 5810

a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 5811

amo ng those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. 5812

This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 5813

and prostate cancer . It also extends an understanding of the possibili ty of a link with the 5814

aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 5815

slow

- growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 5816

to distinguish clear causal pathways

. H owe ver

, the study is supportive of previous work 5817

concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 5818

the AHS. 5819

5820

Lung Cancer 5821

5822

Alavanja et al

. (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide 5823

exposure among the AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with 5824

lung cancer risk in the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer r isk for the cohort 5825

is lower than the population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between 5826

pesticides and lung cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane

- Freeman et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004). 5827

5828*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

165 

### 4.6.2 Non

- Cancer Health Effects 5829

5830

Many epidemiolog ical studies have reported associations between non

- cancer chronic health 5831

problems and pesticide exposure ; however

, none have been determined to be causal in nature at 5832

this time. Preliminary investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and 5833

neurological effects; as these are preliminary investigations

, other explanations for these effects 5834

cannot be eliminated at this time. However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a 5835

potential role of pesticide exposure and some neurological outc omes in adults such as 5836

Parkinson’s disease and general neurological health (discussed below)

. To the extent that the 5837

changes to the WPS reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of 5838

these chronic health effects as well. 5839

5840

Neurolog ical Function 5841

5842

The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease has spurred 5843

a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al . (2007), investigated the hypothesis 5844

that Parkinson’s disease is associated with pestic ide exposure. Study participants included 5845

licensed private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 5846

and contacted for a follow

- up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association 5847

of Parkinson’s disease i n those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” 5848

with Parkinson’s disease for those who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days 5849

of use was associated with a dose

- response relationship in cases diagnosed after the begin ning of 5850

the study, but there was no association with a dose

- response function and cases diagnosed prior 5851

to the study. This study has recently been updated with physician

- diagnosed cases of 5852

Parkinson’s disease, as opposed to participant self

- reporting, and authors reported statistically 5853

significant 2.5

- fold increased odds of Parkinson’s disease if participants used two specific 5854

pesticides (Tanner et al ., 2011). 5855

5856

In a review study on the non

- cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (200 7) 5857

evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 5858

and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude 5859

that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between Parkinson’s 5860

disease and past exposures of pesticides on the job.” 5861

5862

Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non

- cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found 5863

most (39/41) studies displayed a n increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 5864

association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 5865

preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 5866

depression, suicide and death from mental disord ers (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al . (2007), 5867

using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime pesticide 5868

exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. 5869

5870

Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies (Rauh 5871

et al. , 2011; Engel et al. , 2011; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the relationship 5872

between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and neurological effects in children 5873

through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et al ., 2011) reviews the possible 5874*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

166 relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological 5875

symptoms. Despite the associations reported in the reviewed literature, t he autho rs acknowledge 5876

uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear 5877

biologically plausible mechanism of action, amo ng other study characteristics. 5878

5879

Respiratory Function 5880

5881

Several studies have shown associations between pesticide exposure and both permanent and 5882

transitory (but chronic) respiratory effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, 5883

often caused by an environmental trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of 5884

breath. Although t he symptoms of asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma 5885

attacks is a lifelong problem, and several studies have shown an association between pesticide 5886

exposure and asthma. Hoppin et al

. (2008) reported an association between exposure t o a range 5887

of pesticides and asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the 5888

likelihood of asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may 5889

show an important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families, rather than 5890

exposure as a pesticide applicator

. An association has been reported for children, as well. Salam 5891

et al . (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk 5892

factors were pestic ides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with 5893

early onset asthma. An i nternational study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 5894

(Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptom s. 5895

5896

C hronic bronchitis is an inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis 5897

usually has symptoms over a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive 5898

pulmonary disease that makes it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that 5899

expels sputum from the airways. Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant 5900

association between eleven pesticides and chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort

– an 5901

association that was stronger among those with a high pesticide exposure event. 5902

5903



### 4.6.3 Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 5904

5905

Overall, the epidemiological or human study data discussed in the previous two sections do not 5906

support a clear cause

- effect relation between specific pesticide exposure and certa in chronic 5907

health outcomes . However , the totality of the research results showing positive associations 5908

between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes in conjunction with plausible 5909

biological hypotheses, taken together, indicates that pest icide exposure may result in chronic 5910

adverse health effects beyond those identified through a review of incidents involving acute 5911

illness. 5912

5913



### 4.7 Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 5914

5915

The changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occup ational exposure to all pesticides, as well 5916

as reduce the non

- occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There is 5917

sufficient evidence in the peer

- reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure 5918

would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 4. 6 above). In 5919*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

167 general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and chronic 5920

illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify the expected he alth benefits of 5921

specific risk mitigation measures for use in a benefits analysis . The totality of findings 5922

reasonably support the conclusion that the WPS changes can reduce overall agricultural pesticide 5923

exposure that poses chronic health risks to worke rs, applicators, and their families

. 5924

5925

The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 5926

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 5927

illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 5928

by family members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those 5929

stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by 5930

t remors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, instability and falling, all of which result in difficulty 5931

performing everyday functions (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation , 2011 ). Non

- Hodgkins 5932

lymphoma is a cancer that starts in the immune system, with symptoms of s wollen lymph nodes, 5933

weight loss, fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment 5934

for NHL, has a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National 5935

Cancer Institute, 2007). In addition to th e symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is 5936

often fatal. The five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of 5937

people diagnosed with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011). 5938

5939

Because of the unce rtainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore 5940

prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 5941

pesticide

- specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for c hronic 5942

disease are great, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 5943

paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have 5944

been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 5945

estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower

5946

growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. , 2006 ) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and 5947

half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al. , 2006 ). These costs are very high, 5948

especially so relative to the income for workers and handlers, and the value of reducing these 5949

illnesses is likely to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs only , which is likely 5950

an und er

- estimate of the true cost of illness. 5951

5952

The next section details the break

- even analysis methodology, which considers the value of 5953

potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness

- to

- pay to avoid 5954

illness or death. 5955

5956



### 4.8 Break

- Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 5957

5958

In this section, EPA presents a “break

- even” analysis as a means of comparing the costs of the 5959

WPS revisions to its reasonably expected benefits . This analysis shows that preventing a ve ry 5960

small number of illnesses potentially associated with pesticide exposure could result in benefits 5961

to human health equal to or greater than the difference between the quantified benefits and the 5962

estimated costs of the rule. As described below, preventin g only a few pesticide

- related illnesses 5963

annually, less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate enough in 5964

benefits to close the gap between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the quantified 5965*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

168 estimate of benefits from re duced acute incidents . The break

- even number of illnesses avoided 5966

is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist over 5967

a long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we conside r non

5968

Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease

, and asthma 5969

to demonstrate the potential benefits in the rule from reducing chronic illnesses. These are the 5970

illnesses for which there is credible evidence of an associ ation with pesticide exposure and for 5971

which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer

- reviewed literature or for which 5972

willingness to pay estimates m ay be transferred from other diseases

. 5973



### 4.8.1 Background 5974

5975

The break

- even approach uses EPA ’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute 5976

exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the rule. The 5977

resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from reduced 5978

chronic illness wo uld need to be in order f or the total annual benefits of chronic illness reduction 5979

to equal the cost of the rule . A break

- even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data 5980

are lacking (OMB, 2003 ). Although we cannot quantify net benefits of ch ronic disease avoided, 5981

we can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes in order 5982

for the benefits of the rule to equal the cost . This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. 5983

It can also be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures 5984

to pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits

. 5985

5986

Break

- even analyses have been used by EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all benefits 5987

could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water 5988

used this approach to highlight benefits that could not be quantified ( EPA, 2011; EPA, 2010 b ; 5989

EPA, 2006 c ; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break

- even analyses were based on prevented 5990

illness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to 5991

the analysis here . These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known 5992

causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g. , gastrointestinal dist ress as a result of bacterial 5993

contamination of water. The break

- even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide 5994

exposure and chronic disease (see Section 4.6 ). 5995

5996

The costs of environmental regulations are traditionally much simpler to qu antify than benefits to 5997

health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily 5998

estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are often difficult to quantify due 5999

to data limitations, as noted above, or th e non

- pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as 6000

noted in Section 4.6 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide 6001

exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will 6002

likely accrue as a re sult of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS. 6003

6004

Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the public health benefit of pesticide exposure 6005

reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are 6006

unable to q uantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While 6007

exposure reduction is an anticipated outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the 6008

magnitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are indirect, i.e. , they influence 6009

behavior associated with pesticide safety practices. Similarly, while statistical associations have 6010*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

169 been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic 6011

health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 4.6 , the causal nature of these associations 6012

have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic 6013

health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this 6014

time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease 6015

outcomes in the population ( i.e. , there is a multi

- factorial web of disease causation) ; however

, it 6016

is plausible that some instances of disease (specific cases) could be attributable to pesticide 6017

exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 6018

and their families. Relative to other studies of the effect s of occupational exposure to chemicals, 6019

studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to 6020

specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied 6021

by the handler (Zahm and B lair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 6022

also difficult with this mobile population, making it harder to identify exposure based on 6023

available application data (Zahm et al ., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993). 6024

6025

In Section 4. 6, EPA presente d a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors report 6026

statistical associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. Included in 6027

that discussion is information on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospectiv e cohort 6028

study of about 90,000 certified pesticide applicators and their spouses initiated in the early 6029

1990s. The study is recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that 6030

have been extensively validated. Because of these charac teristics and strengths, it is appropriate 6031

to rely on the results and findings of this study in evaluating pesticide risks. EPA has been 6032

systematically evaluating this study in collaborative projects with the AHS investigators with 6033

respect to algorithms, e xposure assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a 6034

framework for interpreting epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data 6035

that is grounded in sound scientific principles for evidence of causation. The work products and 6036

ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent Scientific 6037

Advisory Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform hazard identification and 6038

characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that 6039

past and current exposures differ from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while 6040

studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard characterization, additional information outside of 6041

any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real

- world exposure potential. The 6042

reported associations suggested in the cited epidemiology studies can help in evaluating potential 6043

health outcomes associated with exposures and assist in conducting an economic evaluation of 6044

po ssible benefits from reducing exposure through an enhanced worker protection standard

. 6045

6046



### 4.8.2 Method 6047

6048

For the acute illness estimates earlier in this chapter, the number of cases prevented was found 6049

by evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to t he pesticide exposure. For this break

- even 6050

analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end 6051

of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be prevented for the benefits 6052

to exceed the costs , and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the 6053

farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 6054*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

170 reduction for all diseases and their fatal effects, if any, although it is likely that differ ent 6055

exposure

- response profiles exist for specific pesticide

- chronic health effect association. 6056

6057

As discussed in Section 4. 6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, 6058

non

- specific pesticide exposure , although although causality h as not been proven to a scientific 6059

certainty. For this break

- even exercise, however, we will consider only a few of the illnesses 6060

associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung 6061

cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkins on’s disease and asthma. 6062

6063

It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) 6064

included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic 6065

exposure to pesticides. For exam ple, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have 6066

shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may 6067

not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to challenges of performing 6068

observati onal studies in the farm worker population. 6069

6070

To estimate the break

- even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on 6071

disease incidence, which describes how many cases of specific disease s can be expected to be 6072

diagnosed each year. 6073

6074

Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use 6075

an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US 6076

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2 003), this measure 6077

consists of four components: 6078

6079

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 6080

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 6081

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisur e 6082

activities; and 6083

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 6084

6085

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 6086

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 6087

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a W TP for improved 6088

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 6089

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they 6090

are a disadvantaged population, like farmwork ers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 6091

the WTP estimates presented here. 6092

6093

Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 6094

consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subj ects. For 6095

example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 6096

non

- fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use 6097

benefits transfer to find estimates. This involves apply ing available estimates of WTP for 6098

preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 6099

6100*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

171 For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 6101

EPA uses a default central “v alue of statistical life” (VSL) of $ 9

. 5 million (in 20 12 dollars) to 6102

value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a distribution fitted 6103

to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010) , updated from $7.9 6104

million in 2008 dollars to 2012 dollars, using the Consumer Price Index. 6105

6106

The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simply the sum across illnesses of the value of 6107

prevention times the number of prevented cases, which are the prevented share ( P revShare ) 6108

times the number of cases: 6109

C h ronic Benefits

= ∑

ω i ∙ PrevCases i

i = ∑

ω i ∙ PrevS h are i ∙ Cases i

i 6110

where ω i can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the break

6111

even analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater than or 6112

equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute benefits. 6113

The break

- even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between th e estimated 6114

cost ( Cost ) and the estimated acute benefits ( Acute ): 6115

6116

C h ronic BE ≥ Cost

− Acute

. 6117

6118

The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to 6119

the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, Chronic BE . A simplifying 6120

assumption is that PrevShare i is equal for all diseases, which means that the percentage reduction 6121

in illness is the same. We do that here, with on e exception: lung cancer. The primary cause of 6122

lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with tobacco 6123

smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have little effect 6124

on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShare Lung Cancer is 10% of 6125

the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the estimated 10

– 15% 6126

of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al. , 2008). 6127

6128



### 4.8 .3 Data 6129

6130

To perform the break

- even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 6131

the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 6132

The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 3 and the q uantified acute benefits of the rule were 6133

estimated in Section 4. 5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly 6134

available. Estimates of WTP are from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 6135

and Disinfection Byprodu cts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate 6136

for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used 6137

in the analysis are summarized in Table 4. 8

- 1. 6138

6139*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

172 Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 6140

6141

The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 6142

non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 6143

21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al ., 2011). An 6144

esti mate of the WTP for reducing a case of non

- fatal lymphoma of $ 5.5 m illion was derived in 6145

the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 6146

(EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al . (1996), from which it wa s determined that 6147

the median risk

- risk trade

- off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 6148

58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non

- fatal lymphoma was 6149

calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the curr ent estimate of VSL of $ 9

. 5 million, we 6150

estimate a mean WTP for non

- fatal lymphoma of $ 5.5 million (VSL × 58.3%). 6151

6152

Prostate Cancer 6153

6154

Prostate cancer is a common cancer among American men and the second leading cause of 6155

cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003

– 2007 (U.S. Cancer 6156

Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were about 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, 6157

on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases 6158

reported in 2007. The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 6159

cases in 2012. In addition, CDC reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer 6160

on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 6161

2010). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non

- fatal 6162

cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 6163

overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the 6164

incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 6165

al ., 2003; Koutros et al ., 2010 a ). 6166

6167

A n estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 6168

Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 6169

is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value f or WTP is 6170

appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 6171

lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al . (2006) 6172

estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 6173

Kutikova et al . (2006), the treatment costs for indolent non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 6174

under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non

6175

Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multipli ed by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 6176

yields an estimate of WT P to avoid prostate cancer of $94 0,000. 6177

6178

This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer that 6179

may be low, in comparison to several new treatment and drug regimes for prostate cancer 6180

that are very expensive. Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger 6181

men, may be more aggressive and require more expensive treatment than those found in 6182

elderly men. 6183

6184*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

173 Chronic Bronchitis 6185

6186

Chronic bron chitis is one of the forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which 6187

bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long

- term cough, shortness of breath, 6188

excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 6189

life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 6190

6191

Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year , but only 639 deaths per 6192

year (Centers for Disease Control, 2012a)

. These figures are misleading, because the CDC 6193

criterion for a diagnosis is that a patient has been identified within the previous 12 months 6194

with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million diagnoses are more likely to reflect 6195

the number of patient s with the disease, rather than new cases that occur in a given year. We 6196

have been unable to find good estimates for the incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using 6197

the prevalence would be misleading, so for this analysis, we will only include the few 6198

fatalities. This approach ignores the impact that chronic bronchitis and the resulting reduced 6199

lung function that can have important impacts on the quality of life. P ast EPA economic 6200

analysis has provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic 6201

Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) 6202

did provide estimates of the WTP of $800,000 in 2003 dollars to avoid chronic bronchitis, 6203

based on Viscusi et al. (1991) , but we are only considering re duced deaths caused by 6204

bronchitis here. 6205

6206

Parkinson’s Disease 6207

6208

Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually 6209

(Parkinson’s Disease Foundation

, 201 0 ). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than 6210

t he general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14 th leading cause of 6211

death in the United States 10 , but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. 6212

The progressive neurological effects of Parkinson’s, such as swa llowing problems which lead to 6213

undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s 6214

Disease Foundation

, 201 1 ; and University of Maryland Medical Center 20 13 ). Because of these 6215

complications, we take a conservative a pproach in this break

- even analysis, and ignore the 6216

fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, there was no available estimate of WTP to avoid 6217

Parkinson’s disease. We use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for 6218

Parkinson’s disease, beca use in some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted 6219

mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. For Parkinson’s disease,t he 6220

WTP is $1,000,000 in 2012 dollars, which is WTP of $800,000 in 2003 dollars to avoid chro nic 6221

bronchitis updated to 2012 dollars

. 6222

6223

There are reasons to think this value is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, 6224

and sometimes cured, while Parkinson’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, 6225

there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma 6226

above was based on a study by Magat et al . (1996), which compared risk

- risk tradeoffs for 6227

10 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s disease by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et

al ., 2010).*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

174 curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a non

6228

cancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 6229

nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 6230

reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA use d for estimating WTP for 6231

avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about 6232

$3 .7 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $ 1,0 00,000 here. Moreover, 6233

possible fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis. 6234

6235

Lung Cancer 6236

6237

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most 6238

common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States 6239

Cancer Statistics , 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects about 226,000 new cases of lung cancer to 6240

be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate 6241

of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from 6242

lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (National Cancer Institute, 2012). 6243

Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few 6244

years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned ab ove (Section 4. 8.2), we will assume that 6245

lung cancer preventions happen at 10% of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which 6246

roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer among non

- smokers. This is because changes to 6247

the WPS are not expect ed to have large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, 6248

which is smoking. 6249

6250

There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer

6251

reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follo w the practice in the 6252

analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 6253

and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non

- fatal 6254

lung cancer. This will be the same value ($ 1,000 ,00 0) used for Parkinson’s disease, because 6255

they come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic 6256

Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) 11

. 6257

6258

Asthma 6259

6260

Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic 6261

difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al ., 2012) , is another common 6262

respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin e t al ., 2008)). 6263

Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 6264

11 Cameron, DeShazo and Johnson (2009) provides estimates for reducing risks of lung cancer, both immediately

fatal (called “sudden death” in the paper) and with a 10 year latency period for 3 di fferent age groups. WTP for

sudden death from lung cancer ranges from $220,000 to $950,000 and for the latent disease the estimates range from

$40,000 to $2.36 million. This study is not yet published and therefore the results are used here for illustrat ive

purposes only. Hammitt and Liu (2004) provide estimates for WTP to reduce lung cancer risk in a Taiwanese

population. Estimates are $1.5 to $1.6 million for latent illness and $2.1 to $2.2 million for acute. Because the

estimates are for a non

- US po pulation they are also used here for illustrative purposes only. Finally, Itaoka, et al.

(2007) provide estimates for reducing lung cancer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working paper and

therefore illustrative only.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

175 Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and 6265

asthma incidents do not necessarily occur every year , even though it is a chronic disease. CDC 6266

estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for 6267

Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 6268

4 80 ,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001

– 2009 divided by nine 6269

years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal

– in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma 6270

(Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this 6271

anal ysis. 6272

6273

The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount 6274

rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $ 3

, 1 00 (updated to 2012 dollars) to a 6275

perpetuity to represent preventing development of asthma over a l ifetime yields a WTP to 6276

prevent asthma of about $ 105 ,000 per case 12

. 6277

6278

Table 4. 8

- 1. Information for Calculating Break

- Even Number of Cases Avoided 6279

Disease WTP to Avoid

Disease, ω i ($1000) Annual Cases from

All Causes

Curable Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 5

, 500 49,000

Fatal NHL 9

, 5 00 21,000

Curable Prostate Cancer 940 223,000

Fatal Prostate Cancer 9

, 5 00 29,000

Parkinson’s Disease 1,0 00 60,000

Curable Lung Cancer 1,0 00 36,000

Fatal Lung Cancer 9

, 5 00 190,000

Fatal Bronchitis 9

, 5 00 640

Asthma 105 480,000

Fatal Asthma 9

, 5 00 3,400

Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2010);

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); Centers for Disease Control,

(2012a, 2012c); O’Conor and Blumquist (1997); EPA calculations

6280



### 4.8.4 Break

- Even Estimation 6281

6282

In Chapter 3 , the costs of changes to the WPS were estimated to range from $41.5 to $81.0 6283

million, with a primary estimate of $60.2 to $66.9 million. To find the break

- even point, we 6284

need to find the reduction in illness that closes the gap between the estimated costs and the 6285

quantified acute benefits. For this analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates 6286

benefits of at least the diff erence between the high

- end value of the primary cost estimate ($ 66.9 6287

million) and estimated acute benefits of $ 2.6 million , for a difference between estimated costs 6288

and quantified benefits of $ 64.3 million. 6289

6290

12 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Blomquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (2011) provide more recent

estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

176 Reducing the national rate of these selected il lnesses by 0.00 5 % (and the rate of lung cancer by 6291

0.000 5 %) would be more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that close 6292

the high estimate of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness 6293

would have an es timated benefit of $ 64.4 million dollars annually. The break

- even target would 6294

obviously change based on assumptions about under

- reporting of acute pesticide incidents, 6295

because that changes the estimate of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no 6296

underreporting, then the acute benefits estimate would be about $ 260,000 (See Table 4.5

– 11). 6297

In that case, a slightly larger reduction of 0.00 52 % (0.000 52% for lung cancer) would suffice, 6298

since the estimated $ 66.9 million in benefits is equal to t he high

- end primary cost estimate

. 6299

6300

Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.00 5 % would reduce the 6301

number of non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases by an average of 2.5 non

- fatal and 1. 1 fatal cases per 6302

year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 1 1.2 non

- fatal and 1.5 fatal cases per 6303

year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.0 per year; reduce the number of fatal bronchitis 6304

cases by 0.0 3 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 24.0 cases, and fatal asthma cases 6305

by 0.2 0 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the reduction in other 6306

diseases, or 0.000 5 %

, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average of 0. 18 non

- fatal 6307

cases and 0.95 fatal cases per year. 6308

6309

Of course, those percenta ge reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases 6310

nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a much smaller population, farmworkers 6311

and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break

- even chronic benefits 6312

will not change, they will represent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population, 6313

which we describe below. 6314

6315

It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural 6316

community than the general public, bec ause of the associations between pesticide exposure and 6317

disease described above and in Section 4. 5. However, we do not make that assumption in this 6318

analysis for simplicity and to ensure that this analysis does not overestimate benefits. Instead, 6319

we assum e that worker s and handler face illness equal to their share of the population. The share 6320

is about 0. 6 5%, based on the 1,995,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 308,700,000 ( US 6321

Census Bureau, 201 3 ). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers r equired to reach the 6322

break

- even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases . A reduction in these 6323

illnesses of just under 0.78 % (0. 078 % for lung cancer), will generate $ 64.9 million in benefits

, 6324

more than required to reach the break

- even point . Across all diseases, the reduction is about 45 6325

cases annually out of over 7,000 cases that might occur . Table 4. 8

- 2 shows the calculations for 6326

farmworker cases. The “Annual Cases

– Farmworkers” is 0. 6 5% of the annual cases for the 6327

United States, and the “‘ Break

- Even ’ Avoided Cases ” is the number of cases that would have to 6328

be prevented as a result of changes to the WPS needed reach the breakeven point

. In dollar 6329

terms the $64.9 million per year to break even represents an a nnual WTP per farmworke r of 6330

about $ 32. 6331

6332*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

177 Table 4. 8

- 2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break

- Even” Analysis 6333

Disease Annual

Cases Incidence

(per 100,000) 1 Annual Cases

–

Farmworkers 2 “Break

- Even”

Avoided Cases

Curable Non

- Hodgkin’s

Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 317 2.47

Fatal NHL 21,000 6.8 136 1.06

Curable Prostate Cancer 223,000 144.5 1,441 11.24

Fatal Prostate Cancer 29,000 9.4 187 1.46

Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 388 3.02

Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 2 33 0. 18 3

Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1, 228 0

. 96 3

Fatal Bronchitis 640 0.2 4 0.03

Asthma 480,000 155.5 3, 102 24.20

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 2 2 0. 17

Source: EPA calculations.

1 Calculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census Bureau,

201 3 ).

2 Based on incidence rates for farmworkers being equal to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence rates may

be higher; see the text.

3 Rate of Reduction for lung cancer is only 10% of the reduction rate for other illnesses; in this case a reduction

of 0.078% for lung cancer and 0.78% for the other diseases

6334

The next, essential step is to consider whether the number of cases required for the break

- even 6335

analysis is a plausible outcome of the WPS revisions . As discussed above Table 4. 8

- 2, the 6336

number of cases needed to reach the break

- even point is small relative to the number of cases we 6337

estimate in the farmworker population, even when we assume that their rate of disease is equal to 6338

the population at large. As discussed in Section 4. 6, credible, peer

- reviewed studies show 6339

statistical association s between the diseases discussed here and pesticide exposure, so workers 6340

and handlers exposed to pesticides appear to be more likely to develop these diseases than the 6341

general public . The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach 6342

the break

- even point, even if rates for farmworkers are not reduced to the level of the general 6343

population. For this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three d iseases, 6344

based on the AHS. The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide applicators and their spouses. 6345

This cohort is healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. 6346

Although farmworkers and the certified applicator s in the AHS study both face occupational 6347

exposure to pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite different: farmworkers may be more 6348

likely to be exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. 6349

Pesticide handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to 6350

certified applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be 6351

exposed than are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against 6352

pestic ide exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of 6353

these differences in occupational exposure, it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher 6354

or lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmw orker incidence rates 6355

implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these 6356

estimates. 6357

6358*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

178 For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al . (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized 6359

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the A HS cohort with a confidence interval of 1.05 to 1.24 13 . Using the 6360

1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more likely than the general 6361

population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the 6362

AHS popu lation. 6363

6364

If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 6365

likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 6366

rates shown in Table 4. 8

- 2 by dividing the number of case s per year by the U.S. population; for 6367

prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a year that are treatable, and 29,000 that result in death. 6368

Because only males get prostate cancer, the incidence rate among males is twice as high, with 6369

223,000 cases is abo ut 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for 6370

farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100,000. At the higher rate, we should expect 6371

about 1, 643 cases annually in the farmworker population, even if we assume that only half of 6372

farm workers are men, which is an underestimate. 6373

6374

The break

- even number of cases of non

- fatal prostate cancer eliminated with a 0.78 % reduction 6375

among farmworkers is 11.24 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to 6376

reduce the risk only sligh tly. To reach the reduction of 11.24 cases annually would require a 6377

reduction in the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163. 58 , still well above the general population 6378

level

. 6379

6380

A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The incidence rate for the general 6381

population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farmworkers have a rate 14% higher, their rate 6382

would be about 21.4 per 100,000, resulting in about 2 14 cases per year. The break

- even number 6383

of cases is about 1. 46 annually. To reach the high

- e nd reduction the incidence rate among 6384

farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21. 3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the 6385

diseases considered here: all of the reductions in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, 6386

and with the exception of lung cancer and possibly chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence 6387

rates remain higher than the general population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010 a ) report a 6388

standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We 6389

estimate t he incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 6390

procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would 6391

be about 18. 57 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.47 cases annually would change the 6392

incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.4 5 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 6393

among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7. 91 per 100,000, 6394

still well above the rate we estimate for the general popul ation of 6.8 per 100,000. For 6395

Parkinson’s disease, van der Mark et al. (2011) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS 6396

cohort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That 6397

corresponds to an incidence rate of about 31. 5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19. 4 6398

among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to the break

- even point 6399

among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31.3 per 100,000. Among farm 6400

women in the AHS, H oppin et al . (2008) reported an incidence rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for 6401

those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence 6402

13 Slightly higher incidence ratios have been found in more recent studies (Koutros, et al ., 2010a), but we use the

more conservative figures from Alavanja et al . here.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

179 rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to abo ut 155 per 6403

100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be 6404

about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 6405

population. Reducing cases to the break

- even point among farmw orkers would reduce the 6406

estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 .0 to about 22 5.8 per 100,000, while the fatal 6407

asthma incidence rate would remain within rounding error of 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other 6408

diseases described above, even after reductio ns in cases among farmworkers to reach the break

6409

even point, the rate of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for 6410

the general population. 6411

6412

As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence ra tes are 6413

higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break

- even point. The two 6414

exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to 6415

determine the correct rate among non

- smokers. Valcin et a l. , (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 6416

among non

- smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in 6417

association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, 6418

but does not compare them to a non

- ag ricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports an odds 6419

ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide 6420

exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those may not reflect the low

6421

level chronic exposure relevant for the break

- even analysis. However, if we assume the 6422

farmworker rate is even 1 .5 % higher than the general population we see the same pattern: the 6423

number of cases among farmworkers can be reduced to the breakeven point, yet the incidence 6424

rate is the above the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other 6425

diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate 6426

of the general population (Alavanja et al. , 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are 6427

generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 6428

If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.0 78 % ( only 10% of the reduction for 6429

other diseases), the change in the estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 6430

to 5.12 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.0 3 per 100,000 for fatal 6431

lung cancer. 6432

6433

In sum , the reductions in chronic illness required to close the ga p between costs and quantified 6434

acute benefits from the rule are small. The reduction in cases relative to the farmworker 6435

population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to farmworkers. 6436

6437

There are obviously many uncertainties, w hich is why the break

- even analysis is necessary. 6438

Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break

- even 6439

point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 6440

cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred. 6441

These diseases discussed here are chronic conditions that may have long latency periods of 5

- 15 6442

years, i.e. , a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. 6443

Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate 6444

means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.78 % to 0.96 %. At a 7% discount rate, 6445

the reduction to reach the break

- even point wou ld reach 1. 18 %. 6446

6447*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

180 

### 4.8.5 Break

- Even Conclusions 6448

6449

The break

- even analysis does show that preventing only a very small number of chronic illnesses 6450

can have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis 6451

demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 44 pesticide

- rela ted chronic illnesses per year 6452

across the entire WPS occupational population of two million workers and handlers is all that is 6453

required to ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS. 6454

6455

6456

6457

6458

6459

6460

6461*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

181 

## Chapter 5 . Paperwork Burden 6462

6463

Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork 6464

burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of 6465

complying with regulations that require firms or individuals to file reports, maintain records, or 6466

oth erwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources 6467

expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 6468

Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “ Agricultural Worker Protecti on Standard 6469

Training and Notification (Final Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.0 2 ; OMB Control No. 2070

- 0190 ), 6470

in conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic 6471

Analysis. See Appendix B. 6472

6473

The total estimated annual re spondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 10,448,160 6474

hours. This is an increase of 8,620,667 from the 1,827,493 total burden hours in the ICR 6475

approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070

- 0148

. The increase in burden is due to both 6476

program cha nges and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and 6477

frequency of required information exchange . The program changes include modifications to 6478

restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased h azard 6479

communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); provisions for information 6480

during emergency assistance ; and recordkeeping requirements for respirator and training 6481

requirements . Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made wher e appropriate, due to 6482

better information available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates and to more 6483

fully account for activities required under the WPS. 6484

6485

The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all fi nal 6486

revisions and those that are unchanged by this rule . This differs from the estimated incremental 6487

cost of the final rule, estimated in the Economic Analysis , which only considers the net cost of 6488

the revisions. 6489

6490

Respondent records are not required to be submitted to the Agency. They are to be retained on 6491

the establishment and accessible for inspection. 6492

6493

There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor final rule 6494

imposes any requirements on the Agency. 6495

6496

6497

6498*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

182 

## Accounting Statement

Rule Title: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions



### Category Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate Source

BENEFITS

Monetized Benefits

 Monetized Benefits from

Avoided acute pesticide

incidents $527,000

– 2.5 million

annually $53,000 annually $4.9 million annually EA Chapter 4.5

 Qualitative Benefits  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. EA Chapter 4.4, 4.5,

4.7

 Break

- even analysis of

the reduced effects of

chronic pesticide

exposure  Annual chronic benefits necessary to break

- even $6 3.8 million

.

 Annual risk reduction needed to achieve break

- even point : less than 0. 92 %

among farmworkers.

 Annual break

- even WTP per farmworker : less than $ 32

. EA Chapter 4.8



### COSTS

Monetized Costs  $ 5 28 to $5 8 7 million

over 10 years at 3%

discount rate

 $ 60.2 to $ 6 6.9

million/year $ 4 1.5 to $ 4 7.0

million/year $ 72 .6 to $8 1

. 0

million/year EA Chapter 3 .3

Quantified Costs

Qualitative Costs



### TRANSFERS none*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

183 Category Effects Source

State, local, and/or tribal

governments None. State and tribal governments responsible for enforcement but

revisions will not change level of effort although it may change how

resources are spent

.

Small business No significant impact on a substantial number of small entitie s.

 The rule will affect approximately 295 ,000 small farms, nurseries, and

greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entit i es that are

contracted to apply pesticides.

 Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for the

average small entity. EA Chapter 3. 5

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

 The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase

$ 5 /year.

 The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to

increase by $ 5 0 , but this is about 0. 2 percent of the cost of a part

- time

employee. EA Chapter 3 .4*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

184 

## References

Abdel Rasoul, GM, Abou Salem ME, Mechael AF, Hedy OM, Rohlman DS, Ismail AA, Effects

of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides, NeuroToxicology 29

(2008) 833

– 838

Affordable Safety Training. 2015. On

- Line Respirator Medical Screening.

http://www.affordablesafetytraining.com/respmeq.html

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C B ailey, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu. 2012.

Trends in asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality in the United States, 2001

– 2010. NCHS data brief, no 94. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.

At http://www.cdc.gov/nc hs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf.

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K,

Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and

prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study co hort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May

1;157(9):800

- 14.

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A

Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews,

Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubin, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP

Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the

agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epide miol, 160:876

- 85.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide

applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians,

January 15, 2013.

Andreotti G, L Beane

- Freeman, L Hou, J Coble, J Rusiecki, JA Hoppin. 2009. Agricultural

pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort. Int J

Cancer 124:2495

– 2500.

Arcury TA, JG Grzywacz, DB Barr, J Tapia, H Chen, and SA Quandt. 2007. Pesticide Urinary

Metabolite L evels of Children in Eastern North Carolina Farmworker Households.

Environ Health Perspect 115:1254

- 1260.

Arcury, T A, JG Grzywacz, JW Talton, H Chen, QM Vallejos, L Galván, DB Barr, and SA

Quandt. 2010. Repeated pesticide exposure among North Carolina m igrant and seasonal

farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53: 802

– 813.

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health

Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness

surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting.American Journal of Public

Health, 92: 1421

– 1429.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

185 Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in

the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health

Policy, Summer:9(2).

Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Romero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AO

Wollitzer, and JC Barbaccia. 1984. Educational int ervention to prevent pesticide

induced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123

- 5.

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of

pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704

- 11.

B eamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential

Non

- dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro

- level Activity Time Series." Environmental

International 35.8 (2009): 1202

- 209.

Beane

- Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hopp in, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al. 2005.

Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study

cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070

– 1079.

Bell EM, DP Sandler, MC Alavanja. 2006. High pesticide exposure events a mong farmers and

spouses enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study. J Agric Saf Health. May;12(2):101

- 16, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16724787.

Blair, A., and L Beane

- Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural

Populations: Ob servations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125

– 131.

Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005.

Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Annals of epidemiology,

15(4), 279

- 285.

Blomquist, GC, M Dickie, RM O’Conor. 2011. Willingness to pay for improving fatality risks

and asthma symptoms: Values for children and adults of all ages, Resource and Energy

Economics, Volume 33, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages 410

- 425

BLS. 2013a. Curre nt Population Survey: Median weekly earnings of full

- time wage and salary

workers by detailed occupation and sex. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

BLS. 2013b. Current Population Survey: Persons at w ork in agriculture and nonagricultural

industries by hours of work. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf

BLS. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age, including median age.

Demographic s, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm, accessed June 2014.

BLS. 2014b. National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Accessed March, 2015.

Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C,

Bradman A, Barr DB, Esk enazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and

IQ in 7

- year

- old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189

- 95.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

186 Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attention

deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides.

Pediatrics. Jun;125(6):e1270

- 7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and

TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabol ite levels during pregnancy and

after delivery in women living in an agricultural community. Environ. Health Perspect.

113 12 1802

- 1807.

Bradman A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, BC Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M

Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, and TE McKone. 2007. Pesticides and their

metabolites in the homes and urine of farmworker children living in Salinas Valley. J.

Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiology 17 (4) 331

- 349,

Bradman, A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, B Claus Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB

Barr, M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, TE Mckone, and B Eskenazi. 2009.

"Pesticides and Their Metabolites in the Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children

Living in the Salinas Valley, CA." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental

Epidemiol ogy 17.4 (2009): 331

- 49.

Bradman, A, DB Barr, BG Clause Henn, T Drumheller, C Curry, and B Eskenazi. 2003.

Measurement of pestiicdes and other toxicants in amniotic fluid as a potential biomarker

of prenatal exposure: A valadation study. Environ. Health Perspect. 111,14 1779

- 1782

Calabro, K, K Bright, and K Kouzekanani. 2000. Long

- term Effectiveness of Infection Control

Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1,

(2000): 1

- 7.

Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum , C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M

Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pesticide

- related illnesses among working youths,

1988

- 1999. Am J Public Health, 93:605

- 610.

Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackov ic, L

Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga

- McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide

poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998

- 2005. American

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(12): 883

- 898.

Cameron, TA, JR DeShazo, and EH Johnson. 20 09. Willingness to Pay for Health Risk

Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness, working paper, June 2009.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/cameron/vita/Cameron_DeShazo_Johnson_0619091.pdf.

CDC. 2011. Vital Signs, Asthma in the US. Centers for Disease Control, May.

http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/index.html

CDC. 2012a. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Includes: Chronic Bronchitis

and Emphysema. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats. Centers for Disease

Control. At http: //www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/copd.htm. Accessed September 20, 2012.

CDC. 2012b. Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self

- Management

Education

– United States, 2001

- 2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

60(17);547

- 552. Ce nters for Disease Control, May 6. At

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid=mm6017a4_w*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

187 CDC. 2012c. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats, Asthma. Centers for Disease

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.h tm

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance,

Subpart A

– Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013, at

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&i dno=13.

Chafee

- Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a

Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983):

396

- 400.

Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations , and non

- Hodgkin's

lymphoma. JAgromedicine. 2009;14(2):250

- 5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285;

PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler,

and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male

participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives,

118(1):92

- 6.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffith, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and

exposure to organophosph ate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect

112:142

- 147.

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work

- Related

Pesticide Poisonings Reported to Poison Control Center. Available here, with more

recent data available in the docket:

http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivities/OccupationalHealth/OccupationalHealth

Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 2014. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the N ational

Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State

University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/.

Curl CL, RA Fenske, JC Kissel, JH Shirai, TF Moate, W Griffith, et al. 2002. Evaluation of

take

- home organophosphorus pest icide exposure among agricultural workers and their

children. Environ Health Perspect 110:A787

- 792.

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja.

2005. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes, .J Occu p Environ Hyg.

2(7):357

- 67, July.

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and

MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non

farmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3 , November 2007, Pages 307

- 315

D&B. 2014. Database of business information maintained by Hoover’s Inc., a Dun and

Bradstreet Company. http://www.hoovers.com/.

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide

- related illness among

migra nt farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303

- 312.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

188 Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain

development, risk

- taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology

- Paris

Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279

- 286.

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001

- 2002 A Demographic and

Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9, Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Pro grammatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor,

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

DoL. 2011

- 2012 NAWS data

- public set. Available here:

http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm#d

- files. Retrieved April 24 2015.

Duffy , M. 2012. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa. Iowa State University Extension

and Outreach publication FM

- 1712, revised January.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1

- 20.pdf.

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL , Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to

organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ

Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182

- 8.

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis. Office of

Groundw ater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 8.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2002

- 0046

- 0013.

EPA. 2002. Children Are at Greater Risks from Pesticide Exposure, Office of Pesticide

Programs, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency, January 2002. At

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 2005. Economic Analysis for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule. Office of Water (4606

- M) EPA 815

- R

- 06

- 001 December 2005,

h ttp://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lt2/upload/2006_03_17_disinfection_lt2_an

aylis_lt2_economic_main.pdf

EPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal

Standards. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency.

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Document ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2005

- 0327

- 0024; Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2005

- 0327.

EPA. 2006b. How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides.

What Employers Need to Know. EPA/735

- B

- 06

- 002, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,

and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised September 2005,

Reprinted June 2006.

EPA. 2006c. Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule. Office of Water (4 606

- M)

EPA 815

- R

- 06

- 014 October 2006.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10

- finalrpt.pdf.

EPA. 2008. Child

- Specific Exposure Factors Handbook

. September 2008

. http://ofmpub .epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=484738*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

189 EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Available here:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

EPA. 201 0b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule. Office of

Water (4607

- M) EPA 815

- R

- 10

- 001 June 2010.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/Proposed%20RTCR%20EA.pdf

EPA. 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b)

Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821

- R

- 11

- 002 March 28, 2011.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk fa ctor for

non

- Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer.

123(7):1657

- 63 Oct 1.

ERS. 2014. Farm Labor, Number and Geographical Distribution of Hired Farmworkers.

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Updated October 30.

http://ers.usda.gov/topics/farm

- economy/farm

- labor/background.aspx#Numbers.

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzien, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT

Holland. 2004. Association of in utero organophosphate pesticide exposu re and fetal

growth and length of gestation in an agricultural population. Environ. Health Perspect.

112:1116

– 1124

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell.

2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide expo sure and neurodevelopment in

young Mexican

- American children. Health Perspect. 115:792

– 798.

Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and

Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Gempler’s. 2014 . Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com. Accessed

October/November 2014.

Gempler’s. 2015. Space saving dispenser, product and prices.

http://www.gemplers.com/product/WEB28812/Space

- saving

- Dispensers#TAB

- INFO.

Accessed March, 2015.

Giles, K, and R Billing. 2013. Designs and Improvements in Closed Systems. Report to K

Everett, Pesticide Enforcement Branch, Department of Pesticide Regulations, California.

13pp.

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives

, Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355

- 362.

Hammitt JK, and J

- T Liu. 2004. “Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of

Mortality Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 73

- 95.

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok . 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic

exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet

Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156

- 9, April.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

190 Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non

- Hodgkin

Lymphom a in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?"

Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704

- 706.

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP

Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the

Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11

- 8, Jan 1. At

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376.

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al. 2007.

Pestici de use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am

J Ind Med 50:969

– 979.

Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli

- Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of

illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 20(11):1 449

- 54, Nov. At

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641.

Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers. At

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html, accessed February, 24,

2011.

Itaoka K, AJ Krupnick, A Saito, and M Akai. 2007. Morbidity Valuation with a Cessation Lag:

Choice Experiments for Public

- and Private

- Goods Contexts in Japan, Resources for the

Future Discussion Paper, July 2007. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF

- DP

- 07

- 07

- REV.pdf.

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M

Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self

- reported

Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol, 165:364

- 74.

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report No.

60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June.

Koutros S, LE Beane

- Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K

Yu, Q Li, LA Bur dette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010b. Pesticide use

modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate

cancer. Cancer Res, 70(22):9224

- 33.

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C K nott, A Blair, LE

Beane

- Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study.

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098

- 105.

Koutros, S, LE Beane

- Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Del lavalle,

JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and

Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American

Journal of Epidemiology, 177(1):59

- 74. Epub 2012 Nov 21,

http://www.ncbi.n lm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882.

Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors

of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ

Health. 22(1):14

- 26, Feb.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

191 Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs

associated with non

- Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years

of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535

- 1544.

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2 006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the

Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural

Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17

- Issue 6

- pp S311

- S312, Nov.

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al. 2004. Cancer incidence

among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J

Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781

– 1791.

Lee WJ, DP Sandler, A Blair, C Samanic, AJ Cross, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide use and

colorectal canc er risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer 121(2):339

- 46, Jul

15.

Leon ME, LE Beane

- Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M

Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi

- Maesano, I Baldi, MA Dalvie, G

Ferro, B F ervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P

Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair.

2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public

Health. 2011 May;8(5):1 341

- 57. Epub 2011 Apr 29.

Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R,

Rundle A. Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as

determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment Am J Pub lic Health. 2011

Jan;101(1):63

- 70

Magat, W.A., W.K. Viscusi, and J. Huber. 1996. A Reference Lottery Metric for Valuing Health.

Management Science. 42:1118

- 1130.

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl

exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct

15;121(8):1799

- 805.

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006.

Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health st udy. Environ Health

Perspect, 114:1838

- 42

Mehler, Louise, Marc B. Schenker, Patrick S. Romano, and Steven J. Samuels. California

Surveillance for Pesticide

- Related Illness and Injury. Journal of Agromedicine. 11(2)

2006.

Mills PK and R Yang. 2006a. Reg ression analysis of pesticide use and breast cancer incidence

in California Latinas. J Environ Health. 2006 Jan

- Feb;68(6):15

- 22

Mills PK and R Yang. 2006b. Agricultural exposures and gastric cancer risk in Hispanic farm

workers in California. Environ R es. 2007 Jun;104(2):282

- 9. Epub 2006 Dec 29.

Mills PK, and R Yang. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ

Med. 45:249

- 258.

Mills PK, Dodge J and R Yang. 2009. Cancer in migrant and seasonal hired farm workers. J

Agromed icine. 2009;14(2).*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

192 NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United

States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php.

NASS. 2010. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey , 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 22.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

Updated February 2010. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/.

NASS. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Na tional Agricultural Statistics Service, United

States Department of Agriculture. May 2014.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/.

National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non

- Hodgkin lymphoma, NIH

publication 07

- 1567, Sept ember. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/non

hodgkin

- lymphoma.pdf.

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics,

Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011.

National Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National

Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicator s of mancozeb exposure

in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work

Environ Health. 31(2):89

- 96, April.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011a) Apple Spray Program. Updated February 2011.

http://www.nwwinc.com/_li terature_49836/Apple_Spray_Program.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011b) Cherry Spray Program. Updated February 2011.

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49846/Cherry_Spray_Program.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011c) Pear Spray Program. February 2011.

http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program.

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer

- patient preferences using

a hybrid contingent valuation m ethod," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol.

16(6), pages 667

- 683, December.

OMB. 2003. Circular A

- 4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a

- 4.

Orr, KM and L Mehler (2000). Physician Reporting of Pesticide Illnesses, Part 1. Mass Mailing

and Personal Notifications, 1994

– 1996. Health & Safety Report Worker Health and

Safety Branch HS

- 1781. March 20, 2000.

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/ en/symptoms

Accessed August 4, 2011.

Parkinson's Disease Foundation. 2010. Statistics on Parkinson's, website:

http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics

Plog, BA. 1996. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. BA Plog, ed. National Safety Council,

Unite d States, pp 29

- 30, Fourth Edition.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

193 Quandt, SA, TA Arcury, CK Austin, and RM Saavedra. 1998. Farmworker and farmer

perceptions of farmworker agricultural chemical exposure in North Carolina. Human

Organization, 57, 359

- 368.

Rao, P, SA Quandt, AM Doran, BM Snively, and TA Arcury. 2007. Pesticides in the Homes of

Farmworkers : Latino Mothers' Perceptions of Risk to Their Children's Health, Health

Educ Behav 2007 34: 335

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Se ven

- Year

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common

Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196

– 1201.

Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang,

and R W Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment

in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner

- City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845

- e1859

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use

an d Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314

– 320.

Roberts, JR, and JR Reigert. 2013. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Sixth Edition,

available here: http://www2. epa.gov/pesticide

- worker

- safety/recognition

- and

management

- pesticide

- poisonings

Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral

Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure,

Neurotoxicology. 2011 March ; 32(2): 268

– 276.

Rosenbaum, S, and P Shin. 2005. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insurance

Coverage and Access to Care, Kaiser Family Foundation. Available here:

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Migrant

- and

- Seasonal

- Farmworkers

- Health

Insur ance

- Coverage

- and

- Access

- to

- Care

- Report.pdf

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards

and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural

Safety and Health. Special Issue (1):159

- 169.

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and

Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20

- 32.

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu

- Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and

Children's Health Study, Early

- life environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from

the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760

– 765.

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory

symptoms in child ren and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J. 22(3):507

- 12, Sept. At

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143.

Salazar MK, M Napolitano, JA Scherer, and LA McCauley. 2004. Hispanic adolescent

farmworkers' perceptions associated with pesticide exposur e. West J Nurs Res.

26(2):146

– 166.

Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Camacho, J López, G Kavanagh

- Baird, M Minkler, and

B Eskenazi. 2009. A Community

- Based Participatory Worksite Intervention to Reduce*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

194 Pesticide Exposures to Farmworkers and Their Families. American Journal of Public

Health S578

- S581, Vol 99, No. S3, Nov.

Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Bassil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non

- cancer health

effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam

Ph ysician 53(10): 1712

- 20.

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning,

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97

- 2505

- A.

Smith, R, K Klonsky, and R DeMoura. (2009) Sample costs to produce iceberg lettuce , Central

Coast Region. University of California Cooperative Extension publication LT

- CC

- 09

- 2.

http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/lettuceicecc09.pdf.

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 1996. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors

in ado lescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249

-

272.

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive

Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69

- 74, Feb.

Strong LL, B Thompson, TD Koepsell, and H Meischke. 2008. Factors associated with

pesticide safety practices in farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 51(1):69

- 81, Jan.

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok

GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richa rds MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez

HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and

Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866

- 72.

Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is April 18, Five D ays Later Than Last Year.

April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax

- freedom

- day

- 2013

- april

- 18

- five

- days

later

- last

- year

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a

systematic review and meta

- ana lysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33

- 41.

U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999

– 2011 Incidence and

Mortality Web

- based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2010.

Available at:www.cdc.gov/uscs.

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries

and Illnesses. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government

U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2011. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PubMed

Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001153/. Accessed September

20, 2011.

University of Florida

. 2008

- 09

. Interactive Budgets, Vegetables. University of Florida.

http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/iatpc/ibudgets09.php.

University of Maryland Medical Center. 2013. Parkinson's disease, website: available here:

http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/parki nsons

- disease*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

195 US Census Bureau . 201 3

. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics

, 2010 Census of

Population and Housing, CPH

- 1

- 1, U

. S

. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Issued January . Available here: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cp h

- 1

- 1.pdf

Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, MC Alavanja, DP Sandler,

and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchitis among non

- smoking farm women in the

agricultural health study." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/Am erican

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574.

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P Nijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is

pesticide use related to Parkinson disease? Some clues to heterogeneity in study results

. Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 340.

Van Maele

- Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Lison. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides

and childhood leukaemia: a systematic review and meta

- analysis. Environment

International. 37(1):280

- 91, Jan.

V eltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data

Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology: 389

- 97.

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricu ltural

Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289

- 99.

Viscusi, W.K.,W.A. Magat, and J. Huber. 1991. Pricing Environmental Health Risks: Survey

Assessments of Risk

- Risk and Risk

- Dollar Trade

- Offs for Chronic Bronchitis. Journal of

Environmental E conomics and Management. 21

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Farm Worker Health and Safety in

Washington State: A Look at Workers' Compensation Data. Olympia, WA: Safety and

Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24

- 2

- 1991, 1991.

Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in

human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 11(3

- 4):242

- 59, Mar.

Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 20 09. A systematic review and meta

- analysis of

childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health

Perspectives 117:1505

- 1513.

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody,

and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer

Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21.

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking

Carbofuran Tolerances. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs, U.S. EPA.

Xu, J. and KD Kochanek, SL Murphy, B Tejada

- Vera, B.S. Deaths: Final Data for 2007,

National Vital Statistics Reports. Volume 58, Number 19. Available here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nv sr58/nvsr58_19.pdf"

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi

- center

Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of

Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85

- 92.*** EO 12866 Review Draft

– Deliberative

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

196 Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE

Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate

pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199

– 209

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A B radman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE

Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate

pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199

– 209

Young, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational R isks and Risk Perception among

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49

- 53.

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1993. Cancer among migrant and seasonal farmworkers: an

epidemiologic review and research agenda. Am J Ind Med. 24(6):753

- 66, Dec.

Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420

- 33.

Zahm, SH, JS Colt, LS Engel, MC Keifer, AJ Alvarado, K Burau, P Butterfield, S Caldera, SP

Cooper, D Garcia, C Hanis, E Hendrikson, N Heyer, LM Hunt, M Krauska, N

MacNaughton, CJ McDonnell, PK Mills, LD Mull, DL Nordstrom, B Outterson, DP

Slesinger, MA Smith, L Stallones, C Stephens, A Sweeney, K Sweitzer, SW Vernon, and

A Blair. 2001. Development of a life events/icon calendar questionnaire to ascertain

occupational histories and other characteristics of migrant farmworkers. Am J Ind Med.

40(5):490

- 501, Nov.

Zahm, SH, and MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106

Suppl 3:893

- 908, June.