1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

PROPOSED 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
2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................7

1.2 Problem Statement....................................................................................................................... 8

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure......................................................................................... 9

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure....................................................................................12

1.2.3 Market Failure.....................................................................................................................13

1.3 Affected Communities................................................................................................................15

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees.......................................................................................................15

1.3.2 Regulated Entities..............................................................................................................16

1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation ..............................................................................................17

1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation...............................................................................................18

1.4.2 Statutory Authority .............................................................................................................19

Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS.............................................................................20

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety .........................................................21

2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches................................................................................................21

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches.......................................................................................................22

2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers ...............................................23

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options .......................................................................................23

2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options.........................................................................................32

2.2.3 Notification Options............................................................................................................35

2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers..................................................................43

2.3.1 Minimum Age Options........................................................................................................43

2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions.............................................................................................44

2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment.......................................................................48

2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure ...............................................................50

2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options.......................................................................................50

2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response.......................................................................................52

Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options............................................................................................55

3.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................55
3

3.2. Regional Groupings.....................................................................................................................56

3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements..................................................................................................58

3.3.1 General Methodology.........................................................................................................58

3.3.2 General Data .......................................................................................................................61

3.3.3 Training ...............................................................................................................................69

3.3.4 Hazard Communication.......................................................................................................85

3.3.5 Notification .........................................................................................................................90

3.3.5 Age ......................................................................................................................................97

3.3.6 Entry..................................................................................................................................101

3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)...............................................................................106

3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies................................................................................................111

3.3.9 Emergency Response ........................................................................................................113

Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements ......................................................................115

4.1 Training Options........................................................................................................................116

4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training.........................................................116

4.1.2 TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and handler training ....117

4.1.3 TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training .118

4.1.4 TRAIN-08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards....................................118

4.1.5 TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17: Record keeping ..........................................................119

4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification...................................................................119

4.2 Hazard Communication Options...............................................................................................120

4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information ..........................................120

4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication Materials............121

4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention ..........................................................121

4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets................................................................122

4.3 Notification Options..................................................................................................................122

4.3.1 NOTIFY-01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production ...........................122

4.3.2 NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production.............................123

4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification .......................................123

4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs.......................................................................123

4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign ....................................................................124

4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry tasks.............124
4

4.3.7 NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks....................................................124

4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display .....................................................................................125

4.3.9 NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays ..................................125

4.3.10 NOTIFY-18: Notification by commercial applicators........................................................126

4.4 Age Requirement Options.........................................................................................................126

4.4.1 AGE-01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities.....................................................126

4.4.2 AGE-03 vs AGE-04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides ..............................127

4.5 Entry Restriction Options..........................................................................................................127

4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas.........................................................................127

4.5.2 ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities..............................................128

4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition ......................................................................129

4.6 PPE Options...............................................................................................................................129

4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator PPE ...............129

4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting under CCAs .130

4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions.............................................................130

4.6.4 PPE-05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable..............................................................131

4.7 Decontamination Supply Options.............................................................................................131

4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: Decontamination supplies for workers...............................131

4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers ..............................................132

4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing.......................................................................133

4.8 Emergency Assistance Options.................................................................................................133

Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule...........................................................................................................135

5.1 General Methodology...............................................................................................................137

5.2 Cost Estimation .........................................................................................................................141

5.2.1 Training Component .........................................................................................................141

5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components....................................................151

5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE ........................................................................154

5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance................156

5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule..............................................................................................158

5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment..............................................................................................161

5.4 Small Business Impacts.............................................................................................................162

5.4.1 Industry Profile..................................................................................................................163
5

5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost.........................................................................165

Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule......................................................................................................167

6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified............................................................................................168

6.2. Who is at Risk?..........................................................................................................................169

6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture...................................................................................169

6.2.2. Children and families ........................................................................................................169

6.3. What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families.................................172

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects.............................................................................................172

6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families................................173

6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents ..................................177

6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents............................................177

6.5.1. Methodology and Data .....................................................................................................178

6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents...................................................................179

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided ..............................................................................................184

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided ...............................................................................................187

6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers and Handlers.............198

6.6.1. Cancer Risks ......................................................................................................................201

6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects................................................................................................204

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks..........................................................................206

6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks..................................................206

6.8. Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks.............................................207

6.8.1. Background .......................................................................................................................207

6.8.2. Method..............................................................................................................................209

6.8.3. Data...................................................................................................................................211

6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation......................................................................................................215

6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions....................................................................................................219

Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden .................................................................................................................220

Accounting Statement ..............................................................................................................................221

References ................................................................................................................................................223
1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 

WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Executive Summary

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 

170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. This 

document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the WPS 

to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 

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

Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The 

document also discusses the costs and benefits of alternative options considered by EPA in the 

development of the proposal.

Pesticides are designed to be toxic and their use is inherently risky. Between 2000 and 2009, an 

average of 2,170 occupational pesticide incidents was reported annually to the National Institute 

of Occupational Safety and Health, of which over 1,200 occurred on agricultural establishments 

covered by the WPS. The true number of occupational accidents is likely to be significantly

more due to lack of reporting. Acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides can range from 

mild skin irritation to more severe effects such as headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, 

cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness. In rare 

cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. Occupational incidents are probably 

indicative of a larger number of cases where pesticide safety practices are not fully followed 

resulting in higher levels of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, 

and possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and 

risk management. Even such minor errors are likely to lead to chronic exposure to pesticides, 

which is associated with long-term health issues that are potentially severe, including 

neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and several forms of cancer.

Market Failure

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

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

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

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

unintended or undesirable amounts or kinds of use for a given pesticide that result in negative 

consequences for society and/or the environment. If the market fails to provide incentives to 

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

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

hazards of excess pesticide exposure.

In conjunction with various non-regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are intended to 

reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 
2

to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to 

(1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they

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

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

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

Within these categories, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is 

proposing a set of requirements that, in combination, are expected to achieve substantial benefits 

at minimum cost.

Costs and Benefits

EPA estimates the incremental cost of all proposed revisions to be between $62.1 and $72.9

million annually, using a three percent discount rate. Using a seven percent discount rate, the 

rule is estimated to cost between $61.2 and $73.6 million per year. The majority of the costs, 

$59.6 to $70.4 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor 

and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United 

States. The approximately 2,800 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are 

contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost between $2.4 and $2.5 

million per year. Family farms, i.e., not hiring labor, that use pesticides may collectively bear 

costs of about $100,000 per year. Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $30 per 

year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced exposure to pesticides, will accrue to a 

broader population and will likely exceed $75 million per year in terms of avoided costs 

associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in chronic diseases 

associated with occupational pesticide exposure.

Estimates of the total incremental costs are considered an upper bound, primarily because of the 

assumption that all requirements are applicable to all farms and farmworkers even though the 

WPS requirements largely apply to workers engaged in hand labor. Much of U.S. agricultural 

labor is mechanized. EPA includes 153,000 farms primarily engaged in livestock operations in 

this analysis. Associated crop production is likely to include forage crops or field crops like 

grain and oilseeds that are highly mechanized. Since they do not involve hand labor activities, 

employers and employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. 

Only handler requirements would apply. If the livestock operations are responsible only for 

handler requirements, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to 

$59.2 million per year.

Costs

Key conclusions from the cost analysis are presented in Table 1. Most of the impacts of the 

revisions to the WPS will be felt by the 395,000 U.S. farms that hire labor. The cost to 

individual farms will depend on the number and type of employees employed. EPA estimates 

that large farms, defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales and which average about 20 

employees, will incur costs of $340 to $400 per year, on average, using a 3% discount rate. 

Smaller operations that average two to three workers are estimated to incur costs between $130

and $150 per year, on average, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent of average annual 

revenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial 
3

number of small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Around 3,000 family farms may be 

impacted by the proposed standards for closed mixing and loading systems with annualized costs 

of less than $60 per year, although this figure masks the fact that some farms may choose to 

invest in new equipment. Commercial pesticide handling establishments may incur costs of 

$170 to $190 per year.

Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard

Farms Hiring Labor Family Farms Commercial Pesticide 

Handling Establishments

Number Impacted 395,000 3,200 2,800

Annualized Cost $59.6 – 70.4 million $100,000 $2.4 – 2.5 million

Per-Establishment Large farms $350-410

Small farms $130-150 $35 $170-190

Small Business 

Impacts

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

 The rule will affect over 300,000 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 $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 percent of the cost 

of a part-time employee.

The marginal increase in cost per field worker is estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which 

would not be expected to have an impact on employment. The marginal increase in cost per 

pesticide handler employed on a farm is estimated to be less than $60 per year, which represents 

about 0.25 percent of the total cost of a part-time employee, a marginal increase that would not 

be expected to have an impact on job availability.

Benefits

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

indirectly to their families. For workers and handlers, the revised rule is expected to 

substantially reduce the potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from 

occupational exposures to pesticides, and provide them with information and tools to reduce the 

transport of pesticide residues to their homes. Self-employed pesticide handlers, including 

members of farm families who apply pesticides, will also benefit from reductions in pesticide 

exposures.

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

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

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

reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer-
4

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

health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 

Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents

Given reported cases, EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide incidents where the WPS 

applies would have been prevented by the rule. The value of avoided medical and productivity

losses of this reduction in incidents is estimated to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million 

annually, based on the number of reported cases. However, this estimate is biased downward by

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

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

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

database. The effect of underreporting can be significant. If we assume only 20 - 25% of 

poisonings are reported and adjust the benefits to account for this level of under-reporting, then 

the low-end estimate for the benefits of the rule would be about $5 million and the high-end 

estimate would be about $14 million/year. Second, our approach only measures avoided medical 

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

exposure, which could be substantially higher. These benefits are summarized in Table 2.

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

Category Description Comments

Avoided acute pesticide 

incidents

 $5 – 14 million/year after 

adjustment for 

underreporting of pesticide 

incidents.

 $1.2 – 2.8 million/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.

Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure

The weight of evidence suggests that a reduction in pesticide exposure through the proposed rule 

requirements will result in long term health benefits to the 2.3 million agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. These benefits are expected to accrue through lower expenditure on 

healthcare due to a reduced burden of chronic illness in the population. EPA also anticipates

there will be benefits such as a healthier society and improved quality of life for agricultural 

workers, pesticide handlers and their families through this rule. However, neither the benefits of 

reduced chronic disease burden due to reduced pesticide exposure nor the intangible benefit of 

improved quality of life can be quantified at this time. 

The peer-reviewed literature contains well-documented and biologically plausible statistical 

associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. For example, 

epidemiological researchers have observed links between pesticide exposure and 

lymphohematopoietic tumors, lung and prostate cancers as well as neurological effects such as 
5

Parkinson’s disease, among others. However, the current state of scientific research concerning 

the possible association between pesticide exposure and these chronic diseases is such that it 

would be premature at this time to conclude that there is a causal link between pesticide 

exposures and the chronic disease outcomes, or if there is a causal link, the data are insufficient 

to establish a dose-response relationship. As a consequence, it is not possible to directly quantify

all of the benefits expected to result from reducing agricultural pesticide exposures expected. 

However, the totality of reported epidemiological findings suggests that the long term health of 

agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule. Therefore, EPA has estimated 

the minimum number of cases of chronic disease outcomes which, if avoided, would equal the 

total cost of the rule (i.e., the “break-even” analysis). 

The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 

illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 

by family members or health care professionals. Using the break-even analysis described in 

Section 6.8., if the proposed rule prevents only a very small number of chronic illnesses, it could 

have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis indicates 

that a reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year across the entire WPS

occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that would be required to ensure the totality

of benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS revisions. Including only six diseases in the breakeven analysis, EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of just those chronic diseases 

shown in Table 3 by 0.8 percent within the farmworker community is more than enough to 

provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that would be sufficient to generate total benefits 

equal to the cost of the rule, given estimates of willingness to pay to avoid representative 

diseases. In general, farm families with exposure to pesticides show higher incidence rates of 

certain chronic diseases than the general population with little or no exposure to pesticides. 

Thus, the slight decrease in total incidence rates is a plausible outcome of the proposed revisions 

to the WPS. 

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

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-Hodgkins lymphoma

 Prostate Cancer

 Parkinson’s Disease

 Lung Cancer

 Chronic Bronchitis

 Asthma 

Break-even analysis for 

only these illnesses 

shows that, if the 

proposed rule changes 

prevent a relatively small 

number of cases, then the 

total benefits of the rule 

would outweigh the 

costs. 

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

to transport pesticide residues home to their families. Thus, the proposed requirements are 

expected to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. The benefits of reduced exposure to 

children are also impossible to quantify, but they may be large. At every lifestage, including the 
6

fetal stage, reducing exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days 

missed of school, improved capacity to learn, better education, and better long-term 

health. There are benefits to parents and caregivers as well, because healthier families, means 

fewer missed workdays, and a better quality of life.
7

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 

WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Chapter 1. Introduction

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 

170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The 

proposed revisions are expected to reduce the risks to workers and handlers from occupational 

pesticide exposure, and protect farm worker children and other family members from take-home 

pesticide exposure. The proposed changes represent revisions to the worker protection rule that 

was first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992.

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the 

WPS as well as for alternatives EPA considered in the development of the proposal. This section 

provides a brief background to the WPS requirements, describes the reasons for EPA’s proposal 

and the statutory authority for the rule, and identifies entities that may be affected by the rule. 

Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in developing this proposal and 

discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different options. Chapter 3 presents the cost 

estimates for the regulatory options. Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits of 

alternative requirements. Chapters 5 and 6 then examine the proposed requirements as a single 

unit. Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the proposal, taking into account any interactions between 

the proposed requirements. The ultimate outcome of the rule, in terms avoided adverse health 

effects resulting from reduced accidental and chronic exposures to pesticides, which will accrue 

primarily to agricultural employees and their families, are described in Chapter 6.

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. The remaining regulatory requirements and a full description of the regulatory

options EPA is considering in this proposal are addressed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) of this rule. This document and the data used in this analysis also serve as input in 

preparing an analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501-21).

1.1 Background

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

regulations. The Certification of Pesticide Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Part 171, requires 

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

the use of restricted use pesticide products. EPA is currently revising the rules governing 

certification of pesticide applicators through another rulemaking. The Worker Protection 

Standard regulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and commercial pesticide 

handler employers to provide specific information and protections to agricultural farm workers 

and pesticide handlers when pesticides are used in the production of agricultural plants on farms, 

forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The WPS regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness 

or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on 
8

agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm 

workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or to which 

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

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

potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. These two 

regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety program, 

are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, 

agricultural employees, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, such as 

children. This economic analysis focuses on the WPS rule.

The WPS rule is directed toward the working conditions of two types of employees, which, 

throughout this document, we refer as ‘handlers’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those 

employees who handle agricultural pesticides (mixing, loading, applying pesticides, and 

performing other activities linked to pesticide application). These employees may be directly

exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and nontarget organisms. In principle, at least, pesticide handlers also know with which chemicals they 

work and have access to label information that explains precautions and provides directions for 

use. Workers are employees who perform tasks related to the cultivation and harvesting of 

plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. Workers are potentially exposed to 

pesticides through contact with treated plants, residues left on other surfaces, or through the air 

or water on the farm or other operation. On their own, workers may have little information 

about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be exposed or even if they are exposed.

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

required protections to their employees: agricultural owners/employers, (i.e., farm owners, 

greenhouses, nurseries and forest planting), and employers on commercial pesticide handling 

establishments (CPHEs). Some revisions may also pertain to other commercial agricultural 

services, including private crop advisors, but impacts appear to be negligible.

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

and their families. The proposed changes to the rule will provide more information about the 

potential risks of pesticide exposure and ways farmworkers and handlers can minimize those 

exposures.

1.2 Problem Statement

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

effects to human health and the environment. These requirements include current worker 

protection standards and pesticide-specific use restrictions found on the product label. However, 

despite these safeguards, occupational pesticide poisonings still occur. The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Council of State and Territorial 

Epidemiologists (CSTE) compile a set of indicators to monitor occupational health. Indicator 11 

tracks acute work-related pesticide poisonings reported to poison control centers. From 2000 to 

2009, the number of cases reported by this source ranged from 2,827 in 2000 to 2,040 in 2009, 

with an average number of 2,465 cases reported per year (CSTE, 2011). Reports include all 

occupational cases, not only those where WPS is applicable. An EPA review of another dataset 
9

on occupational exposures (SENSOR-Pesticides, described in more detail in Chapter 6) indicates 

that about 57 percent of reported occupational cases occurred on establishments where WPS 

requirements apply. If that rate applies to Indicator 11 data, about 1,400 incidents annually

would be reported from WPS establishments. Although the number of cases was generally 

trending down over this period, there remain a substantial number of incidents. Many of these 

poisonings are avoidable and it may be possible to mitigate the adverse effects of exposures 

when they occur. Moreover, incidents are likely to reflect a larger number of cases where 

employers or employees fail to follow label instruction or make mistakes in applications, much 

like traffic accidents at intersections likely reflect the common practice of rolling through stop 

signs. But while rolling through a stop sign increases the probability of an accident, lax pesticide 

safety practices result in higher levels of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, and 

possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, even if they do not lead to a clearly defined 

incident. These minor errors are also likely to lead to more chronic exposure to pesticides. 

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

Use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 

narrowly targeted to specific life forms or processes while others have effects across a broad 

spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many ways, 

and workers and handlers can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing 

season (Arcury et al., 2010). Some exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of 

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

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

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

vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). Some pesticides can cause in seizures, respiratory

depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional 

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

be caused by pesticide exposure; Reigart and Roberts (1999) list almost 100 different symptoms 

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

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

(see the discussion in Section 6.5.1), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 

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

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

agricultural workers from 1998-2005. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for 

agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for nonagricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 

486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance 

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

related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural workers. Over a 

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

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

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

by inhalation and eye contact. 
10

Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees

The families of agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are also exposed to pesticides, and 

several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 

to children, both those living in the homes of workers and handlers, as well as those adolescents 

working on farms.

Research has shown that agricultural workers’ perceptions about pesticide safety can lead to 

excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al., (2009) conducted interviews with 99 

farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several misconceptions or practices 

that might lead to takehome exposure that could be changed through training. In particular, 

respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less harmful than sprays and liquids, 

PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickly, and farmworkers 

were delayed washing their hands and bodies immediately after work. Quandt et al. (1998) 

found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target and 

that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al., 2007). In 

reality, other exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from 

nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working. 

Prenatal exposures may be particularly important for long-term development effects in children. 

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer windows of opportunity for 

chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 

means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 

lesser health impacts. At various development stages, humans metabolize chemicals differently, 

such that chemical exposures have more or less effect at different ages. 

Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 

exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al. (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 

urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a 

urine sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary

sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 

Bradman et al. (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different 

pesticides in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, and 

pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 nonfarm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 

significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 

farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher 

levels in the worker’s changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 

transported home on farmer’s clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 

pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the takehome exposure 

pathway, Vida et al. (2007), reported results that indicate the takehome exposure is an important 

source of exposure for children. Studies cited by Vida et al. (2007) consistently found higher 

levels of pesticides in the agricultural households and that levels of OP residues vary by

agricultural activity. The highest levels of azinphos-methyl, for example were associated with 

thinning activities that a farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al., 2004, 

Coronado et al., 2006). Curl et al., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home 

and residues in vehicles, which suggest the takehome pathway is the source for the residues. 
11

Exposure studies on organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, suggest 

that the takehome pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005, 

Bradman 2007, Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

Adolescent workers and handlers 

Adolescents working on farms or as handlers can be exposed to pesticides via the same pathways 

as adult workers and handlers, but they may face higher levels of exposure and greater risks. 

There is evidence that adolescents do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults 

do that make exposure to pesticides more likely. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than 

the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times 

the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, 

adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of 

injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more risks 

while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during worktime 

(Rowntree, Darragh et al., 1998). The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, 

particularly in the areas of judgment, risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). 

The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for 

perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan 

et al., 2010). 

Salazar et al. (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 

teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 

among the group relating to individual susceptibility, and responses indicated a somewhat 

cavalier attitude toward health and safety issues (Salazar et al., 2004).

According to Calvert et al.(2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 

youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed 

to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity (Calvert 

et al., 2003). The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior 

than adults. In economic terms, adolescents behave as if they have extremely high discount 

rates, i.e., very little beyond the immediate moment matters. 

Children and adolescents are still going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 

exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems. 

Although adolescents are more fully developed than younger children, there are still important 

development processes continuing. In particular brain changes still continue, such as the final 

maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination (important 

physiological process that reduce the excess neuron connections in the brain and enclosing 

individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase the efficiency of information 

processing) (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the 

effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 

2000). In addition, the earlier occupational exposure gives more time for any delayed health 

effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves over a full lifetime. 
12

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

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

from chronic exposure to pesticides, as well. Although the children and families may suffer 

illness from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for this group is exposure to 

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

in the home, where pesticides have been transported on the clothes of workers and handlers. 

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

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 

pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure to pregnant women may have 

particularly important effects on neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et 

al. (2009) find an association between prenatal exposure to the mother and future childhood 

leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 

of developmental toxicity (i.e., structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth 

and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 

pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 

While only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 

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

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

toxicology studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has only

identified two classes of pesticides to be carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides and those with 

dioxin contaminants), but classifies non-arsenical pesticides as possible human carcinogens. 

However, many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and 

cancer. 

Synthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles 

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

and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); 

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

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

al., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele et al., 2011, Wigle 

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

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 

agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 

excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 

and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 

cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 

of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 

pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among 

agriculturally exposed occupational groups (Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009).
13

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health 

Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al., 2007 for 

colon cancer, Andreotti et al., 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, 

cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009). 

1.2.3 Market Failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and 

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

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

pesticide exposure.

Asymmetric Information

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

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

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

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

Asymmetric information arises in two ways.

First, there may be barriers to employees obtaining the information if not provided by the 

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

an estimated 44 percent of agricultural employees do not speak English (US Department of 

Labor, 2005). Many are migrant laborers who could lack access to sources of information, such 

as familiar extension agents, because they are frequently away from home, but many workers 

may not have access, especially internet access, to convenient, reliable information (US 

Department of Labor, 2005). These barriers result in high search costs that can deter agricultural 

workers and handlers from obtaining information on their own. Finally, information regarding 

pesticides and pesticide use may not be available to the employee in the time frame that is 

required to take appropriate action.

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

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

or other factors, especially for workers who may not even be aware that they have been in 

contact with pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas. Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide 

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

more about the risks they face given more immediate job requirements. These issues can result 
14

in workers and handlers with insufficient information to make informed choices about their 

safety. 

Externalities

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

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

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

the social and private costs of using a pesticide.

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

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

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

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

are not readily observable, but occur due to chronic exposure. Moreover, there are numerous 

pesticides, many with complex effects on human and environmental systems, which can make it 

costly for employers to obtain information for their employees. Similarly, adequate protections 

may require specialized knowledge, e.g., toxicology, that employers simply do not have.

Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections

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

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

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

and risk has evolved and regulatory requirements are most useful when they reflect current 

knowledge.

Environmental Justice Issues

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

the agricultural employees covered by the WPS. 

 Because of their occupation, workers and handlers face more potential exposure to 

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

pesticides over the course of their working life. 

 Language barriers and challenges for this workforce make it difficult for workers and 

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

jobs. 

 Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than nonagricultural workers. Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide 

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

lack of access to health care can exacerbate the risks from this exposure. 
15

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

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

are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6.

According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), in 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005), 75

percent of farmworkers were born in Mexico. Twenty three percent were born in the U.S., with a 

small percentage born in other countries. Eighty one percent of the community speaks Spanish 

as a native language, with a growing percentage speaking other languages such as Creole, or 

Mixteco. Forty-four percent of workers could not speak English “at all” and 53 percent could 

not read English “at all,” and many workers have received minimal formal education. The 

NAWS reports that, in 2001-2002, most foreign-born workers completed the sixth grade, 

whereas most US-born workers completed the eleventh grade. Forty three percent traveled at 

least 75 miles in the previous year to find an agricultural job, and are therefore defined as 

migrant, posing challenges for effective outreach. Twenty one percent live in housing provided 

by their employer, with 58 percent living in housing rented from someone else. The NAWS 

(DoL, 2005) found that crop workers’ average annual income was between $10,000 and $12,499, 

with total family income averaging between $15,000 and $17,499. Thirty percent of surveyed 

workers had family incomes below the poverty level. 

1.3 Affected Communities

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

employees and their families, agricultural establishments (which include farms, forests, nurseries 

and greenhouses) that use pesticides in the production of agricultural plants and hire workers or 

handlers, and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). Other affected entities 

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

advisory services. Under the proposed revisions, state agencies are expected to incur only

minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations. 

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

WPS offers protections to as many as 2.3 million agricultural employees (NASS, 2008b). The 

current rule is intended to protect workers and handlers on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses 

from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operations although most 

workers in forestry would generally not be at substantially more risk than the general public due 

to pesticide use patterns in forestry.

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 

large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed each year. According to data 

from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), over 300,000 farms employing over 2.0 

million workers used pesticides in 2007. EPA estimates that within the farmworker population 

are almost 250,000 employees who handle pesticides, including those who mix and load 

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

however, it is likely that nearly all 395,000 agricultural establishments that hire labor will use 

pesticides, thus all agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of adverse health effects. 
16

However, many farm workers are not engaged in hand labor activities and the potential for 

exposure is quite low. 

Agricultural workers and handlers are expected to benefit from the proposed rule through 

provisions that would require agricultural employers to provide information to workers and 

handlers about risks from pesticides and ways they can minimize their exposure, to provide 

warnings about treated areas, to provide protective measures such as personal protective 

equipment, and to provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultural 

pesticides. The costs of the proposed rule are not generally expected to fall directly on workers 

and handlers. 

1.3.2 Regulated Entities

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were over 2.2 million 

agricultural establishments in the United States. Another 10,000 commercial establishments do 

business such as providing contract services for pest control (Census Bureau, 2006). The WPS 

covers a subset of agricultural establishments involved in plant agriculture. These include farms, 

livestock operations that grow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations. An 

agricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the 

management or condition of an agricultural establishment, and employs any worker or handler. 

The WPS also covers self-employed handlers, such as the operator of a family farm who applies 

pesticides.

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

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

operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). Within each type, 

we further distinguish between those who are self-employed (e.g., the family farm) and those 

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

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

account for time spent in training and in giving and receiving information.

Agricultural Establishments

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million farms, 

nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States, of which over 1.5 million are involved in plant 

agriculture. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture and determined that 788,582 agricultural establishments producing crops used 

pesticides in 2007. Of those, 304,348 farms also hired labor, leaving 484,234 family farms that 

used pesticides in 2007. Those family farms, however, are exempt from most provisions of the 

WPS. Family farms benefit from the WPS because it provides several exceptions or alternatives 

to pesticide label requirements including permission to enter treated fields during the Restricted 

Entry Interval (REI) under certain conditions. The WPS also sets standards for engineering 

controls, such as closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for 

personal protective equipment (PPE).
17

The WPS, and any revisions to it, will primarily affect the establishments that use pesticides and 

hire labor such as the 304,348 farms identified in the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 

2008b). However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by conventional growers. 

Thus, EPA uses the number of farms hiring labor, 394,658, as the likely universe of farms 

covered by WPS requirements (NASS, 2008b). For convenience, throughout this document, we 

refer to the farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor as “WPS farms.” The use of all 

farms hiring labor may be a slight overestimation due to the presence of organic growers, 

however many organic producers also have conventionally grown fields and organic-approved 

pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and 

are subject to WPS standards of safety. The number of these farms actually using pesticides in 

any given year, as indicated by the 2007 Census, will be important for many of the requirements.

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

available. However, WPS requirements do not apply when treated areas are removed from areas 

where workers are employed. Given forest production practices, pesticide applications and 

worker activities are commonly quite distinct and so WPS requirements would rarely impact 

forestry operations.

Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments

The number of commercial pesticide handling establishments or CPHEs is derived from Dunn 

and Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Statistics (BLS, 

2008) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farms. 

About 5,000 individual firms were identified from a search of D&B for firms that are listed 

under the NAICS code 115112 (Soil preparation, planting, and cultivating). In order to 

determine the number of firms that would qualify as commercial pesticide handling 

establishments as defined by the WPS, EPA determined that only the 1,231 firms which reported 

hiring at least one employee with the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 

descriptions: crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting services, soil 

chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting) would be 

defined as CPHEs under WPS. EPA also estimates that there are 1,562 aerial applicators 

covered by the WPS, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Aviation 

Association (NAAA, 2008).

EPA further estimated, based on the number of commercial applicators certified for plant 

production, that there are nearly 87,000 self-employed handlers providing commercial services 

to the agricultural sector (CPARD, 2007).

1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation

EPA is proposing requirements to address the problems arising from inadequate information and 

externalities, to clarify required actions, and to reflect current knowledge. Chapter 2 discusses 

the proposed requirements, as well as alternative requirements, in more detail. For this analysis, 

EPA organizes the proposed requirements into eight categories.
18

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

are designed to provide general information to employees where an important aspect of the 

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

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

Notification requirements are designed to provide timely application-specific information. These 

proposed requirements would mean that agricultural workers receive the information they need 

when they need it.

Three categories address the externality issue and provide protections to employees working with 

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

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

risks of exposure, especially the long-term effects, compared to adults. Entry restrictions are 

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

space to a pesticide application. Requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) are 

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

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

adequately prepare for the possibility of exposure. The proposed requirements for 

decontamination supplies and emergency assistance clarify existing requirements.

1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation

States and territories may establish local standards, provided the minimum federal standards are 

met. For improved protections and efficiency, EPA concludes that the federal standards should 

be revised.

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

protection standards. Many states rely on the federal standards because data on pesticide effects 

are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and the duplication of effort. Thus, 

while states have the authority to issue their own regulations, they may lack the resources to 

individually examine toxicological and exposure data and revise protection standards.

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

consistency in worker protection requirements across states. Many workers migrate through the 

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

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

rights and regulatory protections. Additionally, agricultural employers and farm managers or 

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

requirements are inconsistent. Further, if different states imposed different requirements, 

workers who cross state boundaries may be confused about their rights and responsibilities. 

Different notification requirements, in particular, that might present information in different 

ways, would be particularly confusing.
19

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

requirements for training standards can ease the burden of developing programs for individual 

entities.

1.4.2 Statutory Authority

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 established a 

framework for the regulation of pesticide products. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal 

Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 USC 136 et. seq.) broadened federal pesticide regulatory

authority to make it “unlawful for any person to use any registered product in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling” (7 USC 136i(a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments provided civil and 

criminal penalties for violations of the Act (7 USC 136l) and authorized the Administrator to 

provide regulations to carry out the Act (7 USC 136w(a)). The new and revised provisions 

directed EPA to protect humans and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of 

pesticides.
20

Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to improve the 

protections for agricultural workers, handlers and their families. The WPS establishes 

requirements to inform agricultural workers and handlers that they may encounter pesticides 

either through contact with treated surfaces or through handling activities including mixing, 

loading and applying pesticides. Broadly speaking, the WPS is meant to (1) inform workers and 

handlers about the pesticides they use or to which they come into contact, (2) protect workers

and handlers from the adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the adverse effects of

exposure. 

This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the WPS, as well as alternative 

options considered by EPA. The discussion provides a general overview of each potential 

change to the WPS; the proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR part 170 provides the actual 

regulatory language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not 

discussed. The NPRM for the proposed rule presents additional detail on the proposed changes 

and the alternatives considered, including some additional alternatives not considered here that 

were rejected for reasons such as practicality and enforceability. The discussion in this chapter 

focuses on the benefits of the proposals and alternative options. Chapter 3 estimates the costs 

each would impose and Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits.

The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non-regulatory programs that have been 

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

ways the proposals will improve worker safety (i.e., to inform workers, protect against exposure,

or mitigate the effects of exposure). For each of these three broad elements, the individual line 

items that make up the regulatory options are discussed. Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses the 

changes that will better inform workers and handlers about protecting themselves from pesticide

exposure, which comprise three categories, training, hazard communication, and notification. 

The provisions that protect workers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in 

Section 2.3 and are divided into three categories, age requirements, restrictions on entry into a 

treated area, and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements to protect against exposure.

The final section, 2.4, addresses changes to the WPS that will mitigate the adverse effects of 

contact with pesticides including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response 

requirements. Please refer to the NPRM for the WPS revisions for a complete discussion of the 

regulatory options considered under this rulemaking proposal and the rationale for the Agency’s 

selection of the final proposed options.
21

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is comprised of three major components: 

 protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural worker protection regulation 

and support activities; 

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

applicators; and 

 the national health care providers’ pesticide initiative. 

2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches

In addition to the regulatory changes that EPA is proposing, the Agency engages in extensive

non-regulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, handlers, their families and the public 

from pesticide exposure and potential injury. To implement these programs, the Office of 

Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of partners including state and tribal 

pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); 

university cooperative extension services; farmworker advocacy groups; and the regulated 

community. 

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

grants with governmental and non-governmental organizations with the goal of improving the 

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

a grant with National Association of State Departments of Agriculture-Research Foundation 

(NASDA-RF) to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to reduce 

pesticide exposure risks in pesticide worker and other affected populations. Regionally, 

nationally, and internationally, NASDA-RF, in collaboration with EPA, works with a variety of 

partners (community-based organizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care 

providers, regulators, subject matter experts, agricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the 

targeted communities and develop creative community-based action plans to enhance risk 

reduction via targeted training and outreach methods including: workshops, hands-on training, 

fact sheets, manuals, exams, Web, DVDs, and webinars.

EPA partners the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) 

program, which gathers information related to occupational pesticide incidents, including those 

experienced by farmworkers. These data have been useful in characterizing the benefits of these 

rule proposals, as discussed in Chapter 6. 

EPA has also participated in the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey

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

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

appropriate languages and complexity.

EPA supports state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulates the competency of 

pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement 
22

with USDA to support the training of applicators using RUPs through the cooperative extension 

services in each state.

A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national health care providers 

pesticide initiative, aimed at improving the training of health care providers in the recognition, 

diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pesticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the 

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

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

of pesticides and suggests treatments based on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, 

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

improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and 

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

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

conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and 

continuing education opportunities.

The regulatory changes proposed for the WPS are designed to complement EPA’s pesticide 

worker safety program activities to improve protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and 

their families. In many cases, the regulatory changes that EPA is considering came out of the 

process of consulting with stakeholders and industry participants on how to improve pesticide 

worker safety.

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

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

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

health or the environment. It is illegal to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent 

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

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

exposure. The label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific 

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

assessments, including occupational risk assessments.

The label, however, is not available to the typical farmworker, because they are not involved in 

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

surfaces after the application has been completed. The WPS complements the label by providing 

protections from this post-application exposure. It established requirements on the employer to 

notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training information that enables 

workers and handlers to protect themselves and their families, to provide supplies to be used to 

mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or 

handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are generic, crossing all 

agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, efficiently, and 

consistently covered in regulation.
23

2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

EPA is considering changes to requirements for pesticide safety training, hazard communication,

and notification of agricultural workers and handlers to better inform them of potential dangers

related to pesticide exposure. These measures work together to provide workers with important 

information about their working conditions and how they should act in those conditions. 

Changes to the pesticide safety training requirements will increase worker and handler

understanding of their potential exposure and knowledge of appropriate measures to take to 

protect themselves and their families. Hazard communication requirements make applicationspecific and pesticide-specific information available when needed. Notification includes 

measures to ensure that workers know about pesticide-treated areas and that reinforce pesticide 

safety training. Better hazard communication and notification imparts more appropriate 

information to workers so they can avoid unnecessary exposure to pesticides and take proper 

protective measures when necessary.

For each of these potential modifications to the WPS, a summary table of the current, proposed, 

and alternative requirements is presented. Note that one alternative is to leave the current 

requirements in place. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a qualitative 

discussion of expected benefits as well as any disadvantages. For each of the possible 

modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAIN-04). These indicators are also used in 

Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented. For complete details on the 

regulatory changes, see the proposed regulatory text and the NPRM.

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options

Current pesticide safety training provides information on pesticides, how workers and handlers 

may come into contact with them, how to prevent exposure to pesticides, and what to do if 

exposed to pesticides. EPA is considering changes to worker and handler training requirements, 

such as the frequency and content, and changes to supporting regulations that include 

recordkeeping, training verification, and trainer qualifications. 

Worker Training

Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area 

that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. If full training cannot 

be provided before the first entry into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training 

consisting of basic safety information; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry. 

Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. WPS also specifies training 

content and trainer qualifications. Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of the current requirements 

and the potential changes EPA has considered.
24

Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Worker Training Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Worker Training Grace Period

Untrained workers must 

receive, at a minimum, 

abbreviated training before 

they enter a treated area. Full 

safety training is required 

before the sixth day of entry 

into the treated area.

Untrained workers must receive 

full training prior to entry into a 

treated area. An exception is 

available for a 2-day grace period 

with provision of essential Rightto-Know information prior to 

field entry. The full pesticide 

safety training would be required 

before the third day of field 

entry.

(TRAIN-02)

Require full training prior to 

entry into a treated area.

(TRAIN-01)

Worker Training Frequency

Training required every five 

years

Annual training required:

(TRAIN-03)

Biennial training required:

(TRAIN-04)

or

Annual training with exception 

for WPS farms with < 10 

employees, no worker turnover, 

and no change in application 

information

(TRAIN-05)

Training Content for Workers 

11 basic pesticide safety training 

points covered

1. Possible exposures. 

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which 

pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning. 

5. Emergency first aid for 

poisonings.

6. Obtaining medical care. 

7. Decontamination procedures.

8. Hazards from chemigation and 

drift. 

9. Hazards from residues on 

clothing. 

10.Warnings about taking 

pesticides or pesticide 

containers home.

11.WPS requirements.

Expand 11 basic safety training 

requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification

 Understanding hazard 

information – SDS

(TRAIN-06)

Further expand 11 basic safety 

training requirements to include:

 Take home exposure

 Early entry notification 

 Understanding hazard 

information – crop sheets and 

product-specific training

(TRAIN-07)
25

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Criteria for Trainers of Workers

Training for workers can be 

performed by certified 

applicators, trainers of 

certified applicators, people 

who have completed “Trainthe-trainer” programs, and

handlers

Limit worker trainers to those 

who:

 Have completed an EPA 

approved Train-the-Trainer 

program or

 Are trainers of certified 

applicators

(TRAIN-08)

Limit worker trainers to those 

who:

 Have completed an EPA 

approved Train-the-Trainer 

program

(TRAIN-09)

Pesticide Safety Training Grace Period for Workers (TRAIN-01 and 02)

The WPS currently permits a five-day grace period for pesticide safety training of workers

during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated areas without receipt of 

the full pesticide safety training. Employers are required to provide workers with abbreviated 

safety training in lieu of the full pesticide safety training. After five days of entry into a treated 

area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must 

receive full pesticide safety training. This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for 

agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers 

was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992.

Options for revision are discussed in detail in Unit XVII.C of the NPRM.

TRAIN-01

A potential option is to eliminate the grace period and require training of all employees prior to 

their entry into a treated area. The advantage of this option is that all workers would receive the 

full safety training prior to entering treated areas, providing workers with the full information 

they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. It would also prevent the possibility

that a worker never receives full training because he or she changes employers without working 

more than five days at a time, which may happen, for example, during harvest season. 

Disadvantages of this option are that it reduces the flexibility of growers who hire workers at 

different times and that a worker may receive duplicative training if he or she changes 

employers.

TRAIN-02

The proposed requirement would require training prior to entry into a treated area, but allow an 

exception with a two-day grace period. It would also expand the information provided to 

employees during this period. The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN-01 in 

that workers may still be entering treated areas without full training and some workers may never 

receive full training. However, the disadvantages are also less because this option retains some 

flexibility for growers who may hire workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and 

it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings.
26

Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 

provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative 

options. 

TRAIN-03/04

The proposed option (TRAIN-03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual 

pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement. 

One alternative considered (TRAIN-04) would be to require pesticide safety training every two 

years. Periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al. (2000) showed 

that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in 

following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. Thus, retention of 

pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both 

of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are 

improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn 

leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. Annual training is common practice in 

other industries and not only for safety. For example, the federal government requires annual 

training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cybersecurity. OSHA requires annual training in 

workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals are present. Many agricultural employers are 

already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in 

pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements.

TRAIN-05

A second alternative, suggested by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (EPA, 

2008), would be to provide an exception from annual worker training for WPS farms with fewer 

than ten employees if there had been no turnover in the work force and no changes in the 

application information (e.g., pesticides used, application rates) since the last worker safety 

training. This alternative would reduce the burden on small farms (discussed in Chapter 3). The 

exception would only apply to WPS farms that do not change pesticide use patterns, implying 

that workers would have, at some point, learned appropriate safety practices. As noted above, 

however, people tend to forget safety lessons over time even when the work environment does 

not change.

Pesticide Safety Training Content 

Current pesticide safety training for field workers covers 11 points: 

(1) possible ways exposure to pesticide occurs, 

(2) hazards associated with exposure, 

(3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 

(4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 

(5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 

(6) obtaining medical care, 

(7) decontamination procedures, 

(8) hazards associated with chemigation and spray drift, 

(9) hazards from residues on clothing,
27

(10) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, and 

(11) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency

assistance, etc.). 

EPA considered several options for expanding the content of the required worker pesticide safety

training. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

TRAIN-06/07

Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce 

take-home pesticide exposure, worker rights (e.g., to hazard information) and protections (e.g., 

from retaliation), and new WPS requirements. This information addresses problem areas that 

have been identified by EPA, state enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups since the last 

revisions to WPS in 1992. See Chapter 1. For example, many recent studies have shown the 

potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home. Training in new WPS 

requirements, including information to be provided in case of entry into a field under a REI and 

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

followed and that workers understand their employer’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to 

pesticides. The alternative is identical except for the information on hazard communication. The 

proposed option would explain the information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see 

HAZCOM-02); the alternative would explain how to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04).

Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications 

Currently, pesticide safety training for workers can be conducted by certified pesticide 

applicators, handlers, trainers of certified applicators, and people who have completed an 

approved pesticide safety “train-the-trainer” program. Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for 

complete details.

TRAIN-08

The proposed option would eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and handlers. 

The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a 

train-the-trainers program would have better and more relevant skills to provide higher quality

training programs, which result in better worker protection. The experience of certified 

applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less 

relevance for workers where the primary concern is post-application exposure via contact with 

treated plants and other surfaces. Further, without additional preparation, certified applicators 

and handlers may not have the adult education skills needed to successfully convey the 

information to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally-distinct 

backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properly qualified 

trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereby ensuring that workers receive and 

understand the critical pesticide safety information they need to protect themselves and their 

families.

TRAIN-09

An alternative option EPA considered was to restrict qualified trainers to only those who have 

completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program. In comparison to the proposed option, 

this would put a greater emphasis on education skills tailored to the farmworker community.
28

Handler Training

WPS provisions for handler safety training are similar to those for workers. Handlers must take 

the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five years. The WPS specifies trainer 

qualifications. Table 2.2-2 provides a summary of the current requirements for handler training 

and the potential changes EPA has considered.

Handler training must be provided prior to the employee performing any handling task. No 

grace period is permitted.

Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Handler Training Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Training Frequency

Training required every five 

years

Annual training required:

(TRAIN-12)

Biennial training required:

(TRAIN-13)

Training Content for Handlers

13 topics are covered

1. Product label, including 

safety information

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which 

pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning.

5. Emergency first aid.

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.Regulatory 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

(TRAIN-14)

Expand 13 topics covered to 

include:

Take home exposure

Early entry notification and age 

limit

Entry restricted area 

requirements

Requirements for proper 

respirator fit test, training, and 

medical evaluation

 Hazard information -crop 

specific hazard materials 

product specific training

(TRAIN-15)

Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 

provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements.
29

TRAIN-12/13

As for agricultural workers, EPA is proposing that handlers receive annual pesticide safety 

training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement (TRAIN-12). The 

alternative (TRAIN-13) would require handler training every two years. Similar to training 

frequency for workers, periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et 

al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than 

untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. 

Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with 

biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The 

expected benefits are improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide 

exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. 

Pesticide Safety Training Content

Handler training currently covers 14 topics:

(1) product label information, 

(2) hazards, 

(3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 

(4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 

(5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 

(6) obtaining medical care,

(7) decontamination procedures, 

(8) personal protective equipment, 

(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 pesticide containers home, 

(13) regulatory requirements of pesticide handling, and

(14) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency

assistance, etc.).

EPA considered expanding the content of the required handler pesticide safety training to include 

several additional topics. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

TRAIN-14/15

Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, 

handler rights, and new WPS requirements. Benefits would be similar to those of worker 

training. For handler training, the additional components not relevant to workers would be 

defining the restricted area during an application and proper procedures if another person enters 

the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on 

respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. This 

information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA. As with workers, the proposed 

option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the 

alternative would explain the information found in crop sheets.
30

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification

Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and 

handlers receive the required pesticide safety training. This makes it difficult for both employers 

and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training 

requirements. There is, however, an optional program for states to distribute training verification 

cards supplied by EPA to trainers. Agricultural employers in participating states can hire 

workers and handlers with valid training verification cards, which can reduce their pesticide 

safety training burden when a potential employee has a valid card. However, there is no 

requirement for a centralized repository or record of the training. Table 2.2-3 presents the 

potential requirements. Unit VII.B of the NPRM discusses the current and proposed 

requirements in detail.

Table 2.2-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Training Records Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Recordkeeping

No Records Required.

Employer to keep records of 

worker training for 2 years:

 Names of workers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of worker 

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-10)

Employer to keep worker 

training records for 5 years:

 Names of workers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of worker

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-11)

Employer to keep handler 

training records for 2 years:

 Names of handlers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of training

 Date of birth of handler

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

handler

 Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-16)

Employer to keep handler 

training records for 5 years:

 Names of handlers trained, 

trainer and employer

 Date of birth of handler 

 Date of training

 Training materials used

 Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

handler 

(TRAIN-17)
31

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Verification

Voluntary Program Allows for 

Training Verification Cards

Provide verification in the form 

of a copy of the training record to 

handler or worker

(TRAIN-20)

Eliminate federal option for 

worker and handler training 

verification card programs.

(TRAIN-18)

or

Require worker and handler 

training verification cards

(TRAIN-19)

Recordkeeping

TRAIN-10/16

Under one set of options, for worker and for handlers, employers would be required to document 

pesticide safety trainings and maintain the records for two years. Documentation would include 

the name of the workers trained, the name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of 

training, the worker’s or handler’s date of birth, the training materials used, and the employee’s

signature acknowledging training.

TRAIN-11/17

The second set of options is identical except that records would be maintained for five years.

These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear 

method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. A clear advantage of the fiveyear option over the two-year retention option is that it matches the current five-year training 

cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN-03 and 04), a five-year retention period 

provides greater benefits than a two-year retention period as enforcement actions may not be 

brought immediately. On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed 

EPA that a two-year retention period is adequate.

Verification

TRAIN-17

This potential requirement would eliminate EPA’s optional verification card system. States 

would retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the proposed 

recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. However, state agencies report that verification 

cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering 

and falsification has become common practice. Further, worker and handler training does not 

currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in practice, be verified. 

Finally, with the current five-year training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that 

employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer. Thus, under the current 

system, verification cards provide little benefit to either the employer or the employee. In fact, 

many states do not participate in the system.
32

TRAIN-18

An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when 

they are trained. Card distribution would be conducted by the trainers. EPA would issue cards 

with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards. 

As noted above, this would have little benefit under the current WPS. Falsified cards and the 

lack of a record keeping would continue to limit the ability of growers to trust the validity and 

for enforcement to determine compliance. However, in conjunction with other potential 

requirements, there may be advantages. For example, if the existing grace period for full

pesticide safety training is eliminated or shortened (TRAIN-01 and 02), a training verification 

system may be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are 

in compliance with training requirements. Similarly, with annual or biennial training (TRAIN03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or 

falsified and will be more reliable, potentially reducing the need for employees to take multiple 

trainings and for employers to provide multiple trainings. A major drawback to the card is that a 

driver’s license-sized card will be too small to contain all the required information, and would 

therefore require additional effort on the part of the employer to have a complete record.

TRAIN-19

The proposed option is similar to TRAIN-18 but does not require the use of the verification cards 

and would simply require the employer to provide a copy of the training record to the trained 

employee. In comparison to TRAIN-18, this requirement would be more convenient for original 

employer, who would not have to provide individualized cards to every trained worker. It also 

insures that the subsequent employer has all the information for his or her own records. It may

be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to 

another establishment than to carry a wallet-sized card. In addition, the potential for fraud, as 

with TRAIN-18, remains.

2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options

Under current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer must provide employees with 

application-specific information, including the name of the pesticide used. The information is 

posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 days after the REI 

expires. EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide-specific information be made available 

and is also proposing to adjust how application and pesticide-specific information is presented. 

Table 2.2-4 presents the current, proposed, and alternative requirements for hazard 

communication.
33

Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Hazard Communication Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Application Specific Information and Availability

Display at a central location, for 

each application, 

 location and description of 

treated area; 

 active ingredient, product 

name, registration number;

 time and date of application;

 duration of REI

Make a copy available on 

request, for each application,

 location and description of 

treated area; 

 crop or site treated

 active ingredient, product 

name, registration number;

 time and date application

started and ended;

 duration and end date of REI

(HAZCOM-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

No requirements for pesticidespecific hazard information

Pesticide label and SDS must be 

available

(HAZCOM-02)

Pesticide label must be available

(HAZCOM-03)

or

Distribute crop sheet to workers 

and/or handlers upon entry into 

a treated area

(HAZCOM-04)

Retention and Recordkeeping

Application-specific 

information must be displayed 

prior to application and for 30 

days after the REI

Application and pesticidespecific information must be 

available no later than the day of 

application. Retain records for 2

years

(HAZCOM-05)

Application and pesticidespecific information must be 

available no later than the day of 

application. Retain records for 5

years

(HAZCOM-06)

Hazard Information Material

No requirements for use or 

production of crop-specific 

hazard materials

No change from current 

requirements

Registrant to develop crop 

sheets for each WPS product

and use pattern

(HAZCOM-07)

Application Specific Information and Availability

HAZCOM-01

Agricultural employers are currently required to post, at a central location, application-specific 

information including the location of the treated area, the pesticide used, the time and date of the 

application, and the duration of the REI. The information must be posted before the application 

is made and must be displayed for 30 days after the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application-specific information as 

currently required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI. The 

addition of the site treated information will help employees and inspectors identify the precise 

treated area. Addition of the start and end times for the application, in conjunction with the date, 

would assist in determining the date and time the REI ends. This gives employees more precise 

information than just the duration. Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting 
34

requirement for the pesticide application information and instead make the application 

information available upon request by workers, handlers, or their authorized representative. This 

approach to hazard communication has certain advantages over centralized posting. Detailed 

information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis. Multiple postings at 

a central location may even lead to confusion about specific products used on particular fields 

without providing actionable information. The WPS also requires agricultural employers to 

notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur. Finally, many 

central posting areas are exterior gathering locations and postings are subject to loss or damage 

by wind and weather. A clear disadvantage is that employees may feel uncomfortable or unable 

to request the information from their employer. Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more 

complete discussion of this requirement.

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

HAZCOM-02

EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the 

SDS. The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical 

or product, symptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide label informs 

on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product. OSHA requires 

employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are 

already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than 

pesticides. EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, 

although there may be cases where an employee might seek information about a specific product.

In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness. 

Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 

treatment for workers and handlers without the relevant information from the label and, 

especially, the SDS. Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical 

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

HAZCOM-03

An alternative would be to require only the pesticide label, but not the SDS. This would at least 

ensure quick identification of the chemical in case an incident occurred and may help to speed a 

proper diagnosis by confirming that symptoms match that of the pesticide. The label, however, 

may not indicate treatment.

HAZCOM-04

Under a second alternative, EPA would retain the central posting requirement and would further 

require that crop-pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and 

handlers upon entry into a pesticide-treated area. The advantage of this approach is that it 

provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, 

reducing the potential for confusion from multiple postings at the central location. However, the 

benefits of this detailed information are uncertain. Such detailed information could potentially

confuse workers with complex pesticide application information where the level of hazard is 

different for every situation. That could even prove to be counterproductive to providing 

workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it 
35

is one day or one week. Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non-English speakers

and literacy rates are low (NAWS, 2005). Thus, providing crop sheets that effectively present 

complex information to this diverse community would be challenging.

Retention and Record Keeping

HAZCOM-05/06

These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard 

communication for two or five years (HAZCOM-05 and 06, respectively). See Unit IX.D of the 

NPRM. As discussed in the training section above (TRAIN-06), the advantage of retaining 

records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both 

the WPS farm and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may

not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful.

Hazard Information Material

Currently, most available hazard information is chemical or product specific, e.g., the SDS. EPA 

considered requiring registrants to develop crop and chemical-specific hazard sheets for all 

agricultural products, HAZCOM-07. This requirement would support the option discussed 

above, HAZCOM-04. This information could be valuable, but it is very complex because there 

may be different use patterns on different crops (e.g., application rates) and different potential for 

exposure on different crops (e.g., leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and 

in different activities (e.g., weeding versus harvesting). As discussed in HAZCOM-04, it is not 

clear that this additional information provides substantial benefits. Pesticide safety educators 

have informed EPA that providing very specific and complex information for the agricultural 

worker community is counterproductive to instilling, through training, the clear and simple 

pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions. 

2.2.3 Notification Options

The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application 

occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when 

precautions covered in the safety training should be implemented. Current notification 

requirements include displaying pesticide application and pesticide safety information in a 

central location on the establishment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry

Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally informing workers, and informing workers enter 

areas under a REI about the pesticides used. The WPS also requires certain information 

exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide 

appropriate notification to their respective employees. EPA is considering revising the 

notification requirements in three areas: (1) information pertaining to fields under a restricted 

entry interval (REI), (2) information on decontamination procedures, and (3) information 

transmitted from commercial applicators’ employers to the agricultural employer.
36

Restricted Entry Interval Notification 

Currently, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a 

REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Warnings need not be given to a 

particular employee if, from the start of the application to the end of the re-entry interval, the 

employee would not be within one-fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the 

handler who applied the pesticide. Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform

workers who are directed into areas under a REI about the hazards related to the pesticides used

unless the worker will have no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces. There are currently no 

requirements for documenting compliance with these notification requirements. 

EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REIs in more 

situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provided in the warning to 

workers entering treated areas under an REI and that these warnings be documented to insure 

compliance. Table 2.2-5 compares the current, proposed, and alternative requirements.

Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative REI Notification Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI Notification

Outdoor production: Either oral 

notification or post warning 

signs unless double notification 

required by label

Post field with warning signs if

REI is greater than 48 hours; 

either oral notification or signs 

for REIs of 48 hours or less 

(unless double notification 

required)

(NOTIFY-01)

Post field with warning signs if 

REI is greater than 72 hours; 

either oral notification or signs 

for REIs of 72 hours or less 

(unless double notification 

required)

(NOTIFY-02)

Indoor production (WPS 

Greenhouses): Warning signs 

must be posted; additional oral 

notification for double 

notification products

Oral notification allowed if REI 

is 4 hours or less

(NOTIFY-03)

No change from current 

requirements

No requirements for record 

keeping

No change from current 

requirements

Signed acknowledgement of oral 

notification retained for 2 years

(NOTIFY-04)

or

Signed acknowledgement of oral 

notification retained for 5 years

(NOTIFY-05)
37

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI warning signs

Sign depicts a stern face in a 

circle as a warning, with 

message : “Keep Out”

Stern face in an octagon (stop 

sign) shape as warning, with 

message: “Entry Restricted”

(NOTIFY-06)

Revise field warning sign to 

include:

• Skull and crossbones

• Application information on 

the sign (date of application, 

REI, product)

(NOTIFY-07)

Post so signs are visible from 

usual points of entry into treated 

area (or in corners of field or 

other location allowing 

maximum visibility) and near 

worker housing

Define ‘near’ worker housing as 

within 100 feet

(NOTIFY-08)

Field warning sign placement: 

every 100 feet as well as the 

usual points of entry

(NOTIFY-09)

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 area 

during REI:

 Date of entry

Location of early-entry area

 Pesticides applied

Labeling related to human 

hazards and precautions

 Dates and times REI begins 

and ends

Exception that allows early 

entry

Type of contact permitted with 

treated surfaces

 Amount of time worker is 

allowed in area

Required PPE

Location of safety poster

display

Location of decontamination 

supplies

(NOTIFY-10)

Oral and written notification to 

workers prior to entry into 

treated area during REI:

 Date of entry

 Location of early-entry area

 Pesticides applied

 Labeling related to hazard 

and precautions

 Dates and times REI begins 

and ends

 Exception that allows early 

entry

 Type of contact permitted 

with treated surfaces

 Amount of time worker is 

allowed in area

 Required PPE

 Location of safety poster

display

 Location of decontamination 

supplies

(NOTIFY-11)

No requirements for record 

keeping

Require recordkeeping:

Notification (see above), 

except labeling hazard and 

precaution information

Acknowledgement of 

notification by printed name 

and signature of workers

Retain for 2 years

(NOTIFY-12)

Require recordkeeping:

 Notification, except labeling 

hazard and precaution 

information

 Acknowledgement of 

notification by printed name 

and signature of workers

Retain for 5 years

(NOTIFY-13)
38

REI Notification

Under the current rule, notification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers 

by the agricultural employer either orally or by posting warning signs at the treated area, except 

where the product label requires both. Greenhouses are required to post signs for all 

applications.

NOTIFY-01

The proposed option would require that warning signs be posted if for pesticides applications 

where the REI is greater than 48 hours. See Unit VII.A of the NPRM. The purpose of this 

proposed requirement is to provide employees with a visual notification because human memory

can be poor. Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second-leading cause of pesticide 

incidents, following drift from adjacent fields, according to a NIOSH review of available 

information (Calvert et al., 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from 

inadvertent entry as opposed to employer-directed entry, but it seems likely that many, including 

unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall. On farms producing a variety of crops, there 

could be several fields treated with different products and remembering which fields should be 

avoided could become difficult. Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered 

planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. 

Different fields of the same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for 

long REIs. Recall may be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers 

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

the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers 

receive the appropriate notification. 

NOTIFY-02

An alternative option considered would require posted warning signs if the pesticide applied has 

a REI greater than 72 hours. This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY-06, but is clearly 

less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to 

remember REI information for three days rather than two.

NOTIFY-03

EPA is proposing to allow greenhouse operations to notify employees orally if the REI is four 

hours or less. In many situations, this will be far simpler than posting signs only to take them 

down in a few hours and employees can be expected to remember when and where applications 

occur over such a short time interval.

NOTIFY-04/05

Oral notification is inherently difficult to enforce. A potential mechanism to address this issue is 

to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification. This 

record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY-09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement 

purposes. As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or 

greenhouse.
39

REI Warning Signs

The WPS specifies when signs must be posted, the sign content, and the locations required for

posting signs.

NOTIFY-06

Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words 

“Keep Out.” The proposed option would make replace the red circle with a red octagon, a 

widely-recognized symbol for stop. It would also change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry

Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that 

workers and handlers should generally remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter 

under certain conditions to perform early-entry tasks as permitted under the WPS. Unit VIII.C 

of the NPRM provides a complete discussion of the reasons for the revisions.

NOTIFY-07

An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic, as well as 

require posting field-specific information the sign including the date of application, the length of 

the REI, and the pesticide product. While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones 

symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation 

of certain highly hazardous pesticides including fumigants. Widespread use of the graphic for all 

pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases. The fieldspecific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to 

keep people from entering except under specific circumstances (see ENTRY-03 to 06, below) 

and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be 

available (see NOTIFY-10 and 11).

NOTIFY-08

REI warning signs are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points 

of entry to the treated area or, if there are no clear points of entry, the corners of the treated area 

or an area affording maximum visibility. Signs are also required to be placed on each border 

with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area. The proposed revision clarifies that the 

warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of the treated 

area. The purpose of the refinement is to provide clarity for employers and state officials.

NOTIFY-09

An alternate potential requirement would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet 

along the field as well as at the usual points of entry. The advantage of this requirement is that it 

would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without 

following established routes. It is not clear how large the benefits of increased posting would be 

since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage 

the plants.

Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks

Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the current regulation under certain 

narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact”, “no contact”, “short-term”, 
40

“irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Except for entry under the “no contact” 

exception, employers must make sure that workers performing early entry tasks wear all PPE 

required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information 

on the pesticide label prior to entry. See the NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details. EPA is also 

considering certain revisions to these exceptions; see ENTRY-03 to 06, below.

NOTIFY-10

As noted above (NOTIFY-01), entry into treated areas during the REI is the second most 

common factor leading to pesticide incidents (Calvert et al., 2008). Sufficient information is 

lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred 

during employer-directed entry. Under the proposed option, the early entry notification would 

be expanded to include additional safety information such as the pesticide applied, the start and 

end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy

organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early 

entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the 

particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry exception.

NOTIFY-11

EPA considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute written pesticide hazard 

information (i.e., crop sheets) to each worker upon early entry in addition to the oral warnings, as 

suggested by Farmworker Justice. The major benefit to workers would be the ability to refer to 

the information after the fact, in case, for example, of symptoms arising that may be associated 

with pesticide exposure. Written communication can sometimes provide more clarity than 

spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpreted, especially if the employer or employee 

is using a second language. On the other hand, given language differences and the literacy rate 

in the farmworker population, it is not clear that written communication is substantially more 

effective than oral communication. Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously

can often be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms. Finally, farmworkers may not 

have a place to save written documentation; according to regulatory staff in Texas and Florida, 

such documents often end up scattered in the field.

NOTIFY-12/13

These potential provisions would require the agricultural employer to retain a worker-signed 

record that notification was provided prior to early entry. NOTIFY-09 would require retention 

for two years while NOTIFY-10 would require that records be kept for five years. As above, 

records help to verify the WPS farms are in compliance. These records can also help in 

diagnosis and treatment by identifying workers that entered a treated area under REI if they later 

exhibit pesticide poisoning symptoms.

Pesticide Safety Information Display

The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide 

safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect themselves from 

exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Currently, safety posters are 

required to be displayed only at one central location on the WPS farm. Table 2.2-6 presents 

current requirements, proposals and alternatives for additional information and displays. Contact 
41

information for emergency medical care is to be included on the poster, among other things. See 

Unit XII.B of the NPRM for more detail on the required information. See the NPRM, Unit 

XII.A, for more on additional displays.

Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Pesticide Safety Information 

Basic pesticide safety 

information display includes 

decontamination information 

and self-protective practices

Additional basic pesticide safety 

information display content to 

include:

State enforcement agency

contact information 

Medical facility contact 

information

(NOTIFY-14)

No change from current 

requirements

Basic pesticide safety 

information displayed at a 

central location

Additional safety information 

display required with worker

decontamination supplies

(NOTIFY-15)

Additional display with all field 

warning signs

(NOTIFY-17)

Additional safety information 

display with handler 

decontamination supplies

(NOTIFY-16)

NOTIFY-14

This proposed requirement would add contact information for the state enforcement agency and 

the appropriate medical facility to the display. Information about how to contact enforcement 

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

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

NOTIFY-15

Under the proposed option, at least one additional safety information display would be required, 

located when and where worker decontamination supplies are made available. The display

would provide essential decontamination information at the time and place it is most needed. 

Decontamination procedures are covered in safety training, but they not reinforced by routine 

practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropriate steps to take in case of exposure will 

reinforce the training message.

NOTIFY-16

This option would also require at least one additional safety information display for handlers and 

would be located at the decontamination site(s) typically used for mixing and loading of 

pesticides. The potential benefits are similar to those described in NOTIFY-15 above.

NOTIFY-17

Farmworker organizations suggested two alternate options: requiring additional pesticide safety

displays with all posted field warning (REI) signs or at worker changing sites. They noted that 

having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are likely to see it increases 
42

the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to contact emergency

personnel.

Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms

The WPS requires commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural 

employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. The agricultural employer is 

required to provide the CPHE with information about treated areas under REIs on the 

establishment so that applicators do not inadvertently enter a treated field. The CPHE is required 

to notify the agricultural employer prior to making an application so that information, e.g., about 

REIs, can be communicated to the farm’s employees. If there are changes in a scheduled 

application, the agricultural employer must be notified. EPA is proposing to revise the 

requirement for CPHEs to notify the WPS employer of changes in a pesticide application to 

reflect and clarify existing guidance. See Table 2.2-7.

Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative CPHE Notification Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Notification to agricultural employer by commercial handler

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer prior to 

application of:

 the location and description 

of the area to be treated; 

 date and time of application; 

 the product name, active 

ingredient and EPA 

registration number for the 

product, 

 the REI, 

 whether posting and oral 

notification are required 

(double notification), 

 any other product-specific 

protections for humans from 

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify the 

agricultural employer prior to 

any changes in the application

Subsequent guidance allows 

some flexibility in notification 

of changes

CPHE employer must notify

agricultural employer prior to 

application of:

 the location and description 

of the area to be treated; 

 date and time of application;

 estimated time application 

ends;

 the product name, active 

ingredient and EPA 

registration number for the 

product, 

 the REI, 

 whether posting and oral 

notification are required 

(double notification), 

 any other product-specific 

protections for humans from 

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer of any 

changes within 2 hours of end of 

application (not required if time

of application changes < 1 hour)

(NOTIFY-18)

No change from current 

requirements

NOTIFY-18

Under the proposed option, the CPHE would still be required to notify the agricultural employer 

of the application information prior to the pesticide application. Notification of a change to the 

estimated application end time would be required within two hours of the end of the application, 
43

and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification. See Unit X of the 

NPRM for details. This revision largely clarifies and codifies existing guidance that provides 

flexibility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but 

that are currently at odds with the wording of the WPS.

2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

EPA is considering changes to three areas to improve the protections for workers and handlers 

from the adverse effects of pesticides. Proposed changes include establishing minimum age 

requirements for certain tasks, restrictions covering entry into and around treated areas, and 

changes to the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE). These provisions are 

intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides.

2.3.1 Minimum Age Options

Currently, the WPS contains no age restrictions for agricultural employees. Adolescents, 

however, may be at greater risk from pesticide exposure because many of their biological and 

neurological systems are still developing and are more sensitive to chemical disruption than are 

adult systems. Further, adolescents may pose greater risks for pesticide exposure because they

often take more risks than their adult coworkers. See Chapter 1. In considering age restrictions, 

EPA focused on two situations: handling of pesticides including mixing, loading, and applying; 

and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances 

under which early entry is allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3-1 

summarizes the potential restrictions. The NPRM provides a complete description of the 

proposed restrictions and alternatives. Unit XII.A discusses the worker restrictions and Unit 

XI.B discusses the handler restrictions.

The proposed restrictions would not apply to persons covered by the immediate family 

exemption, i.e., for children and other family members of the owner/operator of the WPS farm. 

Table 2.3-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Minimum Age 

Restrictions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Alternative Requirement

No age restriction on person 

performing early entry activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

(AGE-01)

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

(AGE-02)

No age restriction on person 

performing handling activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to perform handler duties

(AGE-03)

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to perform handler duties

(AGE-04)

1 Restriction does not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption.

AGE-01/03

EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to ensure that workers entering fields during 

a REI and pesticide handlers are at least 16 years of age. As explained in more detail in Chapters 

1 and 6, studies have suggested that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children 
44

and young adults than for mature individuals because developing systems are more sensitive

(EPA, 2002)). Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the 

highest levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on their health. Further, young adults 

may take more risks than older workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the 

consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006)). Thus, they may be less likely 

to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situations. In the case of handlers, 

adolescents may not follow all label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the 

potential impacts to themselves, others, and the environment. EPA estimates that there are about 

19,000 workers under the age of 16 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 

involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely about 1,000 of these adolescent 

workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and it is extremely unlikely that 

youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs.

AGE 02/04

Alternatively, EPA considered a minimum age requirement of 18 years. This alternative would 

provide greater benefits than would a minimum age of 16 years due to the number of adolescents 

covered. Based on the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) (DoL, 2005), EPA 

estimates there are nearly 87,000 adolescents between 16 and 17 years of age employed as farm 

workers in addition to the 19,000 workers under the age of 16. Around 18,300 adolescent 

workers might engage in early entry activities each year and 5,600 might act as handlers on 

occasion, including 4,600 between 17 and 18 years of age. Older youths, however, may be less 

sensitive to exposure and less likely to take risks than their younger counterparts.

2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions

Entry into areas being treated or under an REI pose risks and EPA considered several revisions 

to the WPS to bolster protections for agricultural workers and handlers. The current 

requirements and potential changes are shown in Table 2.3-2. In some cases, the proposed 

revisions simply clarify conditions under which a person may be in or near a treated area during 

the restricted interval.

Table 2.3-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Entry Restrictions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Entry During Application

During a pesticide application in 

nurseries and greenhouses, the 

employer must not allow or 

direct any persons, except 

trained and equipped handlers,

to enter the entry restricted area

adjacent to the treatment area.

During a pesticide application 

on farms and forests, as well as 

nurseries and greenhouses, the 

employer must not allow or 

direct any persons, except 

trained and equipped handlers, 

to enter the entry restricted area 

adjacent to the treated area

(ENTRY-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Handler must assure pesticide is 

not applied so as to contact any 

worker or other person, other 

than a trained and equipped 

In addition to current 

requirement, handlers must 

cease application if a person 

enters the entry restricted area

No change from current 

requirements
45

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

handler. (ENTRY-02)

Entry During REI

Workers may enter a treated 

area during a REI, if labelrequired protections are 

provided, for

 no contact activities

 short term activities (≤ 1 

hour) not including hand 

labor

 limited contact activities not 

including hand labor (≤ 8 

hours)

 irrigation activities not 

including hand labor (≤ 8 

hours)

 agricultural emergencies 

including hand labor (no time 

limit)

For agricultural emergencies 

where a double notification 

product has been used, entry 

must not exceed 4 hours in a 24 

hour period

(ENTRY-03)

For agricultural emergencies 

where a double notification 

product has been used, entry 

must not exceed 8 hours in a 24 

hour period

(ENTRY-04)

or

Exceptions would no longer be 

allowed

(ENTRY-06)

Cholinesterase Inhibition

No restrictions on handlers No change from current 

requirements

Monitor for cholinesterase 

inhibition and prohibit further 

activity with cholinesteraseinhibiting products if inhibition 

is found

(ENTRY-07)

or

Limit time handling 

cholinesterase-inhibiting 

products to 30 hours in 30 days

(ENTRY-08)

Entry during Application

The current requirements limit contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into 

an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, currently limited to 

nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit 

exposure from drift.

ENTRY-01

The proposed requirement would establish an “entry restricted area” of 25 to 100 feet around the 

area being treated, depending on the method of application, on farms and forestry operations, 

similar to the area already required in nurseries and greenhouses. The size of the restricted area 

is based on the pesticide application method because some methods, such as aerial applications, 

are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in-furrow applications. The entry restricted 

area is limited to property under control of the employer. See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, for details. 
46

This “entry restricted area” would protect workers, other employees, and potentially the public in 

U-Pick operations from pesticide drift. See Chapter 1.

ENTRY-02

The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either

directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 

equipped handler.” The proposed requirement would strengthen this by adding a provision that 

states the handler must “immediately cease or suspend application if any worker or other person, 

other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted 

area.” See Unit XI.A of the NPRM for a complete description of the requirement. The benefit 

of the revision is to clarify the action the handler must take if someone is in the treatment area. 

Together, these proposed options (ENTRY-01 and 02) should result in reduced incidents of 

worker exposure through unintentional contact during application, which is the second-leading 

cause of pesticide incidents according to the analysis of occupational incident data in Calvert 

(2008).

Entry During REI

Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to 

potentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Agricultural pesticide labels establish cropspecific requirements for the REI – the time after the end of an application during which worker 

entry is restricted – based on the expected level and degradation of residues on treated surfaces 

and the transferability of residues during worker activities. The REI is based on the activity 

resulting in the highest potential exposure given any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can 

be used. For example, if applications are prohibited in the latter part of the season, EPA would 

not be concerned about exposure during harvest. Early entry into the treated area during the REI 

is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical 

for agricultural production. For each of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks 

that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3-2), 

PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the 

workers. However, for “agricultural emergencies,” the WPS does not currently specify the 

length of time an individual worker may be in the treated area.

ENTRY-03

For an agricultural emergency, the proposal would restrict the amount of time workers can spend 

in the treated area when a double notification pesticide has been used. Please see the NPRM, 

Unit XII.D for details. Products require double-notification warnings (both oral and sign 

warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to limit the 

duration of any exposure, which increases the likelihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained 

while the worker is in the field. The four-hour limit is half the allowed time for the irrigation and 

limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits 

hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likely to 

adhere.

ENTRY-04
47

An alternative would also restrict time allowed, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated 

area under an REI in any twenty-four hour period. This option would impose the same time limit 

as the irrigation and limited contact exceptions to the REI, which provides simplicity in the 

requirements. However, given that hand labor is allowed under the agricultural emergency

exception, a similar time limit would be less protective for workers than the existing time limits 

on other exceptions.

ENTRY-06

EPA also considered eliminating early entry exceptions, as suggested by some advocacy groups. 

This option provides more protection for workers than under the current WPS or proposed 

potential revisions by simply eliminating the potential for exposure. However, except for the 

agricultural emergency exception, the permitted activities generally result in lower levels of 

exposure than the activities upon which the REIs are established (e.g., thinning or hand 

harvesting). Thus, the risks of entry for these purposes, and therefore the benefits of barring 

entry, may be less than they first appear.

Cholinesterase Inhibition

Cholinesterase (ChE) is an enzyme that breaks down the chemical acetylcholine, which transmits 

signals across nerve synapses. When cholinesterase is inhibited overstimulation and exhaustion 

of nerves, muscles, and glands can occur and result in illness. Organophosphate (OP) and 

carbamate pesticides, widely used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE. Agricultural 

handlers who mix, load and apply these pesticides may be at risk of ChE inhibition. 

ENTRY-07

One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as 

is done in Washington State. In that state, handlers working with toxicity category I and II OPs 

and carbamates are monitored for ChE inhibition. When indication of inhibition is found, 

handler exposure to such pesticides is restricted for a period of time. ChE levels can be 

determined through a blood test, but there is no normal range for cholinesterase levels to which 

the test can be compared. Thus, a monitoring program would require an initial sample to 

establish the handler’s own pre-exposure baseline level and potentially multiple follow-up tests 

to measure inhibition. 

The purpose of a monitoring program is to identify handlers who have reached a level of 

exposure that has an observable effect and protect them from further exposure. An ancillary

benefit, demonstrated by the Washington program, is that it can identify farms and individual 

handlers who may need to alter their practices to reduce exposure in general. A disadvantage of 

such a program is that it may be considered intrusive by the individual handler. In 2007, 

Washington reports that over eight percent of handlers who handled ChE-inhibiting pesticides 

declined to participate in the program; others may have felt obliged to participate by their 

employers.

ENTRY-08

Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE-inhibiting pesticides to 

30 hours in any 30 day period. This requirement would be similar to the approach California 
48

developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE-inhibiting pesticides more 

than the limit. Most employers responded by insuring handlers stayed below the point that 

would trigger monitoring. The benefits of such a requirement arise because cumulative effects 

would be avoided. ChE inhibition is reversible, but repeated exposure before levels have 

returned to normal will result in greater and greater inhibition. However, there is no scientific 

basis for the 30 hour in 30 day limit. Thus, the actual benefits of such a limit are uncertain.

A complete discussion of these options can be found in Unit XVII of the NPRM.

2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment

Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addressed with the use of personal 

protective equipment (PPE) to reduce dermal, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide 

labels may require the use of PPE. The WPS establishes generic requirements designed to 

ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used properly and at the appropriate time. This is 

one way WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. Potential revisions 

to the WPS, shown in Table 2.3-3, are evaluated as ways to further improve safety. 

Table 2.3-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Personal Protective 

Equipment

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Handler employer is required to 

confirm respirator fit. 

Require fit test, training and 

medical evaluation conforming 

to OSHA requirements; keep 

records

(PPE-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Employers are exempt from 

certain WPS requirements

regarding employees under the 

supervision of Certified Crop 

Advisors

Eliminate exemption for WPS 

employers

(PPE-02)

and

Eliminate exemption for 

employers of commercial 

advising services

(PPE-03)

No change from current 

requirements

Substitution of closed system for 

PPE while mixing/loading 

pesticides.

Define closed system and 

require records of system 

maintenance.

(PPE-04)

No change from current 

requirements

Contaminated PPE must be 

disposed properly

Contaminated PPE must be 

rendered unwearable and 

disposed properly

(PPE-05)

No change from current 

requirements

PPE-01

The current WPS only requires that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that 

the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly. The proposal would 

establish requirements for annual respirator fit testing, training of the respirator wearer, and 
49

medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator. This revision incorporates OSHA 

requirements that apply to workers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This 

requirement will reduce the potential for exposures that occur from poor fit. The respirator 

training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify

when filters need replacement. The medical evaluation is a simple questionnaire or interview to 

identify any health problems that might be exacerbated by the use of a respirator, which will help 

handlers determine if they can safely wear the device. For the employer, the revision would also 

clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his or her employee. Finally, as noted with 

similar requirements, the record-keeping provision helps to verify compliance.

PPE-02/03

The WPS exempts the agricultural employer from complying with some requirements, including 

provision of label-required PPE, for employees who are certified crop advisors (CCA) and 

employees working under the supervision of a CCA. This exemption is also extended to 

commercial crop advisory services, including employees working under the supervision of 

CCAs. The proposed revisions eliminate those exemptions for WPS employees (PPE-02) and 

commercial service employees (PPE-03) working under the supervision of CCAs. See Unit 

XVIII.B of the NPRM. The benefit of this revision is to protect employees who may not be fully

trained and may be unable to make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk, even with 

instruction from a CCA.

PPE-04

Under the current regulations, a closed mixing and loading system may be substituted for labelrequired PPE. A closed system, under the current rule, is simply defined as “a properly

functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other 

persons.” This definition lacks specificity.

If a health hazard cannot be removed from the workplace, there are three categories of methods 

to control the hazards according to industrial hygienists: engineering controls, administrative 

controls, and personal protective equipment. Engineering controls should be the first line of 

defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Closed systems are considered an engineering control 

method. They are designed to prevent human exposure and do not require human intervention to 

eliminate exposure. Closed systems reduce the human decision-making element from the 

process so mistakes are not as likely. In contrast, PPE is subject to human error: it may be worn 

incorrectly or removed if it becomes uncomfortable, e.g., in hot weather. Additionally, PPE only

protects the wearer; other persons in the area may still be exposed. However, the substitution of 

a closed system for PPE is only desirable if the closed system is designed and maintained well.

The proposed revision helps to ensure these benefits by establishing a clear definition of the 

requirements that constitute a closed system, which is currently lacking. The lack of clear 

standards means that some closed systems are inadequate and provide less protection than use of 

PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI.B. Record keeping of system maintenance 

would help to verify compliance with standards. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of the changes are 

handlers, including self-employed handlers (family farmers and commercial applicators) who 

will be assured that the closed system provides protection to minimize exposure. 
50

PPE-05

Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properly. A proposed revision to the WPS 

would clarify that contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearable as part of proper disposal. 

That is, if items like gloves or overalls must be discarded due to contamination with a pesticide, 

but are otherwise intact, the agricultural employer must ensure that the items cannot be used 

again, e.g., by cutting them. This will prevent other employees, family members, or anyone who 

might find them from inadvertently using them and being exposed to the residues.

2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

EPA is considering regulatory options to improve emergency assistance for workers and handlers 

who may have been made ill from exposure to pesticides. Most of these proposals clarify the 

requirements for the provision of decontamination supplies and of emergency medical response 

in case of exposure.

2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options

The current WPS requirement establishes that soap, “enough” water, and towels be made 

available for routine washing and emergency eye flushing for workers. The term “enough,” 

however, is not defined in the WPS, although EPA has subsequently provided guidance (EPA, 

2006). Table 2.4-2 presents the options EPA considered for requirements to clarify the quantity

of water that must be available to mitigate exposures to workers and handlers.

Table 2.4-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Decontamination 

Supplies.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

Provide “enough” (1 gallon) water 

per worker for routine washing and 

emergency eye flushing

Provide 1 gallon of water per 

worker for routine washing 

and emergency eye flushing.

(SUPPLY-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Provide “sufficient” water (1 gallon) 

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

(SUPPLY-02)

No change from current 

requirements
51

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

Provide “enough” decontamination 

water per handler

Three gallons per handler for 

routine hand washing, 

emergency eye flushing, and 

washing entire body in case 

of emergency.

(SUPPLY-03)

Showers required at 

permanent mix/load sites

(SUPPLY-04)

All permanent mix/load sites 

require sufficient running 

water to flush eyes for 15 

minutes at 1.5 L/min. 

whenever a product requiring 

handler eye protection is 

being used

(SUPPLY-05)

Portable eye wash stations 

required at all mix/load sites

(SUPPLY-06)

Decontamination Supplies for Workers 

The current WPS regulations require that workers have access to water, soap, and single-use 

towels for washing when a pesticide covered by the regulation has been used or an REI has been 

in effect in the last 30 days and workers may contact anything that has been treated with the 

pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining “enough” water to be one gallon per worker.

SUPPLY-01

The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide one gallon of water per 

worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. This codifies existing guidance and the 

benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement 

agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details.

SUPPLY-02

The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide three gallons of water per 

worker engaged in any early entry activity, i.e., in a field under a REI. See the NPRM, Unit 

XII.C, for all requirements. This provision provides regulatory clarity, but it also increases the 

amount of water available for thorough washing comparable to the requirement for handlers. 

More water available for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential for 

exposure and for higher levels of exposure than in routine activities.

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

The current WPS regulations require that handlers have access to water, soap, and single-use 

towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. EPA has issued guidance defining 

“enough” water to be three gallons per handler. Current regulations also require that handlers 

carry one pint of water for emergency eyewash when the label requires protective eyewear. 

Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity.
52

SUPPLY-03

This revision would specify that the employer must provide three gallons per handler for routine 

washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. See Unit 

XIV.A of the NPRM for all required decontamination supplies. As with SUPPLY-01, this 

codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity 

for employers and enforcement agencies.

SUPPLY-04

An alternative is to require that showers be available for handlers. Showers could provide 

substantial benefits, given that handlers may be mixing and loading large quantities of pesticides, 

including concentrated solutions. Secondary benefits would be the availability of showers that 

could be used on a routine basis by both handlers and workers to reduce residues that they might 

otherwise transport home. These secondary benefits may be quite small, however, as discussions 

with field personnel suggest that very few employees would avail themselves of shower facilities 

on a routine basis. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.D, for more information.

SUPPLY-05

This proposed potential requirement would specify that permanent mixing and loading sites be 

supplied with sufficient running water to flush eyes for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute. 

This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-1990. See Unit XIV.C of the 

NPRM for a complete description of the proposal. The requirement is intended to provide 

handlers with water to immediately flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides. 

Handlers face a risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute, and load them 

prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient.

SUPPLY-06

A similar requirement would require portable eyewash stations at all mixing/loading sites, not 

just the permanent sites. The benefits of this option would be somewhat higher than for 

SUPPLY-05 since it would cover sites other than those permanently dedicated for mixing 

pesticides. However, reports from state authorities indicate that the stations can be difficult to 

maintain and keep clean. Bacteria may become problematic. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a 

complete discussion.

2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response

Table 2.4-1 presents the options EPA considered for emergency response. These are explained 

more fully in Unit XV.E of the NPRM. Current regulations require that transportation to an 

emergency medical facility and the provision of information about the pesticide for medical 

personnel must be “prompt,” but the regulations do not define “prompt.” 
53

Table 2.4-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Emergency Response 

Provisions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

“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

Provision of emergency 

transportation and of SDS or 

label or comparable 

information to medical 

personnel or the injured 

person within 30 minutes

(EMERG-01)

Provision of same within 60 

minutes

(EMERG-02)

“Prompt” provision of transportation, 

and obtainable information on the 

product name, EPA registration 

number, active ingredients, and 

medical information, circumstances 

of handling of and exposure to the 

pesticide for pesticide handlers

Provision of emergency 

transportation and of SDS or 

label or comparable 

information to medical 

personnel or the injured 

person within 30 minutes

(EMERG-03)

Provision within 60 minutes

(EMERG-04)

EMERG-01/03

EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided 

within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG-01) or pesticide 

handlers (EMERG-03). Without a formal definition of “prompt” it is difficult for agricultural 

employers and inspectors to be sure of compliance. Clarification of the term “prompt” is 

intended to ensure that workers and handlers receive transport for medical treatment for an 

emergency that may be related to pesticide exposure in a timely manner. 

In addition to transportation, the proposal also clarifies the time for which pesticide information 

such as the label and SDS are provided to the injured person or health care providers, who may

need this information to determine proper treatment. This is valuable because providing medical 

personnel with information about the pesticide symptoms and their treatment in a timely manner 

is critical in reducing the adverse effects of exposures.

EMERG-02/04

The alternative considered was to define “prompt” as 60 minutes. In terms of clarifying the 

regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would 

clearly provide less benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is 

provided within 30 minutes.

This chapter presented the proposed revisions to the WPS and key alternatives considered by the 

Agency. It described the benefits anticipated from the revisions, which are generally the 

provision of more and better information at appropriate times and places, of improved protection 

by reducing potential exposure for high-risk situations, and of more rapid and complete 

mitigation of exposures if they occur. Ultimately, these changes will lead to fewer acute 

incidents and, more generally, to lower levels of pesticide exposure over time.
54

The next chapter estimates the cost of the potential requirements and Chapter 4 provides a 

discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives.
55

Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the incremental cost of potential changes to the worker 

protection standards that the Agency considered. The incremental cost is defined as the 

difference between the cost of complying with the potential requirement and the cost of 

complying with the current requirement. These costs, together with the benefits of the potential 

requirements as discussed in Chapter 2, help to inform EPA’s selection of requirements that are 

being proposed. The relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements are discussed in 

Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then estimates the incremental cost of all the proposed requirements, 

considering how they may interact, and Chapter 6 presents the benefits of the proposed revisions 

in terms of the ultimate outcome on human health and the environment.

These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and 

the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. 

We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is 

great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pesticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, 

therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on 

conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made 

regarding the average or typical, in practice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably 

more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms. EPA 

has also tended to assume that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and will be 

in full compliance with the proposed regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities 

conduct inspections of farms and find violations. However, inspections are not conducted 

randomly across all potentially regulated establishments; many inspections are the result of 

specific complaints. As a result, the information on violations does not provide meaningful 

information on compliance rates.

As a result of these assumptions, the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall 

regulatory burden of the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, 

because many of the assumptions apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, they may

have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost or lead to an overestimate of incremental 

cost. Where feasible, we have examined the effect of alternative assumptions.

3.1 Overview

As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the potential revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and 

commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). For simplicity, we use the term “WPS 

farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that are subject to the WPS. Forestry

operations are not analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use 

patterns in forestry operations will not typically trigger most WPS provisions such as training 

and notification. Generally speaking, the revisions would require owners/operators of these 

establishments to devote resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated 

with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure. EPA 

estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the value of the time and materials expended 

to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not direct out-of-pocket expenses.
56

In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate 

their time or make expenditures. Some activities or expenditures are conducted by the 

management of the WPS farm or CPHE. The nature of these activities may vary by certain 

characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other 

activities require time from employees, who are divided into two groups: workers and handlers. 

Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an 

agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products. 

Hand labor activities include such tasks as harvesting, weeding, thinning, trimming, and girdling. 

Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g., to mix, load, and/or apply

pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are 

typically workers as well, as they will often engage in production activities that do not entail 

handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule 

depends on the nature of the activity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time.

Federal requirements apply nationally, but states may enact additional measures. Thus, when 

considering the impact of new federal standards, EPA must take into account existing state 

measures. Section 3.2 explains the approach taken for estimating the state-level baseline against 

which to measure the impact of potential requirements. Section 3.3 presents the estimation of 

cost for all the potential requirements that EPA considered, as explained in Chapter 2. This 

chapter estimates the costs of individual components and alternatives. Chapter 5 estimates the 

cost of the proposed rule as well as analyzes potential impacts on employment and on small 

businesses.

3.2. Regional Groupings

To estimate the impact to the affected industries of the proposed regulatory enhancements to the 

WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum 

standards, but states, as well as other jurisdictions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, 

could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory

baseline is based on the current state, tribal and territory requirements rather than the federal 

requirements. To reduce the analytical complexity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine 

regions of the country.

Table 3.2-1 shows the regions and the states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well 

as the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic 

location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas. For example, the South 

region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this 

region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 

accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, 

Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 

represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e., extensive 

livestock production, rather than geographical continuity. EPA also considered similarities in 

worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed 

together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted 

by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 
57

warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production. 

California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the 

state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and 

other states’ requirements.

Table 3.2-1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups.

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 and the 

Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 

Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes 

and the Three Affiliated Tribes

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, plus Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands

Ohio Valley Ohio Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin

Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and 

Wyoming

Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe

Table 3.2-1 also lists a few non-state jurisdictions that are included in certain regions, including 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several tribal entities. These jurisdictions were assigned to a 

region according to which of EPA’s regional offices they belong. Not all jurisdictions are 

included in this analysis because data on farms and pesticide use are not available. This implies 

some undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate of the incremental costs, but the 

effect will be negligible since the jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, have tiny

agricultural sectors relative to those in the states.

EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to 

establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 

applied to all states within the region. In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be 

as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 

there is no reason to think that the variation in the national-level estimates of cost are greater 

than the variation in regional-level estimates.
58

3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements

The purpose of this section of the cost analysis is to evaluate the expected impacts of potential 

worker protection standards at the national level and at the employer level. EPA also estimates 

the potential costs across various regions of the United States, as described in Section 3.2. This 

information is used to evaluate the individual regulatory options and develop a proposed suite of 

regulatory changes, as explained in Chapter 4. The cost of those proposed requirements, as a 

whole, is estimated in Chapter 5.

EPA identified a number of areas where worker protections could be improved to address the 

problems discussed in Chapter 1 and within these areas considered different requirement options, 

as detailed in Chapter 2. In this section, EPA presents the estimated cost of all the potential 

requirements, which is then used to help inform the decision of which requirements to propose. 

Section 3.3.1 details the methodology EPA follows to estimate or characterize the incremental 

cost of potential requirements. Section 3.3.2 presents some of the key data used throughout the 

analyses of individual requirements. Section 3.3.3 estimates the cost of potential requirements 

associated with worker and handler training category, including a detailed presentation of an 

example of the approach. Subsequent sections present the estimated costs of potential revisions 

to the WPS concerning hazard communications (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements 

(Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry restrictions (3.3.7), PPE requirements (3.3.8), 

supply requirements for decontamination (3.3.9), and emergency response standards (3.3.10).

3.3.1 General Methodology

In general, potential requirements may impose costs at both the level of the employer or 

establishment and at the level of the employee. That is, there are some activities and/or materials 

that must be conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of 

employees; these costs are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities 

and/or materials may be conducted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the 

number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate 

the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate 

those costs to the regional level, given the number of actors (establishments or employees). 

There are six basic steps.

Step 1. Calculate the state/regional level baseline cost of existing regulatory requirement:

,,a





= a∙ ,,a,





∙ Prob(|)



+  ∙ ,,a,





∙ Prob(|)



where costr,i,a

B

t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r, in region i, for an actor, 

a, in time t; Hr,i,a,j

B

t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; wa is 

the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; Probt(j|i) is the 

probability of activity j in time t given the region; Mr,i,a,m

P

t is the quantity of material m needed in 

time t under the requirement; cm is the cost of material; and Probt (m|i) is the probability of 
59

material m being required in time t given the region. An actor may be an establishment, 

primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g., a pesticide handler or agricultural 

worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups within an actor category, e.g., 

farms according to the size of the operation. Activities conducted by the establishment include 

posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each employee include attending 

training and obtaining written material from the employer, that is, activities for which an 

establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that activity. The probability

weighting indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake the activity in some year. 

For example, if training is required biennially, any given employee would have about a 50 

percent chance of taking a training.

Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per actor of each potential regulatory requirement: 

,a





= a∙ ,a,





∙ Prob()



+  ∙ ,a,





∙ Prob()



where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 

simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i, denoting a state or region. State requirements 

can exceed federal requirements, however and if current state requirements exceed the potential 

federal requirements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we restrict Hr,i,,a,j

B

≤ Hr,a,j

P

and Mr,i,,a,m

B

≤ Mr,a,m

P

; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously imply a cost savings.

Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and potential new requirements by

multiplying per-actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across 

actors.

,





= ,,a





× a,



a

,





= ,a





× a,



a

where RCr,i

X

denotes the cost of requirement r to region i of the regional baseline, B, and the 

potential new requirement, P; and Na,i is the number of affected actors in a region. Note that the 

number of affected actors, e.g., the number of pesticide handlers in a given region, may not be 

known and has to be estimated. This is explained in the section on general data (Section 3.3.2). 

We can also estimate the national level costs by summing across regions.





 = ,






60

Step 4. Estimate the present value of the cost stream1. To better compare the impacts across the 

various potential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, EPA calculates the present 

value (PV) of regional costs over a ten-year time horizon.

,



 = 

,





(1 + )







where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. The time horizon is 

not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur 

annually. However, a few potential requirements require some capital investments and ten years 

was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might 

financially amortize such expenditures. Further, the number of actors is changing over time, 

with the number of farms and farm workers declining and the number of CPHEs increasing; rates 

of change were calculated using three successive Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 

2008b) spanning a ten-year period. This is explained more fully in Section 3.3.2. We utilize a 

discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent, to 

represent the private discount rate as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 

2003).

Again, the present value of national level costs is estimated as the sum of the regional costs.

Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement in each region by subtracting 

the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement.

, = ,



 − ,





Where PV(RICr,i) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i. 

The PV of national incremental cost, PV(NICr), is calculated the same way.

Step 6. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized 

figure represents the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present 

value as a variable cost stream.

 = () ×

 ∙ (1 + )



(1 + )

 − 1

where AICr is the annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time 

horizon, i.e., ten years; and all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annualized 

incremental cost by the number of impacted entities provides a simple measure of the costs per 

establishment, which is helpful information to weigh the costs and benefits of a potential 

requirement. A more detailed examination of impacts on small entities is presented in Chapter 5, 

considering the costs of all proposed requirements.

 

1

Present value is a measure of all future costs, translated into the equivalent value if paid or received immediately.
61

A few of the potential requirements require some deviation from this general methodology. This 

will be explained in the following sections as we present the results. The next section discusses 

the data that are commonly used throughout the analysis. Data that are specific to individual 

requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential requirement.

3.3.2 General Data

For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to 

meet current and potential requirements and the probability or frequency with which they will be 

needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each potential 

requirement. The other component of the per-actor costs are the prices associated with time and 

material. The wage rates for the various actors are used frequently in the analysis and are 

discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional and national (Step 3) requires data on the number 

of actors in each category, which includes the establishment meeting the requirement or the 

employees to which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time 

(Step 4), we need to take into account changes in costs and the agricultural sector. Most of the 

time and materials needed to comply with current and potential requirements reoccur on an 

annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, as farms 

consolidate and mechanize and as farms increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. 

In this section, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the establishments and 

employees, including both numbers and wages, and changes in each over time.

Establishments, Farms

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, 

farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of 

data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify the number of these operations that use 

pesticides and hire labor. Farms that both use pesticides and hire labor may be covered by the 

WPS requirements. However, the WPS applies only to those pesticides used in the commercial 

or research production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. 

Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not 

covered by the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock 

production. There are about 512,000 livestock operations that also have crop production, 

however, that are included in this analysis. Table 3.3-1 presents the number of farms where 

crops are raised, including ranches that produce crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their 

distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis. According to the tabulation, 

304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hired labor and used pesticides in 2007. However, 

pesticides are not necessarily used every year. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, 

and greenhouses hiring labor (394,658) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS 

requirements; these operations will be referred to as “WPS farms.” This may be a slight 

overestimation due to the presence of organic growers. However, many organic producers also 

have conventionally grown fields and organic-approved pesticides, while generally considered 

less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements. 
62

There is likely to be substantial overestimation of the number of affected farms, however, 

because the WPS applies only when workers are engaged in hand labor activities or if handlers 

are working with pesticides used for crop production. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in 

the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries and greenhouses. The 2007 Census 

of Agriculture identifies 73,550 WPS farms in these categories, based on the primary source of 

revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in diverse types of production so many other farms might 

produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highly mechanized like the production of 

oilseeds and/or grains. Moreover, pesticide handlers may be employed on any category of farm, 

so this analysis includes all farms with crop production.

Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the 

definition of handler includes any self-employed person who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. 

However, these farms will generally not be affected by the proposed revisions because there is an 

exemption from WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her immediate 

family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some 

exemptions to pesticide label requirements, e.g., entry into treated fields during a REI during an 

agricultural emergency. Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect 

all farms applying pesticides.

Table 3.3-1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms1.

Region Crop Farms 1 Regional 

Share

Farms Using 

Pesticides

Farms Hiring 

Labor

United States 1,564,178 788,582 394,658

South 233,063 14.9% 117,499 58,804

California 96,979 6.2% 48,892 24,469

Southwest 50,054 3.2% 25,235 12,629

Subtropical 39,104 2.5% 19,715 9,866

Midwest 339,427 21.7% 171,122 85,641

Northeast 161,110 10.3% 81,224 40,650

Ohio Valley 361,325 23.1% 182,162 91,166

Texas/Mountain 

West 192,394 12.3% 96,996 48,543

Northwest 90,722 5.8% 45,738 22,890

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b)

1

Farms include nurseries and greenhouses as well as livestock operations that also produce crops.

The tabulation for farms using pesticides and farms hiring labor is at the national level only. 

EPA assumes that farms hiring labor and using pesticides are distributed throughout the country

in the same proportion as all crop farms. Thus, while the national figures are well-defined, the 

regional numbers are less precise.

Table 3.3-2 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on 

the impacts of many of the requirements. For example, smaller farms are less likely to employ a 

pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a 

commercial applicator. The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater 

than $750,000, and the small farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small 
63

Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013). EPA further subdivides the small farm 

category into three groups: small-small farms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, 

medium-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small 

farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 

which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million. 

Subdivisions of small feedlots are small-small, with annual gross revenue less than $50,000; 

medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large-small, with 

annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million. These distinctions correlate to the 

number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also 

correlate to pesticide use. Around 90 percent of large and large-small WPS farms used 

pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did. Seventy-four percent of 

medium-small farms used pesticides.

Table 3.3-2. Number of WPS Establishments, by size category, and CPHEs.

Region WPS 

Farms

SmallSmall 1MediumSmall 2LargeSmall 3Large 4

South 58,804 11,906 18,062 20,746 8,089

California 24,469 4,954 7,516 8,633 3,366

Southwest 12,629 2,557 3,879 4,456 1,737

Subtropical 9,866 1,998 3,031 3,481 1,357

Midwest 85,641 17,340 26,305 30,214 11,781

Northeast 40,650 8,231 12,486 14,341 5,592

Ohio Valley 91,166 18,459 28,003 32,164 12,541

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 9,829 14,910 17,126 6,678

Northwest 22,890 4,635 7,031 8,076 3,149

U.S. 394,658 79,909 121,223 139,237 54,289

Source: Special tabulation from 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Establishments distributed 

across regions according to distribution of all crop farms.

1

Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and feedlots with annual revenue less than $50,000.

2

Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annual 

revenue between $50,000 and $500,000.

3

Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between 

$500,000 and $2.5 million.

4

Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 

million.

Establishments, Commercial Pesticide Handlers

In order to identify the number of CPHEs, EPA searched the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) 

database of companies and identified firms under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

code descriptions for crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting 

services, soil chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting). 

Within these categories, there were 1,231 firms that reported hiring at least one employee.

Numbers are not available for firms making aerial applications. Based on conversations with the 

National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008), EPA estimates that there are 3,200 
64

commercial aerial applicators nationwide. Assuming an average of two pilots per firm, we 

estimate that there are 1,600 aerial application establishments. Given the proportion from Dun & 

Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at 

least one employee.

Adding the estimate of aerial applicators to the number of firms identified in Dun & Bradstreet 

for other pest control firms results in a total of 2,793 CPHEs with employees. These firms are 

distributed across the regions in the same proportion as total farms. See Table 3.3-3. This 

assumption seems reasonable considering that the CPHEs would largely be servicing the farm 

sector.

EPA also considered the number of commercial applicators. In 2007, the year corresponding to 

the NASS data, there were 89,529 commercial applicators certified in the Agricultural Plant 

Production category. Given data on employees from Dun & Bradstreet and by the NAAA, we 

estimate those establishments to account for 19,873 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At 

the extreme, all these commercial applicators could be self-employed. More likely, many are 

part of small operations not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one-fourth of 

these applicators are self-employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an 

average of 2.5 commercial applicators, including the owner of the establishment. As shown in 

Table 3.3-3, this implies that there are 17,414 self-employed commercial applicators and 20,897 

CPHEs with two or three applicators. These two categories are distributed across the regions 

based on the number of commercial applicators certified in each state (CPARD, 2007).

Table 3.3-3. Estimated number of CPHEs, by region.

Region CPHE

multiple employees

CPHE

few employees

CPHE

self-employed

South 416 918 765

California 173 1,049 874

Southwest 89 662 552

Subtropical 70 120 110

Midwest 606 8,355 6,963

Northeast 288 3,386 2,822

Ohio Valley 645 2,404 2,003

Texas/Mountain West 344 889 741

Northwest 162 3,113 2,594

U.S. 2,793 20,897 17,414

Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (2010); NAAA (2008); CPARD (2007).

Establishments, Wage Rates

The value of the owner/operator’s time is important in the estimation of the cost of most 

requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007c), managerial wages for 

farm establishments are $19.75 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of 

benefits received, such as insurance. BLS reports that wages and salaries comprise 70 percent of 

total compensation for management in the civilian labor force (BLS, 2010). We, therefore, use a 

loaded wage rate of $28.21 per hour as the full value of time. For commercial pesticide handling 
65

establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers 

(since employers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series 

for the NAICS-specific value (115100 - “Support Activities for Crop Production”) for SOC code 

37-1012 (“First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers”) (BLS, 

2007c). Using the same rate for benefits as for farm establishments, the loaded wage rate for this 

category is $30.30 per hour.

Employees, Farmworkers

Table 3.3-4 presents the number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops

and the share of workers in each region. As we are including all farms that hire labor in the 

category of farms covered by the WPS, we implicitly assume that all labor is covered, over 2.3 

million people. The WPS only covers farmworkers engaged in hand labor activities, so this is 

likely an overestimate of affected labor. Over 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and 

vegetable farms and nurseries and greenhouses, however, so any overestimation is less than that 

in the number of affected farms. Table 3.3-4 also presents the number of employees on farms 

according to their size designation under the SBA. While about 77 percent of farms that hire 

labor use pesticides, 87 percent of labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the 

crop farms, the number of workers at the national level is from a special tabulation by NASS 

from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Regional numbers for labor on farms by

size are estimated by distributing the total number of employees in the same proportion as all 

farm workers.

Table 3.3-4. Hired Labor on Crop Farms, by size.

Region Farm Labor Regional 

Share

Farm Labor

Large Farms 1

Farm Labor

Small Farms 1

United States 2,322,610 1,084,121 1,238,489

South 274,068 11.8% 127,926 146,142

California 394,844 17.0% 184,301 210,543

Southwest 78,969 3.4% 36,860 42,109

Subtropical 111,485 4.8% 52,038 59,447

Midwest 299,617 12.9% 139,852 159,765

Northeast 278,713 12.0% 130,095 148,619

Ohio Valley 353,037 15.2% 164,786 188,250

Texas/Mountain 

West 185,809 8.0% 86,730 99,079

Northwest 346,069 14.9% 161,534 184,535

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b)

1

Large farms are those with annual revenue greater than $750,000 or feedlots with annual revenue 

greater than $2.5 million, small farms are those with annual revenue of $750,000 or less or feedlots 

with annual revenue of $2.5 million or less.

Employees, Pesticide Handlers
66

The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms unknown. EPA assumes that, on average, large 

WPS farms employ two individuals who handle pesticides and large-small WPS farms employ

one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smallest categories of WPS farms, EPA 

assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. The distribution of handlers, therefore, 

is equivalent to farms, as in Table 3.3-1, not to workers as in Table 3.3-4. Pesticide handlers 

represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct group. It is unlikely that an on-farm handler 

would be occupied full time with pesticide handling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform 

other production-related tasks.

Table 3.3-5 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, and the number 

of handlers employed at CPHEs, given the same assumptions underlying Table 3.3-4. All WPS 

farms are likely to use commercial applicators for some applications.

Table 3.3-5. WPS Agricultural Workers and Handlers and CPHE handlers.

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1

Handlers

CPHEs 2, 

multiple 

employees

Handlers

CPHEs,

few employees

Handlers

CPHEs,

self-employed

South 36,924 2,961 2,296 765

California 15,365 1,232 2,623 874

Southwest 7,930 636 1,656 552

Subtropical 6,195 497 299 100

Midwest 53,776 4,312 20,889 6,963

Northeast 25,525 2,047 8,465 2,822

Ohio Valley 57,245 4,591 6,009 2,003

Texas/Mountain 

West 30,481 2,444 2,223 741

Northwest 14,373 1,153 7,782 2,594

U.S. 247,815 19,873 52,242 17,414

Source: NASS (2008b); D&B (2010); NAAA (2008), EPA estimates.

1 Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS 

establishment and one handler per large-small WPS establishment, not including the employer. 

Handlers are a subset of workers, not an additional category.

2 Number of handlers includes employer. Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all 

farms.

3 Number of handlers includes employer. Distribution across regions follows number of state 

commercial applicator certifications for Agricultural Plant Production.

Employees, Wages

Data from the May 2007 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers 

employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (BLS, 2007c). The number of 

handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (17,080 in total) is 

estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45-2091(Agricultural Equipment 

Operators) or 37-3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation) that work for 
67

a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production). Regional numbers are 

estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3-1.

The average wage rate for U.S. field workers reported in the November 2007 NASS Farm Labor 

Report (NASS, 2007) is $9.40 per hour. The BLS (2010) reports that, for all civilian workers, 

wages represent slightly more than 69.5 percent of total compensation, while for workers in the 

Natural Resource, Construction, and Maintenance category, wages are around 67.5 percent of 

total compensation. An agricultural category is not available. For nonunion workers, which may

better represent farm labor, wages are about 72 percent of total compensation. Given the 

available information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this 

analysis, resulting in a loaded wage rate for workers of $13.43 per hour. Since the revisions to 

the WPS are not expected to influence wages or benefits, the choice of loading factor is not 

critical to estimating the incremental costs of the requirements.

Handlers represent a more skilled set of workers, but we lack data on wage differentials. Instead, 

EPA estimated the wage rate for handlers as the simple average of the agricultural worker and 

the owner/operator of enterprise, obtaining a loaded wage rate of $20.83. An unloaded wage rate 

of $14.07 per hour is reported for commercial pesticide handling establishment handlers (BLS, 

2008). The loaded wage rate for handlers of commercial pesticide handling establishments, 

therefore, is $20.10 per hour. We note that the two wage rates are similar, which lends support 

for the estimated wage rate for on-farm handlers.

Future time periods

To project costs into the future, EPA must take into consideration any changes over time. EPA 

calculates the present value (PV) of regional baseline and new regulatory costs as shown in Step 

4 above. Thus, the calculation is:





 = 

∑ ,a





 × 

(1 + )







where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as defined as above. Some indices are 

suppressed for clarity.

In general, the per-actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However, 

the number of actors is changing as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, 

and as growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. Changes in the number of 

actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where ga represents the 

annual percentage change in the number of actors. That is,

 = ∙ (1 + )



As a result, we can rearrange the equation for PV into components for each actor.
68





 =  ,a



∙ ∙ 

(1 + )



(1 + )











That is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that 

combines the effect of the growth or decline in numbers with the effect of the discount rate, 

which can then be summed across actors. Thus, in lieu of estimating regional costs in every year 

of the time horizon, we can often calculate the present value as the initial cost multiplied by

some factor that combines the growth rates of the actors with the discount rate.

Based on numbers reported in the Agricultural Censuses of 1997, 2002, and 2007 (NASS, 1999, 

2004, and 2008b), EPA estimates the decline in farm numbers to be 0.47% annually and the 

decline in farm workers to be 2.14% per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the tenyear sum of the combined effects is a multiplier of 8.61 for WPS farms and 8.03 for workers. 

The WPS farm factor is applied to farm handlers as well. These factors are in contrast to a tenyear sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3-6. Annual data on the number of 

farms and quarterly data on farm labor (NASS, 2013) indicate that the number of farms is quite 

steady and that the annual decline in farms workers is less than one percent. The difference in 

estimated costs is negligible, however, and does not influence the relative cost and benefits of the 

options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered 

in a sensitivity analysis for the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5.

Table 3.3-6 Multipliers for calculating NPV.

Actor ga r = 3% r = 7%

WPS Farms - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Handlers - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Workers - 2.14% 8.03 6.91

CPHEs 4.27% 10.57 8.93

CPHE handlers 0.17% 8.85 7.57

Commercial Applicators 3.06% 10.03 8.50

Discount alone 0% 8.79 7.52

Source: EPA calculations.

For CPHEs with multiple employees, the growth rate is calculated using the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s 2006 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (Census Bureau, 2006). Within these statistics, EPA 

utilizes the NAICS code of 115112 (Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating) as 

representatives of these establishments and calculates the rate based on the number of 

establishments from 1998 to 2006. The number of CPHEs is estimated to be growing at a rate of 

4.27 percent per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the combined effect over 10 years 

is a multiplier of 10.57. Reliance on the past rate of growth, which has been high, may overstate 

the future growth of commercial pesticide services. If the future rate of growth is more 

moderate, the multiplier would be lower.

For handlers employed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from 

employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment 

Statistic’s National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from May
69

2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop 

Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45-2091 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37-

3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation). Handler numbers are growing 

at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent 

discount rate.

The growth rate of commercial applicators was calculated (based on CPARD 2007 data) to be 

3.06 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 10.03 for a three percent discount rate. This 

growth rate applies to CPHEs with few employees and their handlers as well as to self-employed 

commercial handlers.

This completes the discussion of the general data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the 

data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 

requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with 

training, followed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response 

and decontamination supplies.

3.3.3 Training

Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training, potentially 

hiring trainers, and incurring the opportunity cost of labor during the time workers and handlers 

are receiving the training. Commercial pesticide applicator firms bear costs for handler training.

We assume that all farms hiring labor conduct training sessions even if over the course of the 

production season they find they do not need to make pesticide applications. Otherwise, any

untrained employees, especially handlers, would have to be trained prior to an application, which 

could delay treatment. Alternatively, the pesticide application could be made and untrained 

employees would not be allowed to work in and around treated areas until they receive training, 

which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into 

compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other farm activities, WPS farms 

may find it more cost-effective to forego training until a pesticide application is needed. Thus, as 

a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimates the incremental cost of potential training requirements 

if only those WPS farms using pesticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hypothesizes 

that WPS farms find it cost-effective to forego training under the current regulatory environment, 

but will not under potential regulations. For example, currently, if the owner/operator is a 

certified applicator, he or she may lead worker training sessions, which would facilitate the rapid 

provision of training as needed. A potential requirement, however, would raise the qualifications 

needed to lead a training, which might make it more difficult to organize an immediate training. 

Thus, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate the incremental cost of potential 

requirements if training occurs as needed in the baseline but will occur regardless of pesticide 

use under the revisions. We also assume that all employees receive training, which likely leads 

to an overestimate of costs. Some employees, especially on farms with a primary focus of 

livestock production, will probably not engage in fieldwork that would expose them to pesticide 

residues and will, therefore, not require pesticide safety training.
70

In this section, we present the estimation of one potential training requirement in detail to 

demonstrate the methodology. For the other potential requirements, we provide summary

information about the effect of the requirements and present the results. Details on the 

estimation are available in Appendix A. Potential requirements are numbered as in Chapter 2.

Requirement: Immediate Training of Workers

TRAIN-01. Immediate full training of workers. The potential requirement would require full 

training of workers prior to entry into an area where a pesticide application had been made or a 

REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days.

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

Under current requirements, workers must be trained every five years. Requirements currently

allow for an abbreviated training, with full training required before the sixth day of entry into an 

area described above.

Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the 

workers, who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although the WPS farm 

incurs the training costs and implicitly pays the worker to take the training at the same wage he 

or she earns doing field work.

Regarding the provision of training, the cost is essentially the cost of providing a trainer. We do 

not include material costs as there are none specifically required under the requirements, 

although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is

,,





= ∙ ,,,





∙ Prob(|)



where j, in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training. There are four types of 

trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different 

wage rate. Table 3.3-7 presents this estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of 

handlers and certified applicators, paid $37.87 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of 

trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $37.87 per 

hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 

75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour and assumed to lead one percent 

of trainings. Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS, 2007a). The wages in Table 3.3-7 are loaded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of 

total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2. The wage for handler trainers is based on 

NAICS code for SOC 19-1013 (soil and plant scientist). Handler wages are as explained in 

Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are based on owner/operator wages as in Section 3.2. 

The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with 

trainers, extension agents, and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the 

owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a 

training. Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA 

assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes.
71

Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-4), there are, on 

average, 20 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750,000 in annual sales) and 3.6 

workers per small WPS farm. With a five-year training cycle, an average of four workers to less 

than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained every year. This number 

could easily be accommodated with a single session. However, given new hires, including 

workers who change employers, an average farm may need to train almost half its work force 

each year (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm 

masks considerable variability across farms with different production systems. For example, 

large WPS farms that primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 

average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 

workers. Given the overall averages, and the flexibility for training new hires provided by the 

five-day period before a worker must be trained, EPA assumes for simplicity that, on average, a 

WPS farm conducts one full training each year. Individual farms will differ, perhaps 

substantially. In fact, EPA assumes that small farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to 

hold 0.7 training sessions each year on average, small farms with more than ten workers hold an 

average of 2.2 training session per year, large farms with fewer than ten workers will hold 0.9 

sessions per year, and large farms with more than ten workers hold 4.5 session per year. On 

average, however, the frequency or probability that the training will be led by a particular type of 

trainer is simply the proportion of trainings that type of trainer conducts.

Table 3.3-7. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2.66

Training by Train-theTrainer$37.87/hr 30 min 0.100 $ 1.90

Training by certified 

applicator

$28.21/hr 30 min 0.750 $10.63

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.010 $ 0.10

costr,i,a

B

$15.29

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego training unless and until a pesticide 

application is needed. The probability of conducting a training is therefore weighted by the 

likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application, which is, on the average, 77.1

percent. Thus, the expected per-WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $11.79.

The per-worker cost for an establishment is estimated in a similar manner. Each worker to be 

trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (U.S. 

Department of Labor, 2008). In the baseline, 48.9 percent of workers will to be trained each 

year. This percentage is derived as follows.

Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available, however a report from the 

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 

percent of the agricultural workforce is comprised of foreign-born newcomers. While this 
72

underestimates the true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate and 

examines the impact of this bias in a later sensitivity analysis.

This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year. Current standards 

require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning 

workforce will need to take the full training in any given year. According to the NAWS (DoL, 

2005), however, less than 25 percent of workers had been with their current employer for more 

than five years. Most workers will receive safety training if they change employers because the 

voluntary training verification cards provided in some states are not well accepted by employers 

as sufficient proof of training. In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training 

even though they are within the five-year period because they don’t remember when they last 

took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. In 

the absence of specific data, EPA assumes 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the 

full training for one reason or another. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a 

calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 

16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training2. Note that 

some workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year and about 

28 percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 

2001-2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005). EPA does not account for any additional costs associated with 

the worker’s time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the 

baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of 

the proposals and alternatives.

Some small portion of the workforce may work less than six days and thus could receive an 

abbreviated training, but not a full training. Based on Farm Labor Reports (NASS, 2007 and 

2008a), EPA estimates that 28 percent of the agricultural workforce, including both new and 

returning workers, are part-time employees who work less than 150 days. EPA assumes that five 

percent of these part-time employees, or about 1.4 percent of the workforce, do not receive 

training because they are employed for less than six days. Thus, 98.6 percent of the first time 

and returning workers in need of training will take the full training, or 48.9 percent of the total 

workforce.

Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1.4 percent. However, 

this suggests that up to 35,000 farm workers each year do not receive pesticide safety training 

when they are hired or within five years of a previous training.

Table 3.3-8 presents the per-worker cost of training under current requirements, including the 

per-worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An abbreviated training is assumed 

to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 

percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated training only. We further assume that 25 

percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full 

training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days. Together, this 

suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each 

year. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three 

 

2 This will be the percentage of the work force trained, on average, if immediate training is required.
73

minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator, whose time is 

valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2.

Table 3.3-8. Per-Worker Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 30 min 0.489 $ 3.28

Abbreviated Training 

Session $13.43/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated 

Session $28.21/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.08

costr,a

B

$ 3.40

Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources.

For the sensitivity analysis, we note that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that 

make a pesticide application. Weighting the probability of attending some kind of training 

session by this amount yields an expected cost per worker of $2.97.

Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of Potential Requirement

The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner.

EPA assumes that trainings will be needed 1.5 times per year, on average, over all farms, since 

workers may be hired at different times during the year. This represents an increase over the 

baseline, shown above, due to the loss of flexibility currently provided by the five-day grace 

period. The probability of a training, by type of trainer, is, therefore, 50 percent higher than in 

the baseline. Table 3.3-9 presents this estimation for establishments.

Table 3.3-9. Per-Establishment Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j)

cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.150 $ 2.84

Training by certified 

applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 1.125 $15.87

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.015 $ 0.16

costr,a

P

$22.85

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For the sensitivity analysis, the probabilities would again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the 

likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application. Expected compliance cost 

would be $17.62.
74

The per-worker cost for an establishment is similar. Each worker to be trained spends 30 

minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (BLS, 2008). EPA 

calculates that, in future years, 49.6 percent of workers will be trained every year as explained 

above. This percentage includes workers employed for less than six days since the grace period 

would be eliminated.

In the first year under the rule, EPA calculates that an additional 1.2 percent of the total 

workforce will need training. This represents the returning workers who previously worked less 

than six days and, under the grace period, did not receive a full training. The percentage is 

calculated as 84 percent, the proportion of returning workers, multiplied by the 1.4 percent of the 

workforce we calculated above as receiving only abbreviated training.

Table 3.3-10 presents the per-worker unit cost of eliminating the training grace period.

Table 3.3-10. Per-Worker Costs for TRAIN-01.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j)

cost

costr,a

P

t

Worker Training (Year 1) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.508 $ 3.41

Worker Training (future) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.496 $ 3.33

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources.

Under the sensitivity analyses, expected costs are estimated to be $2.98 in the first year and 

$2.91 thereafter. Cost is somewhat lower because the probability of attending a training is 

adjusted to account for the fact that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that make a 

pesticide application.

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs

Given the estimated costs per-establishment and per-worker, we can estimate the regional level 

baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in 

each region that are affected by the requirements and adding the two components together.

,





= ,a





× a,



a

Table 3.3-11 presents the baseline costs, where the number of farms is taken from Table 3.3-2 

and the number of workers from Table 3.3-4. Under current requirements, the national cost is 

estimated to be $13.9 million per year. Establishment-level costs total about $6.0 million per 

year and costs for worker time is approximately $7.9 million per year. Costs are for the first 

year; in future years, the baseline costs per actor are not expected to change but the number of 

actors is anticipated to decline. Under the alternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, 

baseline cost for the first year is $11.5 million.
75

Table 3.3-11. Regional Baseline Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training, Year 1.

WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost, 

Baseline

RCB

i

($1,000)

costr,i,,a

B

$15.23 $ 3.40

Region

Number of 

WPS Farms

Ni frm

Number of WPS 

Workers

Ni wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 1,830

California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,715

Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 461

Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 529

Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,327

Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,568

Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 2,593

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,373

Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,525

US 394,658 2,322,610 $13,922

Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008); see Table 3.3-1. Baseline costs per 

WPS farm and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 

summed. Numbers in columns may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3-12 presents the estimated regional and national costs for the potential requirements. In 

the first year, costs are estimated to be $16.9 million, an increase over baseline of $3.0 million. 

Establishment level costs are estimated to be $9.0 million while worker-level cost rise only

slightly over the baseline. In future years, EPA estimates the worker-level will decline slightly

because it eliminates the need for an abbreviated training in addition to the full training. The 

expected per-worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3-10) which would, if 

applied to the first year, result in worker-level cost of $7.7 million.

Overall, however, the requirement would reduce the flexibility of agricultural establishments to 

hire workers as needed and to provide a full training when there is a critical mass of employees. 

This effect is captured by the increased number of trainings, which drives the increase in perestablishment costs shown in Table 3.3-9.
76

Table 3.3-12. Regional Compliance Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training, Year 1.

WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost, 

Potential

RCP

est

($1,000)

costr,a

P

$22.84 $ 3.41

Region

Number of WPS 

Farms

Ni est

Number of WPS 

Workers

Ni wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 2,278

California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,905

Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 558

Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 605

Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,978

Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,879

Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 3,286

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,742

Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,703

US 394,658 2,322,610 $16,933

Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008b); see Table 3-3.2. Baseline costs per 

establishment and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 

summed. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

As a sensitivity analysis, EPA assumes training costs are incurred only by those WPS farms 

making a pesticide application in a given year. Under this scenario, the first-year cost is 

estimated to be $13.9 million.

Step 4. Calculate the PV of Costs.

EPA calculates the PV of costs over the ten-year time horizon as explained in Section 3.3.1. The 

costs per establishment for the baseline and the potential requirement are constant over time. 

Thus, we can multiply the first year cost by 8.61, as explained in Section 3.3.2, to obtain the PV 

of establishment cost. The cost per worker in the baseline is also constant and the multiplication 

factor is 8.03. However, the cost per worker declines from $3.41 in the first year to $3.33 in 

future years under the potential requirement once all part time workers obtain full training. The 

PV of worker cost for the potential requirement is the first year cost plus the lower cost for future 

years, times the number of workers, multiplied by 7.03, which calculates the discounted cost for 

the last nine years of the time horizon.

That is,





 =  ,a



∙ ∙ 

(1 + )



(1 + )











becomes, for the worker cost at the national level,

PV(NCr,wrkr

P

) = $7.917 million + $3.33∙(2,322,610)∙(8.03-1)

Regional cost is calculated the same way and the establishment and worker elements are added 

together. Estimates are presented in Table 3.3-12.
77

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking 

the difference in the PV of the compliance and the regional baseline costs.

, = ,



 − ,





Estimates are shown in Table 3.3-13, showing both establishment and worker components. This 

potential requirement would reduce the per-worker cost, primarily because it eliminates 

abbreviated trainings. The per-establishment cost, however, increases because more full 

trainings will need to be conducted due to the elimination of the grace period between 

employment and training.

Table 3.3-13 Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.

Region PV(RCP

frm) PV(RCPwrkr) PV(RCBfrm) PV(RCBwrkr) PV(RIC)

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 11,571 7,349 7,746 7,471 3,704

California 4,815 10,588 3,223 10,763 1,417

Plains 2,485 2,118 1,664 2,153 787

Subtropical 1,941 2,990 1,300 3,039 592

Midwest 16,851 8,034 11,281 8,167 5,438

Northeast 7,999 7,474 5,355 7,597 2,521

Ohio Valley 17,938 9,467 12,009 9,623 5,774

Texas/Mountain 

West 9,552 4,983 6,394 5,065 3,075

Northwest 4,504 9,280 3,015 9,433 1,336

US 77,656 62,283 51,986 63,309 24,643

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3.3-14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent 

discount rate. Regional costs are estimated to range from $67,000 per year in the Subtropical 

region to $657,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley.
78

Table 3.3-14. Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.

Region PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1000 $1000

South 18,920 15,216 3,704 422

California 15,403 13,986 1,417 161

Plains 4,603 3,816 787 90

Subtropical 4,931 4,339 592 67

Midwest 24,886 19,448 5,438 619

Northeast 15,472 12,952 2,521 287

Ohio Valley 27,405 21,632 5,774 657

Texas/Mountain West 14,534 11,459 3,075 350

Northwest 13,784 12,448 1,336 152

US 139,939 115,296 24,643 2,805

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 6. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

The national incremental cost of the potential requirement is simply the sum of the regional level 

incremental cost or the difference in the sum of regional level baseline and potential costs. 

Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3.3-14. The incremental cost of the potential 

requirement is estimated to be $24.6 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. This 

corresponds to $2.8 million per year and an average of $7.10 per year per WPS farm. The perfarm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the 

worker for the time spent in training. However, many temporary workers employed to harvest 

fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 

spent in training may represent forgone wages.

Sensitivity Analysis, Timing of Training

As discussed throughout this example, EPA examined the effect of the assumption that all farms 

hiring labor would, on average, conduct trainings, even if no pesticide application is ultimately

made on the farm. Under the alternative assumption that training only occurs if a pesticide 

application is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $2.2 million 

annually, or $5.50 per year per WPS farm, on average.

At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of 

the loss of flexibility permitted by the grace period, it would not apply under the potential 

requirement. That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers 

attending training would increase from the baseline. Under this scenario, the incremental cost of 

this potential requirement is estimated to be $5.1 million per year or $12.80 per WPS farm.

Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate

As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined the impact of the approximated hiring rate on 

estimates of baseline and potential costs by estimating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in 

lieu of the 16 percent rate used above. A higher rate means more new workers who must receive 

abbreviated and/or full training, but fewer returning workers who must be retrained. The former 

is the larger effect, implying that by using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of 
79

training in the baseline. With a new hire rate of 20 percent, the estimated incremental cost of 

immediate training is $2.789 million annually, about a percentage lower than the estimate using

of a 16 percent new hire rate. Therefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to the 

assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a 

reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias.

Other Training Requirements

Table 3.3-15 presents the net present value of the cost of the potential training requirements EPA 

is considering. Details of these estimations can be found in Appendix A. In this section, we 

briefly discuss the results and highlight any data considerations.

The most costly changes to the current standards would be to require annual training of workers 

compared to the current requirement of training every five years (TRAIN-03, $8.8 million 

annually) and to expand the content of worker training including an explanation of information 

found in crop sheets (TRAIN-07, $5.3 million annually). Costs are estimated using a 3% 

discount rate. The high cost reflects the significant increase in the amount of trainer and 

employee time devoted to training and the number of affected farms and workers. Relatively 

low-cost potential requirements include increasing the trainer qualifications for worker trainings 

(TRAIN-08 and 09), which are estimated to cost around $1.1 million per year over 10 years. The 

cost is primarily due to higher wages paid to more qualified trainers. Implementation of these 

requirements would be delayed two years to allow sufficient trainers to acquire the necessary

qualifications and this delay is factored into the analysis. EPA also considered eliminating the 

training verification programs (TRAIN-17), which would save the over $560,000 annually. 

Alternatively, requiring verification be given to workers, but as a copy of the training registry, 

could save almost $180,000 but accomplish essentially the same objective.

Table 3.3-15. Present Value of National Costs, Potential Training Requirements 1.

Potential Requirement PV(NCP

) PV(NCB) PV(NIC) Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Immediate Training 139,939 115,296 24,643 2,805

02 Immediate Training with 

Exceptions 135,225 115,296 19,929 2,268

03 Annual Worker Training 192,127 115,296 76,831 8,745

04 Biennial Worker Training 143,345 115,296 28,049 3,192

05 Annual Worker Training, 

Small Farm Exception 181,320 115,296 66,024 7,515

06 Expand Worker Training 

Content 2160,164 122,092 38,072 4,333

07 Expand Worker Training 

Content (crop sheet variant)2 168,813 122,092 46,721 5,318

08 Increase Worker Trainer 

Standards 125,060 115,296 9,764 1,111

09 Increase Worker Trainer 

Standards, Train-the-Trainer 

variant 125,060 115,296 9,764 1,111
80

Potential Requirement PV(NCP

) PV(NCB) PV(NIC) Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

10 Keep Worker Training 

Records -2yr 14,269 0 14,269 1,624

11 Keep Worker Training 

Records -5yr 17,144 0 17,144 1,951

12 Annual Handler Training 356,579 26,045 30,534 3,475

13 Biennial Handler Training 339,385 24,979 14,406 1,640

14 Expand Handler Training 

Content 330,284 24,524 5,761 656

15 Expand Handler Training 

Content (crop sheet variant)331,513 24,524 6,989 795

16 Keep Handler Training 

Records- 2yr 41,550 123 1,427 162

17 Keep Handler Training 

Records- 5yr 42,658 123 2,536 289

18 Eliminate Training 

Verification Cards 0 4,985 -4,985 -567

19 Require Training Verification 

Cards 10,618 4,985 5,633 641

20 Require Employees Receive 

Verification of Training 3,395 4,985 -1,590 -181

Source: EPA estimates.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 California requires additional worker training content, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN-06 and 

07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constrained to be less than or equal to the cost of the 

potential requirement.

3 California requires additional content and annual training for handlers, but for the purpose of the 

regional baseline for other handler requirements, costs are constrained to be equal to the potential 

regulatory costs.

TRAIN-02. Immediate full training of workers with exception. This potential requirement is a 

variant on the one discussed previously (TRAIN-01); it would provide an exception to the 

requirement of immediate training of workers. This exception would allow agricultural 

employers to delay the full pesticide safety training for up to 2 days if workers are provided with 

an EPA-approved right-to-know information sheet explaining pesticide hazard information prior 

to entering an area that had been treated with a pesticide in the last 30 days. In addition to 

providing workers with this right-to-know sheet, its content must be explained to the worker in a 

manner they understand. The exception would maintain some of the existing flexibility for 

employers. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option, compared to current requirements, 

to be about $2.3 million per year or about $5.80 per farm per year, on average.

TRAIN-03, 04, and 05. Frequency of worker training. Under current requirements, all workers 

must be trained at least once every five years if they will be entering a recently treated area. 

EPA is proposing to increase the frequency of worker training to every year (TRAIN-03). EPA 

also considered requiring training every other year (TRAIN-04) and providing WPS farms with 
81

fewer than ten employees with an exception from annual training requirement under certain 

circumstances.

Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provides the training, and at the 

worker or handler level where employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. 

Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential 

requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to 

accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequency of trainings. The primary

reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training 

each year. Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN-03) would result in incremental 

costs to the agricultural sector of about $8.7 million per year over the baseline, or about $22.20

per establishment. Biennial worker training (TRAIN-04) would cost about $3.2 million per year

over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment.

If training does not occur as a matter of course, but only occurs if a pesticide application is made, 

fewer WPS farms and workers are impacted each year. Under this assumption, annual training is 

estimated to cost about $7.4 million annually ($18.70 per WPS farm) and biennial training would 

cost about $1.8 million ($4.50 per WPS farm).

Given the large proportion of small businesses in the U.S. farm sector, EPA convened a Small 

Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel to advise the Agency on the development of the rule. 

The panel suggested providing an exception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than 

ten workers that had no new employees and were using the same pesticide as in previous years 

(TRAIN-05) (EPA, 2008). The SBA defines small farms on the basis of revenue, i.e., annual 

sales less than $750,000, but based on data from the Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA 

estimates almost 95 percent of small WPS farms have fewer than ten workers. In fact, almost 60 

percent of large WPS farms employ fewer than ten workers. It is not clear how many of these 

farms would meet the latter two criteria. EPA estimates that, if five percent of small farms could 

take advantage of the exception (i.e., had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in 

previous years), this option would cost about $7.5 million per year across all farms, about $1.2

million less than annual training without exceptions. The incremental cost is estimated to be 

$12.40 per year, on average, for small farms. In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training 

is estimated to be $15.40 per year, on average, for small farms. If ten percent of small farms met 

the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fall to $10.20 per year, on average. 

Note that the estimated cost of this option does not include the cost of documenting compliance 

with the criteria for exception.

TRAIN-06 and 07. Content of worker training. Current requirements specify the content of 

trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover. The expanded content that 

would be required under the proposed option would include, among other things, an explanation 

of the hazard information found in the SDS. Together, the expanded content is expected to add 

another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $4.3 million per year (TRAIN-06). This averages 

out to be about $11.00 per WPS farm. The alternative would include an explanation of the 

hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer 

session estimated to be an extra 18 minutes. The alternative is expected to cost about $5.3 
82

million per year or an average of $13.50 per WPS farm. Both estimates assume a two-year delay

in implementation to allow for the development of the new training content.

The baselines for TRAIN-06 and 07 are different from those changing the frequency of 

requirement because California already requires expanded content similar to TRAIN-06.

EPA also estimated the incremental cost if only WPS farms making a pesticide application in a 

given year conduct training. An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-06) would cost $3.6 

million annually, or $9.00 per WPS farm, while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-07) 

would cost $4.3 million annually, or $11.10 per WPS farm.

TRAIN-08 and 09. Increase worker trainer qualifications. These possible requirements would 

set standards for trainers of agricultural workers. TRAIN-08 (proposed) would require trainers 

to be qualified trainers of certified applicators or individuals who have completed an approved 

Train-the-Trainers program; TRAIN-09 would only allow individuals who have completed an 

approved Train-the-Trainers program. The impact of these potential requirements would be an 

increase in the overall cost for trainers. There may be an increase in costs to WPS farms of about 

$1.1 million per year or $2.80 per WPS farm for both options. In the short term, both options 

could result in a shortage of trainers, with TRAIN-09 the more problematic. Employers could 

face delays in scheduling training sessions, a cost we cannot quantify. Implementation of the 

revision would be delayed two years to allow for more trainers to be trained.

The incremental cost of these potential requirements is estimated to be $857,000 per year or 

$2.20 per WPS farm, if only those farms making a pesticide application conduct worker training. 

However, it could be that all farms currently conduct worker training only as needed, but under 

the new requirements will conduct trainings as a matter of course because qualified trainers may

not be available on demand. Under this high-cost scenario, the incremental cost is estimated to 

be $2.8 million annually or $7.20 per WPS farm.

TRAIN-10 and 11. Record keeping requirements, Worker training. Currently, WPS farms are 

not required to maintain records of the workers who have received training. These potential 

revisions would impose such requirements. Costs consist of the opportunity cost of labor for 

employees to acknowledge training and for employers to distribute, collect, and store the 

acknowledgements. There are also material costs to store the acknowledgements, depending on 

the length of storage. TRAIN-10 would require retention for two years while TRAIN-11 would 

require retention for five years. In total, the cost to document and store records on agricultural 

worker training is estimated to cost about $1.6 to $2.0 million annually or $4.10 to $4.90 per 

year per WPS farm.

If training only occurs if there is at least one pesticide application, the estimated costs of the 

requirements are $1.3 million per year ($3.20 per WPS farm) to keep records for two years and 

$1.6 million per year ($4.00 per WPS farm) to keep records for five years.

TRAIN-12 and 13. Frequency of handler training. Current requirements stipulate that handler 

training is valid for five years. EPA considered increasing the frequency of training to every

year under TRAIN-12 or every other year under requirement TRAIN-13 for handlers. Training 
83

costs are incurred at the establishment level, to provide the training, and at the handler level, as 

employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. As with worker training, some 

establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the increase 

in the frequency of trainings, but the primary reason that the regulatory cost increases is that 

more handlers would receive training each year.

EPA estimates that there are over 247,000 handlers employed by WPS farms, based on the 

assumption that there are, on average, two handlers for each large farm (annual revenues greater 

than $750,000) and one handler for each of the largest small farms (annual revenues between 

$100,000 and $750,000). There are also about 17,000 handlers employed by CPHEs (BLS, 

2007c). For lack of better data, EPA uses the same 16% new hire rate for both categories to 

determine the number of returning handlers that will need periodic training. We exclude selfemployed commercial handlers and other handlers who are certified because the training or 

examinations required by states would meet the WPS requirements. In fact, most of the 17,000 

CPHE handlers and many of the WPS handlers included in this cost estimate are also likely to be 

certified or in the process of obtaining certification and would probably meet WPS training 

requirements.

Under TRAIN-12, the increase in annual handler training over current requirements runs about 

$3.5 million per year and would cost the larger WPS farms an additional $17.00 per year and 

CPHEs an additional $66.70, on average. Again, because most CPHE handlers would have or 

seek commercial certification, the true incremental cost is likely to be near zero. Biennial 

training under TRAIN-13 would cost $1.6 million annually over the baseline. Average per entity

costs for the larger WPS farms would be about $8.10 per year more for handler training. CPHEs 

would incur additional costs of about $27.40 per year, on average. The per-entity costs are 

higher for the CPHEs because they employ more handlers.

California already requires pesticide handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is 

adjusted accordingly. As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the 

federal standards. In the case of the potential requirement requiring biennial training, the cost of 

California baseline is constrained to be that under biennial training to account for the fact that 

federal requirements would not lower costs to California establishments.

It could be that pesticide handlers would only be trained if a pesticide application were needed. 

Under this scenario, requiring annual handler training would result in an incremental cost of $3.1

million annually or $15.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are always making pesticide 

applications, there is no change in the assumptions underlying the estimate of their cost. 

Requiring biennial handler training is estimated to cost an additional $1.4 million per year ($6.90

per larger WPS farm) over baseline, under the alternative assumption. EPA notes that the 

assumptions regarding the number of impacted farms and handlers has little effect on the 

estimated incremental cost because data show that 90 percent of handlers are employed on farms 

making pesticide applications in any given year.

TRAIN-14 and 15. Content of handler training. Current requirements specify the content of 

handler trainings and EPA estimates that trainings take about 45 minutes based on the length of 

commercially available video materials. The expanded content under the potential requirements 
84

could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the 

training covers hazard communication via the SDS (see HAZCOM-02) or the more detailed crop 

sheets (see HAZCOM-04). This would cost an additional $656,000 for TRAIN-14 (additional 

15 minutes) and $795,000 for TRAIN-15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training 

each year. Average handler training costs under TRAIN-14 and 15 are estimated to increase by

$3.20 or $3.90 per year for larger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are 

estimated to rise by $14.70 and $17.90 per year respectively. These requirements would not take 

effect for two years while the new training materials are developed. As noted above, we are 

likely overestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for 

expanded training for CPHEs and private certification would meet the requirements for WPS 

farms.

As with worker training, the baselines for potential handler training requirements differ 

according to existing California requirements. As explained in the methodology, baseline costs 

are constrained to be less than or equal to those of the potential requirements to avoid

erroneously estimating a reduction in costs.

As a sensitivity analysis, EPA estimated the incremental cost of these requirements under the 

assumption that handler training occurs only if a pesticide application is made during the season. 

An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-14) would cost about $553,000 per year ($2.70 per 

larger WPS farm) while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-15) would cost about 

$680,000 per year ($3.30 per WPS farm). CPHE costs are not affected by these assumptions.

TRAIN-16 and 17. Record keeping requirements, Handler training. Currently, WPS farms and 

CPHEs are not required to maintain records of the handlers who have received training, except in 

California. These potential requirements are similar to TRAIN-10 and 11. In total, the cost to 

document and store records on pesticide handler training is estimated to cost about $162,000 to 

$289,000 annually, which ranges from $0.80 to $1.40 per larger WPS farm and from $3.00 to 

$3.80 per CPHE.

If handler training only occurs in conjunction with a pesticide application, keeping records for 

two years is estimated to cost $150,000 per year, with WPS farms incurring costs around $0.70

per year. Requiring records be kept for five years is estimated to cost about $276,000 annually

under this alternate assumption and WPS farms would face an additional $1.40 per year. Costs 

to CPHEs are unaffected by this assumption.

TRAIN-18, 19, and 20. Training verification. Under these potential requirements, EPA would 

end voluntary programs to issue training verification cards. The cost of the program is the 

opportunity cost of labor for employers to distribute the cards and employees to receive them; 

EPA also incurs costs to manufacture the cards. About 22 states and territories currently

participate in the program, based on 2010 requests for new cards. Of the representative states, 

Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions

have requested verification cards. For this analysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, 

Plains, Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zero to reflect low participation. Arkansas, along 

with five of the seven states it represents, participates, as does California and Colorado, along 

with one of the two states it represents. Baseline costs for these three regions, South, California, 
85

and Southwest, are estimated assuming full participation, reflecting high participation among the 

states. Baseline costs for the other three regions, Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are 

calculated using a 50 percent participation rate because about half the states in these regions 

participate in the current program. Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of 

participation, EPA estimates that eliminating the training verification program (TRAIN-18) 

could save about $567,000 annually, including costs to EPA of providing the cards. Savings per 

WPS farm amount to $1.40 per year and for CPHEs, $0.80 per year, but savings would only 

occur in states currently participating in the program. 

Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) would cost about $641,000 annually, or roughly

$1.60 per WPS farm and $1.50 per CPHE. Costs, however, would only be incurred in states not 

fully participating in the current program.

Replacing the voluntary program with a requirement that employees be provided evidence of 

training (TRAIN-20) would, under the current frequency of training, save about $180,000 

annually or about $0.50 per year per WPS farm and $0.04 per CPHE. Savings arise because 

individualized cards are more expensive to complete than simply providing a copy of the training 

register. However, WPS farms and CPHEs observe additional material cost, as EPA and states 

are currently providing cards or otherwise subsidizing them. Further, savings only arise in states 

currently participating in the voluntary program; establishments in other states would bear costs.

If training currently occurs only if a pesticide application is made on a WPS farm, the cost saving 

of eliminating the verification cards is estimated to be $498,000 per year while the cost of 

requiring verification cards would be about $566,000 annually. Requiring verification through a 

copy of the training register (TRAIN-20) would save around $158,000 annually, under this 

alternative assumption.

3.3.4 Hazard Communication

Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their 

employees about the use of pesticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry

operations are also covered, but as the impact is minimal, they are not considered in this analysis. 

As with training, the impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving 

the information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. Hazard communication 

requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications.

Table 3.3-16 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement considered 

in this category. The table shows the present value of regional compliance cost for the potential 

requirements, PV(RC P), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B). 

The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 

compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 

is the requirement to provide workers with crop sheets, which describe the ways in which a 

worker might be exposed to a particular pesticide for each crop (HAZCOM-04). The 

requirement is estimated to cost $13.0 million annually. The proposed change from central 

posting to making application information available on request (HAZCOM-01) entails 

comparatively low cost at $1.1 million per year.
86

Table 3.3-16. Present Value of Costs, Hazard Communication Requirements 1.

Potential Requirement PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

01 Application Information 

Availability 164,954 154,908 10,046 1,143

02 Pesticide Information 

Availability – SDS and 

label 131,032 84,201 46,831 5,330

03 Pesticide Information 

Availability – label 59,865 59,791 14,074 1,602

04 Pesticide Information 

Availability – crop sheets 163,774 49,303 114,471 13,029

05 Record Keeping – 2 years 29,894 3,677 26,217 2,984

06 Record Keeping – 5 years 32,770 3,677 29,093 3,311

07 Provide Crop Sheet with 

Label 2318,330 293,020 25,310 2,881

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 Requirement would apply to registrants at a national scale only.

In this section, we discuss the results of the estimation and present details if the situation 

diverges from the typical method. Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in 

Appendix A. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 15.4

pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given 

year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 

applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially field crops, but the 

number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following examples show how EPA arrived at 

this number.

 Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 

(NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). 

Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average 

farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 

acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, 

which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn – soybean rotation with some fields 

in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 

and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 

in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical 

farm.

 Fruit crops in Washington. There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 

production, implying about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per 

farm, on average (NASS, 2008b, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 32). This suggests a typical 

farm might have four blocks of fruit production: two of apple, one of cherry, and one of 

pear. Typical spray programs (Northwest Wholesale, Inc., 2011a, b, c) imply 12 

applications to apple blocks, six to the cherry block, and seven to the pear, for a total of 

37 applications. Including one herbicide application to each leaves us with 40 
87

applications per year.

 Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida 

vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no information on field size or 

number of fields per farm. Further, Florida’s climate allows two or even three crops each 

year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 

tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 

Florida, 2008-09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, 

including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 

however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including an herbicide 

treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and 

fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 

Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, 

however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and 

DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receives about six pesticide treatments, considering 

tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of 

time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and to stagger production activities. 

Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of 

pesticide applications.

Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms 

accounting for another 22 percent (NASS, 2008b). The average across all farms, given 12 

applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is 

about 20 applications per farm. This does not consider farms that are primarily livestock with 

some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average.

HAZCOM-01. Application information. Currently, farm owners or operators must post 

information about a covered pesticide application made within the previous 30 days when 

employees are present3. This requires time to compile and record the information. Discussions 

with stakeholders suggest that the time required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. 

A sheet of paper is needed to record the information, which takes about a minute (0.017 hours) to 

post at a central location. This must be done for every application. Table 3.3-17 presents the 

estimated baseline cost per establishment for all regions except for California and 

Texas/Mountain West. Representative states for those regions have provisions similar to the 

proposed requirements.

These costs may be underestimated. Stakeholders indicate that multiple postings are often 

necessary for a single application because the central area is outdoors and the posting can be 

subject to weathering.

 

3 An insecticide application in or around a cattle barn, for example, would not be covered under the WPS.
88

Table 3.3-17. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for HAZCOM-01, Provide Application 

Information.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 15.4 $ 36.26

Information sheet $ 0.09/sheet 1 sheet 15.4 $ 1.39

Post application information $28.21/hr 0.017 hr 15.4 $ 7.25

costr,i,a

B

$ 44.90

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Under the proposed requirement, HAZCOM-01, WPS farms would provide the application 

information to any worker or handler who requests to review it rather than post the information. 

EPA assumes that such a request would take about six minutes (0.1 hour) or about five minutes 

more than posting. EPA does not have experience as to how often a request would occur. It is 

likely to be rare, but EPA estimates costs assuming a request for 25 percent of applications, or 

3.9 times per year. This is likely to be a significant overestimate. Thus, in lieu of posting the 

application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $10.88 per year, 

making the total cost of the new requirement $48.53 per farm per year. This is also the baseline 

cost for California and Texas/Mountain West as the representative states already have a 

provision that employees or their representatives can request the application information. 

There are no actions required of any other actor. Table 3.3-18 presents the estimated regional 

costs for the first year the requirement is in effect. California and Texas already require the 

display of the additional information.

Table 3.3-18. Regional Costs for HAZCOM-01, Application Information, Year 1.

Region N WPS est RC P RC

B

costr,i,a

B

$ 44.90

costr,i,a

P

$48.53 $1,000

South 58,804 2,640,541 2,853,784

California 124,469 1,187,480 1,187,480

Southwest 12,629 567,096 612,893

Subtropical 9,866 443,044 478,823

Midwest 85,641 3,845,620 4,156,181

Northeast 40,650 1,825,340 1,972,750

Ohio Valley 91,166 4,093,724 4,424,322

Texas/Mountain West 148,543 2,355,808 2,355,808

Northwest 22,890 1,027,861 1,110,869

U.S. 394,658 $17,986,514 $19,152,909

Source: EPA estimation.

1 Baseline costs are $48.53 as for the potential requirement.

The costs of this requirement, both current and potential, recur annually. In estimating the PV of 

costs over a 10-year time horizon, the only factor that changes through time is the number of 
89

establishments, which has been declining at a rate of 0.47% annually over the last decade. This 

trend is expected to continue as agriculture consolidates. EPA estimates the PV of the baseline 

cost is $155 million dollars over 10 years at a 3% discount rate, considering requirements in 

California and Texas (Table 3.3-15). The potential requirement is expected to cost about $165

million over 10 years. Thus, incremental costs of increasing the information provided about 

pesticide applications are estimated to be about $10.0 million. This corresponds to $1.1 million

annually and, on average, to be $2.90 per WPS farm per year. If baseline costs are higher than 

estimated due to multiple postings for each application, the incremental cost of this provision 

will be lower.

HAZCOM-02, 03, and 04. Pesticide-specific information. Agricultural employers are currently

required to post information about pesticide applications, including the active ingredient used 

and the product name and registration number. The proposed revision (HAZCOM-02) would 

require additional hazard information, consisting of the label and the associated SDS, be 

collected and made available. The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and 

copy the material. The SDS is typically available with the label at distributors and on line. Four 

representative states (California, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) already require this information to be 

available. EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $5.3 million annually. The cost is 

proportional to the number of applications.

An alternative would be to require only that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM-03). The 

cost of this option would be just over $1.6 million annually. A second alternative, HAZCOM04, would be to require crop sheets for all applications. This information would be cropchemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given 

typical cropping practices, and emergency procedures in case of exposure. These sheets would 

likely be harder to obtain and, while generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more 

frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical. EPA estimates the cost of 

this potential requirement to be $13.0 million annually or $33.00 per WPS farm.

HAZCOM-05 and 06. Keep records of application information. There are no current 

requirements that WPS farms keep records of pesticide applications; information about an 

application must only be posted for 30 days following the expiration of the REI. EPA 

considered requiring records to be kept for two or for five years. The primary costs would be 

materials such as copies of the application information and something in which to keep records. 

Baseline, compliance, and incremental costs over a ten-year period at the national level are 

shown in Table 3.3-14. EPA estimates annualized incremental costs are $2.9 to 3.3 million 

respectively, which averages out to be $7.60 per establishment under HAZCOM-05 to $8.40 per 

establishment for HAZCOM-06. EPA assumes that all WPS farms will fall under record 

keeping requirements since over time all are expected to make some pesticide applications.

HAZCOM-07. Provision of crop sheets. To support the potential requirement for crop-chemical 

specific hazard information (HAZCOM-04), this proposal would require registrants to provide 

additional safety information along with the pesticide label, which provides use directions. This 

would require the development of new printing templates, which would be a one-time cost for 

each existing pesticide product, the cost of which would depend on the number of crops for 

which the crop is registered. EPA would expect to phase this in over a three year period to allow 
90

registrants to include the new material as they reprint product labels. It would also increase 

printing costs over the entire time 10-year time period we analyze because of the additional 

volume of material. EPA estimates this potential requirement would impose additional costs of 

about $25.3 million on registrants over 10 years, or an annualized cost of about $2.9 million per 

year.

3.3.5 Notification

Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employers who must provide their 

employees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 

information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 

information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. As with hazard 

communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 

pesticide applications.

Table 3.3-19 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement. As in 

previous tables, it shows the present value of regional compliance costs for the potential 

requirements, PV(RC P), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B). 

The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 

compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 

is the requirement to post warning signs for Restricted Entry Intervals every 100 feet around the 

perimeter of a treated field (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this would cost $261 million per 

year in additional signs and labor. Other potentially costly requirements include maintaining 

records of oral notification of REIs (NOTIFY-04 and 05). These two potential requirements 

would cost about $20 million per year in time and materials. Relatively low cost requirements 

considered by EPA include revisions to warning signs and safety posters (NOTIFY-06 and 14), 

which are expected to cost $99,000 and 108,000 per year respectively. EPA is also proposing to 

allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REIs of less than four hours. EPA 

estimates this will save greenhouse operations about $10,000 per year nationally.

Table 3.3-19. Present Value of Costs, Notification Requirements 1.

Potential 

Requirement

PV(RCP) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

01 REI > 48 hours 

Warning Sign 420,709 322,892 97,816 11,133

02 REI > 72 hours 

Warning Sign 392,487 322,892 69,594 7,921

03 REI ≤ 4 hours Oral 

Notification 

(greenhouses) 980 1,065 -84 -10

04 Record Keeping for 

Oral Notification – 2 

years 177,198 0 177,198 20,168

05 Record Keeping for 

Oral Notification – 5 

years 180,074 0 180,074 20,495
91

Potential 

Requirement

PV(RCP) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

06 Revise Warning Sign 

(“Entry restricted 

Area”) 19,535 18,663 873 99

07 Revise Warning Sign 

(Skull and Cross 

Bones) 46,923 18,663 28,260 3,216

08 Posting Warning 

Signs w/in 100′ 

worker housing 99,064 99,064 0 0

09 Posting Warning 

Signs every 100′ 2,394,818 99,064 2,295,755 261,294

10 Oral Information for 

Entry restricted –

workers 10,295 4,162 6,134 698

11 Oral and Written 

Information for Entry 

restricted – workers 13,547 4,162 9,386 1,068

12 Record Keeping for 

Entry restricted –

workers 2 years 4,120 0 4,120 469

13 Record Keeping for 

Entry restricted –

workers 5 years 6,996 0 6,996 796

14 Revise Safety Poster 8,729 7,777 951 108

15 Safety Poster, -

Worker 

Decontamination 25,336 7,777 17,558 1,998

16 Safety Poster, -

Handler 

Decontamination 14,669 7,777 6,891 784

17 Safety Poster with 

REI signs 49,872 7,777 42,094 4,791

18 Clarify Notifications 

by Commercial 

Applicator 316,546 316,546 0 0

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

NOTIFY-01 and 02. Posting warning signs. Two potential requirements require the physical 

posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY-01, would require 

posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours. An alternative, NOTIFY-02, would require posting if the 

REI exceeds 72 hours. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a 

sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e., both verbal 

communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnings of all applications 

and these new requirements would not apply to those operations. Costs are expected to vary by

farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally notify a large number of 
92

workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medium to small-small farm is presented in Table 

3.3-20, as an example. EPA assumes that most employers in small farms provide oral 

notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made. 

Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will have to be informed of 

the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to provide multiple 

notifications. Employers with many workers, however, may find it too complicated and too time 

consuming to orally notify them all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs

already. Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be 

double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two 

signs are generally needed for posting. We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker 

housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed (see NOTIFY-08). Signs will 

generally last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by 

the proportion of non-greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is 

77.1 percent (NASS, 2008). The expected per-farm cost is estimated to be between $35 and 

$110 depending on the size of the farm. There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which 

accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification over the entire season.

Table 3.3-20. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs for NOTIFY-01, Post 

REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 14.3 $ 20.14

Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0.307 $ 3.47

Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 1.23 $ 11.54

Signs $ 5.66 per 3 0.018 $ 0.30

Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.071 $ 1.00

costr,i,a

B

$ 36.45

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The costs associated with these potential requirements are the material expense of additional 

signs and labor costs of posting signs more frequently. Offsetting some of these costs is a 

reduction in the time required to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3-21 presents the 

calculations. We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater 

than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time. Double notification is still 

required for ten percent of applications. As a result, the expected per-establishment cost 

increases to between $70 and $110, where large farms with many workers are not expected to be 

impacted. Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected per-worker cost decreases to $5 to 

$7.
93

Table 3.3-21. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for 

NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 10.0 $ 14.09

Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0.307 $ 6.94

Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 4.91 $ 46.14

Signs $ 5.66 per 6 0.018 $ 0.60

Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.284 $ 4.01

costr,i,a

B

$ 71.79

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

For NOTIFY-02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that 

signs would be required 30 percent of the time while oral notification would occur 80 percent of 

the time. Per-establishment cost is calculated to be between $60 and $110 per year and perworker cost to be between $6.00 and $8.00, depending on farm size.

Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warning signs to be about $7.9 million annually if 

posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $11.1 million annually if posting is 

required for REIs over 48 hours. The estimated incremental costs average $20.10 to $28.30 per 

year per non-greenhouse WPS farm across all farm sizes.

These estimates take into consideration the allowance that new signs are to be phased in by the 

third year.

NOTIFY-03. Oral notification of REIs in greenhouses. Currently, greenhouses are required to 

post REI warning signs for all pesticide applications; signs are also required to be removed 

shortly after the end of the REI. This proposal would give owners/operators of greenhouses the 

option of simply notifying their employees orally for REIs of four hours or less. For many

operations, this would lead to savings in the time required to post and remove signs. However, 

some operations may be large enough that orally notifying all their employees would be more 

time consuming. EPA estimates that this revision would save about $10,000 per year nationally 

or about $1.80 per year per WPS greenhouse, on average. As noted above, greenhouses with 

many workers may not alter their practices while greenhouses with relatively few workers would 

save more than the average.

NOTIFY-04 and 05. Record keeping of oral notifications. A potential addition to the WPS 

would require owners/operators to obtain acknowledgement from their employees that the 

employees were notified of REIs. Under NOTIFY-04, these records would be kept for two 

years; under NOTIFY-05 they would be kept for five years. As explained in NOTIFY-01 and 

02, the size of the farm, particularly the number of workers, influences the decision to post or 

orally inform employees of the REI. The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in 

Table 3.3-22 for small farms and includes preparing the written copy of the notification, 

obtaining employees’ signatures, and filing the document. The annual frequency for each action 

is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY-01, explained above. The cost for large farms is 
94

estimated to be $38.73, slightly lower than for small farms because it is more cost-effective to 

post fields when there are many workers. There is also a per-worker cost for providing the 

signature, which EPA estimates to be $1.46 per year for workers on small farms and $1.19 per 

year for workers on large farms. Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double 

notification products as explained under NOTIFY-03. Greenhouse costs are estimated to be 

$3.72 per year, on average, with a per-employee cost of $0.13 per year.

Table 3.3-22. Per-Small WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs 

for NOTIFY-04, Keep Records of REI notifications.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Prepare copy of warning 28.21 0.033 15.0 14.12

Information sheet 0.09 1 15.0 1.35

Obtain acknowledgement 28.21 0.050 16.5 23.30

Store acknowledgement 28.21 0.017 15.0 7.06

Folder 0.20 1 0.75 0.15

costr,i,a

B

$ 45.98

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY-04 is $20.2 million annually. The average cost per 

WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $51.20 per year and is similar for small and 

large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $7.10. NOTIFY-05, with a fiveyear retention requirement, would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage 

container to hold the files. EPA estimates the cost to be about $20.5 million per year with an 

average cost per WPS farm of $52.00 per year and $7.90 per year per greenhouse.

NOTIFY-06 and 07. Revise warning signs. EPA is considering revisions to warning signs 

posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI. The proposed revision, NOTIFY-06, 

would replace the current circle with a stop-sign like octagon and replace the words “Keep Out” 

with “Entry Restricted Area.” An alternative, NOTIFY-07, would instead replace the circle with 

a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide information about the pesticide that was used. For 

the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.30, more expensive. Nationally, this 

revision may cost about $99,000 per year. Per-farm cost would average less than $0.30. For 

NOTIFY-07, the potential requirement would also entail labor costs to post application-specific 

information and higher material cost for a sign on which information could be written. This 

could cost $3.2 million annually, which is $8.10 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS 

greenhouses, on average. Greenhouses would bear high costs due to the frequency with which 

they are required to post REI warning signs.

NOTIFY-08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently, when warning signs are posted, they

must be placed at the usual access points to a treated field or at each corner and where visible if 

worker housing is adjacent to the field. The number of access points to a field is highly variable, 

but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across 

irrigation infrastructure for workers and/or equipment to enter. We assume about 20 percent of 

farms will need a third sign to place near worker housing. Posting signs is likely the exception, 
95

rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler. The baseline costs, i.e., 

costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the labor to post the signs and the 

material cost of the signs. Signs can be reused, so most establishments probably only need two 

or three, i.e., to post one field at a time. Greenhouses, however, must post warning signs for all 

pesticide applications and likely need four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots 

simultaneously.

NOTIFY-08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to 

engender any costs.

EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require posting warning signs every 100 

feet around a treated area to alert workers if, for example, they were to cross a field without 

passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY-09). Size and shape of field are extremely 

variable, but as a scenario that might be somewhat representative, EPA considered a square field, 

40 acres in size. Each side would be 1,320 feet, requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in 

total. Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smaller, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular 

one-acre plot. Accounting for the cost of additional signs and additional labor, EPA estimates 

that this potential requirement could cost over $2.3 billion dollars over ten years at a three 

percent discount rate or about $261 million annually. The annual incremental cost is estimated 

to average over $690 for WPS greenhouses and about $660 for other WPS farms.

NOTIFY-10 and 11. Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 

Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period for which the 

restricted-entry interval is in effect. Workers must have either read the product labeling or been 

informed of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety. NOTIFY-10 would permit oral 

instruction, but would require more detailed information be provided, which would require more 

time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information. An alternative, NOTIFY-11 

would require that the information also be provided in writing, in the form of crop sheets 

generated by the registrants. EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY-10 to be about

$698,000 annually and $1.1 million per year for NOTIFY-11. Per WPS farms, annual costs are 

expected to be $1.80 and $2.70, respectively.

NOTIFY-12 and 13. Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 

Under these potential measures, EPA would require that employers obtain acknowledgement 

from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record 

sheet for two or five years (NOTIFY-12 and NOTIFY-13, respectively). Record keeping is 

expected to cost about $469,000 per year for two-year retention and, for five years, $796,000 per 

year, which includes material to document receipt of the information and to store the 

documentation. The cost is equivalent to $1.20 to $2.00 per WPS farm.

NOTIFY-14. Revise pesticide safety information display. The proposal would require 

agricultural establishments to include, along with the safety display, contact information for 

medical assistance and for state agencies overseeing pesticide use. The incremental cost of this 

action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which 

would be done by the WPS farm. EPA estimates that this potential requirement would cost 

growers about $108,000 per year over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, and 
96

considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two years. The annualized cost is 

estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS farm per year. Costs may be somewhat overstated because 

signs are available free through EPA. 

NOTIFY-15, 16, and 17. Safety displays at decontamination sites. These requirements would 

add additional pesticide safety displays where decontamination supplies are located. NOTIFY15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses handler sites on WPS farms. 

NOTIFY-17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require displays wherever REI 

warning signs are posted. The cost of these requirements arises from the cost of new signs and 

the labor to post them. EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary by

the size of the operation, which will determine the number of sites at which safety posters will be 

required. EPA identifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2. 

Table 3.3-23 presents EPA’s estimates of the per-establishment unit costs, assuming that the 

requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average. Large farms incur 

much higher cost for posting safety displays with REI signs because they likely post more 

frequently than do small farms. See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY-01 and 02. If 

safety displays are required with REI warning signs, however, large farms could reduce the 

number of postings by shifting to oral notification.

Table 3.3-23. Per-Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites

Establishment Baseline Worker 

Decontamination 

Sites

(NOTIFY-15)

Handler 

Decontamination 

Sites

(NOTIFY-16)

With REI Signs

(NOTIFY-17)

Small WPS 

Farm/Nursery $ 2.23 $ 7.18 $ 3.54

$11.49

Small WPS 

Greenhouse $31.17

Large WPS 

Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15

$34.37

Large WPS 

Greenhouse $42.20

Source: EPA estimates.

Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by each potential requirement, EPA 

estimates the national cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is estimated to be 

$2.0 million annually or $5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites 

(NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 per WPS farm. Safety displays can be 

obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. 

Placing safety posters with REI warning signs (NOTIFY-17) is estimated to cost $4.8 million 

annually or $12.10 per WPS farm.

NOTIFY-18. Notification of agricultural establishments by CPHE employers. WPS currently

requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that 

proper steps can be taken to protect workers in the area or who might enter the field. Further, if 

there are any changes to the application, e.g., delay in application, change of product (brand), the 
97

CPHE must immediately inform the client. The latter requirement has raised concerns about the 

practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspects of the application 

and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical information pertaining to worker 

safety is provided in a timely manner. The proposed revision would specify that the CPHE must 

inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI

begins. It also revises the regulations to match EPA guidance. No costs are expected to arise 

from this revision.

Sensitivity Analysis

The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements 

and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis. That 

is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide 

applications per year instead of 20 applications.

The incremental costs for the potential requirements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY-01 

and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the number of applications. This is because the 

baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting 

warning signs for REIs greater than the threshold (48 and 72 hours, respectively) changes by a 

fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications 

results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision. The savings generated by 

allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notify workers when the REI is less than four hours 

varies (NOTIFY-03) proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of record keeping 

of oral notification (NOTIFY-04 and 05) also varies nearly proportionally with the number of 

applications. The cost of providing more information upon early entry (NOTIFY-10 and 11) 

varies proportionally with the number of applications as does record keeping for two years 

(NOTIFY-12). Maintaining records for five years (NOTIFY-13) is less sensitive to the number 

of applications because of fixed costs of storage.

The incremental costs of the potential notification requirements that deal with revisions to REI

warning signs (NOTIFY-06 and 07) or safety posters (NOTIFY-14), and the location of safety 

posters (NOTIFY-15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications. The cost of 

the potential requirement to post REI warning signs every 100 feet (NOTIFY-09) varies with the 

number of applications, but less than proportionally. The same is true for NOTIFY-17, which 

would require safety displays with every REI warning sign. The revisions to clarify when signs 

must be posted in sight of adjacent worker housing (NOTIFY-08) and to codify notification by

commercial applicators (NOTIFY-18) are not expected to entail costs regardless of the number 

of applications.

3.3.5 Age

EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter 

areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions. These restrictions could 

raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid 

employees in place of younger, lower paid staff. In estimating the impact of these potential 

requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1. 

The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the 
98

baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the difference with labor costs under the 

potential requirement. Table 3.3-24 presents the results for this protective category.

Table 3.3-24. Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1.

Region

NCP NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Minimum Age of 16, 

Early Entry Workers 10,734 9,366 1,367 156

02 Minimum Age of 18, 

Early Entry Workers 15,974 9,618 6,356 723

03 Minimum Age of 16, 

Handlers 242,290 38,192 4,098 466

04 Minimum Age of 18, 

Handlers 265,019 38,192 26,827 3,053

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2

Several states have minimum age restrictions on handlers for which we adjust the baseline.

AGE-01 and 02. Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. EPA is 

considering setting a minimum age for agricultural workers (other than immediate family 

members) who may enter areas subject to a REI. Entry during a restricted-entry interval may

occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no 

contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities. In this analysis, EPA has 

assumed that there will be one early entry event for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on 

average, half of the farm’s workers will be engaged in associated tasks. As it is unlikely that a 

farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any

under-age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum 

age older for these limited events. Thus, these potential requirements are likely to impose 

negligible costs on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs 

associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time.

As an upper bound, however, we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher 

paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. EPA has found no data 

regarding wage differentials by age categories, but it seems reasonable that factors such as age 

and experience would contribute to higher wages. The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is 

used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field 

workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year old field workers 

would earn about 50% of the average wage. Thus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as 

$5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. EPA notes 

that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers 

during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer.

The additional labor cost of the 16 year-old minimum age would be about $160,000 annually, or 

an expected cost of about $0.40 per WPS farm per year. A minimum age of 18 would impose 
99

costs of $720,000 annually, or about $1.80 per WPS farm. As noted above, this cost is unlikely

to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm’s labor management.

AGE-03 and 04. Minimum age for pesticide handlers. EPA is considering setting a minimum 

age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e., those who 

mix, load and/or apply pesticides. There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS 

although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides 

classified as Category I or II toxicity. EPA evaluated the impacts of both a 16-year minimum 

(NOTIFY-03) and an 18-year minimum (NOTIFY-04).

Table 3-3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling 

tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15-year olds are paid half the hourly wage 

of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percent of adult wages. The wage rate for adult 

handlers is from the BLS (2008). EPA calculates the wage for adolescent handlers on-farm to be 

$7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former is 

approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Benefits, valued at 30 percent of 

total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates. Among employees surveyed by the 

National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied 

pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 percent were 14- and 15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 

16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. The survey further indicated that 

handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler-related 

activities. Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of adolescent handlers, we 

calculate an expected cost per WPS farms for these handler tasks of about $12.43 per year.

To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY-03), the time of 14 and 15 year old 

handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $14.35. This would be 

an upper bound, of course, because the employer could still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years 

of age. For a minimum age requirement of 18 (NOTIFY-04), all adolescent labor is replaced by

adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of $21.35 per year.

The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner. However, there are no data estimating the 

number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. It is likely that the proportion is 

smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely

higher. EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none 

are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work. Further, we assume that 

these handlers work part time, spending, on average, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours 

per week. This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer employment. Labor costs 

assume that 16 and 17 year-olds are paid about 60 percent of the average adult wage.
100

Table 3-3.25 Labor costs for Handlers, by Age

Age Category and 

Establishment

Wage/Hour Hours 

Worked

Proportion 

of workers

Total Labor 

Cost

Baseline, WPS Farm

14-15 Year Old 10.41 50 0.004 1.92

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Total WPS farm 12.43

Baseline, CPHE

16-17 Year Old, CPHE 12.06 640 0.010 77.18

Minimum Age, 16, WPS 

Farm

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Adult 20.83 50 0.004 3.84

Total WPS farm 14.35

Minimum Age, 18

Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.021 21.35

Adult, CPHE 20.10 640 0.010 128.64

Source: BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations.

EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers nationally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large 

WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the largest small operations employ 

one handler (see Section 3.3.2). Given the NAWS findings, this suggests around 1,000 handlers 

in the 14-15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16-17 year age group. Table 3.3-26 presents 

EPA’s estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state 

requirements, RLB, and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RLP. Incremental labor 

costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect 

and about $880,000 for CPHEs.

Table 3.3-26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE-04 WPS Handler, 18 Year 

Age Restriction, Year 1.

Region NWPS hndlr

B RLP RLB

($1,000)

South 36,924 1,116 655

California 15,365 464 273

Southwest 7,930 240 141

Subtropical 6,195 187 110

Midwest 53,776 1,625 954

Northeast 25,525 771 453

Ohio Valley 57,245 1,730 1,016

Texas/Mountain West 30,481 921 541

Northwest 14,373 434 255

U.S. 247,815 7,489 4,398

Source: EPA Estimations.
101

Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate, the annual cost of setting a minimum age of 18 

for handlers is estimated at $3.1 million, which averages $11.20 per WPS farm and $317 per 

CPHE. Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual labor costs of about 

$466,000. The latter option is substantially less costly because it would only affect the few 

handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost of $2.40 per 

WPS establishment.

These requirements could result in higher labor costs for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. 

Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be 

transfer of wages from adolescents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults.

3.3.6 Entry

Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide 

residues. Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide 

applications occur. Unlike the training and notification examples, which require farm operators, 

agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to 

purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely require specific activities or materials. These 

potential requirements preclude certain work activities from occurring at certain times in certain 

places. The primary cost of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management 

burden of scheduling work activities and pesticide applications to minimize conflicts. This 

burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the 

diversity of production activities in which the operation engages. Estimates for the potential 

requirements are presented in Table 3.3-27.
102

Table 3.3-27. Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1.

Region NCP NCB NIC Annualized NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Restricted area of 25 to 100 ft 

during application for all 

agricultural establishments 0 0 0 0

02 Halt application if nonhandler enters treatment area 0 0 0 0

03 Limit entry during 

emergencies to 4 hours 0 0 0 0

04 Limit entry during 

emergencies to 8 hours 0 0 0 0

05 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions 2,173,318 0 2,173,318 247,358

06 Monitoring handlers for 

chlolinesterase inhibition 137,368 3,394 133,975 15,248

07 Limit time handling 

cholinesterase-inhibiting 

products 38,533 1,470 37,063 4,218

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

ENTRY-01. Entry restricted area. During an application, entry into the area being treated is 

restricted to appropriately attired handlers. A proposed requirement defines the entry restricted 

area during an application on a WPS farm or forestry operation as extending 25 to 100 feet from

the edge of the treated area, depending on the application method. This restriction already 

applies to WPS nurseries and greenhouses and would only apply to area under control of the 

employer. For a WPS farm, imposing the restricted area could affect the scheduling of work 

activities in areas immediately adjacent to the area being treated, but only during the application. 

This may complicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely

preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments.

ENTRY-02. Entry into a restricted area. The proposed requirement specifies that a handler 

working for a WPS farm or a forestry operation must cease application if he or she observes a 

person, other than a trained and equipped handler, in the treatment area. Since current 

requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non-handlers, the restriction simply clarifies 

the applicator’s responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable costs.

ENTRY-03 and 04. Limit early entry under the Agricultural Emergency exception for double 

notification products. During agricultural emergencies, agricultural employers can send workers 

into treated areas to conduct critical tasks even during the REI. One potential requirement 

(ENTRY-03) would limit the amount of time an individual worker could spend in an area treated 

with a product that requires both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; 

see discussion on NOTIFY-01 and NOTIFY-02). Another option (ENTRY-04) would limit the 

time to eight hours. Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout 

this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early entry event is 
103

about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. Further, 

EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or ten percent, involve double 

notification products, i.e., those requiring both oral notification and physical posting. Thus, only

a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a 

product in any given year. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be 

involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers 

if the time limit is reached. This will involve some management burden, but the effect is not 

quantifiable.

The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both 

of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are 

needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely

negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 

reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, 

tasks that would not be of long duration on a small operation.

ENTRY-05. Early entry exceptions. Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by

administrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for 

agricultural emergencies. As suggested by farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA considered 

eliminating all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY-05). The impact of this requirement would be to 

expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address 

unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irrigation equipment. 

This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial. To characterize potential losses, EPA 

developed the following scenario: an establishment may face a problem, which might be 

addressed under current exceptions, on some proportion of its acreage, e.g., 25 percent. The 

inability to address the problem might contribute to yield or revenue loss of some amount on 

those acres, e.g., five percent. Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year, 

including family farms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to 

pesticide labels under the WPS. In this case, EPA calculates that 9.8 percent of farms have early

entry events that would lead to such losses, given the proportion of specialty crop farms, 

nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide-using farms and the assumption that there is an 

early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications.

Growers most at risk would be those producing specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables and 

those producing nursery and greenhouse crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive 

to water and other stress than are field crops. Farms at risk would include all farms using 

pesticides since the exemption to the REI extends to family farms only through the WPS. 

According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including 

government payments) was $50.5 billion for vegetables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and 

greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 2008b). From the special tabulation requested from NASS, 

there are nearly 200,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). 

Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $260,000 per year and a five percent 

loss would be around $13,000. Table 3.3-28 presents the calculation of per-establishment loss 

using these figures.
104

Table 3.3-28. Per-Establishment Unit Costs for ENTRY-05.

Action/Material value of 

production

affected 

acreage

likelihood cost

Five percent yield loss $13,024 25% 9.8% $320.00

Total $320.00

Source: EPA estimation. See text for derivation of numbers.

Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent 

likelihood of occurrence could be an overstatement. Under this scenario, the expected loss per 

establishment would be $320 per year, although if such an event were to occur, which would not 

happen every year, the loss to affected enterprise would be around $3,250, i.e., the five percent 

loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extrapolating to the national level indicates losses 

of $247 million per year.

ENTRY-06 and 07. Cholinesterase inhibition. EPA considered two approaches that could 

address the issue of handler exposure to cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. ENTRY-06 would 

establish a monitoring program while ENTRY-07 would simply impose a limit on the time 

handlers could work with these chemicals.

Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries facilitates a testing program to monitor 

pesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers who apply organophosphate and Nmethyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural employers are required to allow their employees to 

participate in the program, which involves a blood test to establish a baseline and follow-up tests 

for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The employee 

can decline to participate. ENTRY-06 would make the program mandatory in all states. If the 

handler’s cholinesterase levels drop, the handler would not be allowed to be exposed to such

pesticides until levels return to normal.

Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is used to establish both baseline and potential 

costs for a U.S. program. The calculation for a handler employed on a WPS farm in the 

Northwest is presented in Table 3.3-29. Washington reports that the voluntary program cost 

$115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses. Given 

that 2,024 handlers participated in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a 

per-handler cost of $55.14. Based on the description of how the program follows up with an 

examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e., those employed on 

farms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program. The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 

14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region.

The per-handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the handler’s 

time that is spent getting tested. Each participating handler must go to a medical center and 

submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily decline to participate. EPA assumes this takes 

about one and a half hours, on average, including travel and wait time. Washington reports that 

386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow-up 

testing for cholinesterase inhibition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in 

the program obtain follow-up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region. The data also 

show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow-up tests, which implies that they spend 
105

2.1 hours, including travel and wait time. As shown in Table 3.3-29, the expected cost per WPS 

handler in the Northwest region is estimated to be $13.32.

Table 3.3-29. Per-WPS Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY-07, Cholinesterase monitoring 

in NW.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Testing cost $ 55.14/handler 1 0.141 $ 7.76

Baseline blood test $ 20.83/hr 1.5 0.141 $ 4.40

Follow-up blood test $ 20.83/hr 2.07 0.027 $ 1.16

costr,NW,a

B

$ 13.32

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers 

working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA 

estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9.55

for WPS handlers and $9.40 for CPHE handlers. See Appendix A for details. The baseline cost 

in all other regions is zero.

To estimate national participation in a cholinesterase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates 

from the Washington program. We estimate, based on the number of large and large-small 

farms, that there are 4,415 WPS handlers in Washington state, which suggests that 45.8 percent 

of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be tested, and 

accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utilize pesticides each year. We further estimate 

that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would participate given the rate at which WPS handlers 

are involved and the fact that CPHE handlers work with pesticides every year. We assume that 

the participation rate in Washington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and 

carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variety of crops. Thus, the expected per-WPS handler 

cost of the national program is calculated as in Table 3.3-30, but with the probability of testing 

cost and baseline blood test of 0.458 and of follow-up blood tests of 0.087, or 19.1 percent of the 

baseline participation. Expected cost per WPS handlers is $43.36 and is $47.51 for CPHE 

handlers.

The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $15.2 million annually and 

would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $52.70 per year, on average, and 

would cost a CPHE an average of $123 per year.

In theory, a monitoring program would not be expected to affect the handlers’ ability to work. If 

inhibition were seen, a handler could still work with other classes of pesticides. Nor would a 

program necessarily affect the grower’s ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers 

would likely be available. In practice, however, finding another application job or another 

handler at a particular moment could be problematic. In 2007, only about one percent of 

participating Washington handlers showed cholinesterase inhibition sufficient to warrant 

removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely.
106

An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with 

cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY-07). The primary cost of this approach would 

be tracking the time handlers spend with such products. Data are not available for a precise 

estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the cost as follows. Each handler, including selfemployed handlers, would need to record his/her time following an activity using a ChI product, 

a task that would take perhaps two minutes. The employer would then need to document the 

accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take about three 

minutes per handler. ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes 

for WPS farms that they make up about 20 percent of applications, on average, and about 30 

percent of applications by CPHE handlers. Following the scenario for ChI monitoring, we 

calculate that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChI pesticides. Similarly, 51.0 percent of 

CPHE handlers work with ChI products . Given these assumptions, which may underestimate 

the extent of use of ChI products, EPA estimates the cost of tracking handlers’ time to be about 

$4.2 million annually. The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, 

but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides. CPHEs could face costs of around 

$80 per year because of the number of applications an individual handler makes. This does not 

include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time 

limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or she reaches the limit and 

alternative jobs are not available.

3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable 

adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling

pesticides or entering fields when exposure is still probable. The potential requirements in this 

category are intended to improve the use and efficacy of PPE. Costs to establishments are 

mostly in additional materials such as additional PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit 

testing. Additional time may be required for maintenance and record keeping. Some actions or 

material will be required of all WPS farms that hire handlers, because they are part of routine 

preparations. Other requirements may only be applicable when a pesticide application is actually 

made. Table 3.3-30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of 

PPE.
107

Table 3.3-30. PPE, Present Value of Costs 1.

Potential Requirement

NCP NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640

02 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions for CCA 

employees, WPS 52,052 52,047 5 0.5

03 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions for CCA 

employees, CCA 13,338 13,325 13 1

04 Revise closed-system 

standards 153,863 93,133 60,730 6,912

05 Contaminated PPE 

rendered unwearable 0 0 0 0

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

PPE-01. Respirator fit test and medical evaluation. Currently, employers are required to insure 

that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedures for doing so. Thus, in the 

baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some individual adjustments at the time 

of an application. The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA-like program of 

fit testing. Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because the requirement has been 

incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants. CPHE handlers are 

fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self-employed handlers.

The proposed requirement would bring users of respirators for handling pesticides on-farm under 

provisions similar to OSHA requirements, including that those using respirators are medically 

cleared for their use. The costs of this requirement would include the time required for handlers 

to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical screening. The actions and 

materials required are shown in Table 3.3-31. The medical screening consists of a health survey

that takes about 30 minutes to complete. The survey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a 

licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008). The Agency

assumes that, on average, one handler from large and large-small crop farms and one handler 

from large livestock farms growing crops will routinely obtain the fit test each year, implying 

about 60 percent of all handlers. This is probably an overestimate, but a number of widely used 

pesticides have respirator requirements and growers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is 

necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee. Data from OSHA (2004) indicate that about 23 

percent of those taking the medical screen will need a follow-up examination, which implies 

about 13.7 percent of all handlers. The examination is expected to take about two hours, 

including travel and wait time. The cost of the examination is $101, based on the average cost of 

an office visit to a general practitioner (Machlin and Carper, 2007). Once cleared, the handler 

takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time. 

The material for the fit test costs about a dollar (OSHA, 2004). As currently required, if the 

respirator is used, the employer must provide instructions on proper use. Actual respirator use is 
108

likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however. The expected cost-per WPS handler of the 

requirement is calculated to be $48.72, as shown in Table 3.3-31.

Table 3.3-31. Per-WPS Handler Costs for PPE-01, Respirator fit test.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Initial survey $20.83/hr 0.5 hour 0.595 $ 6.19

Medical evaluation $42.91/hr 5 min 0.595 $ 2.13

Time for follow-up exam $20.83/hr 2 hour 0.137 $ 5.70

Follow-up medical exam $101.00 1 0.137 $ 13.82

Time for fit test, with travel $20.83/hr 1.5 hour 0.595 $ 18.58

Fit test material $1.00 1 0.595 $ 0.59

Employer instructs on 

proper use

$28.21/hr 6 min 0.351 $ 0.99

Handler receives 

instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0.351 $ 0.73

costr,i,a

P

$ 48.74

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The cost per-CHPE handler is calculated to be $82.29, which is higher than for WPS farms due 

to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test. Since OSHA requirements 

already apply to commercial enterprises, this cost is incurred in the baseline as well as under the 

proposed requirement, resulting in no additional cost. However, the employer of the CPHE 

handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per year to collect and store documentation of the 

fit test and evaluation. The record keeping costs for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60 

per year.

EPA estimates that the incremental cost of this potential requirement would be about $10.6

million annually, with an average annual cost of $54.40 for WPS establishments that hire 

handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs. The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost.

PPE-02 and 03. Exceptions for Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs assist growers to plan 

production activities such as irrigation or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for 

soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically 

damaging levels. Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction 

of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. The proposed requirements would remove the 

exception for those working under CCAs employed by a farm (PPE-02) and/or under CCAs 

employed by a firm that contracts advisory services (PPE-03). The requirement would only 

apply to employees who are not certified. Without the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms 

would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be 

available under different provisions. Thus, the impacts of eliminating the exception will be 

negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, 

coveralls) on rare occasions.
109

PPE-04. Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements 

allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in 

which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. EPA is 

considering revising the standards that define a closed system under which such a substitution is 

permitted. The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and 

CHPEs. Some entities may not use closed systems now. Others may have a system that is 

already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those that are not in compliance, some 

establishments may purchase a new, compliant system while others will opt for use of PPE. In 

addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all system maintenance, something that is 

not currently required under federal regulations, but is required by California.

Given the variability in possible impacts, estimation of the cost of the potential requirement is 

difficult. In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms and 

50 percent of large family farms do not currently use a closed system. Instead, they utilize PPE 

and, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year. The other large and largesmall WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only replace one pair of personal 

filters each year. This probably overestimates the number of family farms using a closed system 

as family farms may be less likely to self-apply pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also 

assumes that about 20 percent of systems will require maintenance each year, entailing costs of 

$86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). The probability of an 

action is then modified by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides, 

which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of 

Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Table 3.3-32 presents the baseline calculations, showing EPA’s 

estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large and large-small WPS farms. The baseline cost 

for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year.

Table 3.3-32. Per-WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed 

systems.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.67 $ 12.11

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.13 $ 11.66

costr,i,a

B

$ 43.96

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The per-establishment cost for CPHEs is calculated in a similar manner, but we assume that 

CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two 

person CPHEs have one. Thus the current expected cost per CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and 

$35.27, respectively. Note that California systems are all in compliance with the potential 

definition of a closed system. However, state requirements do not include recordkeeping.

Table 3.3-33 presents the expected cost for large and large-small WPS farms to comply with the 

proposed standard. In addition to the 25 percent of farms not using a closed system, EPA 

assumes another 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms already have a system that 
110

would meet the potential requirement. As shown in the second and third lines of Table 3.3-33, 

these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct 

maintenance as needed. We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system, 

likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). Once in compliance, their filter and 

maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems. Finally, 25 percent 

of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a 

closed system. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all 

probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use 

pesticides in a given year.

Table 3.3-33. Per- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for 

closed systems, Year 1.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89

New Closed System $480.00 1 0.25 $ 121.23

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

File Maintenance Record $ 28.21 3 min 0.09 $ 0.04

Record and Folder $ 0.29 1 0.09 $ 0.03

costPPE,a

P

$ 177.52

Source: EPA estimation. Prices (Gempler’s, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA 

assumptions.

Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials. EPA 

assumes that slightly less than ten percent of all large and large-small WPS farms (20% of those 

with closed systems) will have a maintenance event to report. All establishments with closed 

systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in 

the file. As shown in Table 3.3-33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $178 in the 

first year for large and large-small WPS farms. In subsequent years, these farms will not need to 

purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $56.29, on average across all the affected 

WPS farms.

A similar approach was used to estimate an expected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and 

per CPHE of $221 to $442 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple 

handler enterprises, respectively. The differences in cost arise because of different assumptions 

about the use of closed systems on these establishments. For example, we assume that all 

CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed 

systems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems. In all cases, one third 

are assumed to have systems already in compliance, one-third would obtain a new system, and 

one-third would rely on PPE.
111

EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $32.5

million for the first year, assuming that all new closed systems are purchased immediately. Over 

ten years, using a three percent discount rate, the incremental cost is estimated at $60.7 million. 

Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about 

$4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,000, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 

million. This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $24.90, to family farms of $12.00,

and to CPHEs of $48.00. Note that the average impact per establishment includes those 

establishments unaffected by the change in standards.

PPE-05. Disposal of contaminated PPE. The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated 

PPE. The proposed revision would specify that contaminated PPE be rendered unwearable. The 

change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact.

3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of 

exposure to pesticides. EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define 

expected standards for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees 

to mitigate exposures if they occur. Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA 

characterizes some potential cost impacts. A summary of the results of the cost analysis of these 

potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3-34.

Table 3.3-34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1.

Potential Requirement

NCP NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0

02 Decontamination 

requirements, early entry 

events – workers 33 11 22 3

03 Decontamination requirements 

- handlers 434 434 0 0

04 Showers for handler 

decontamination 22,682,537 0 22,682,537 2,581,636

05 Emergency eyeflush - handlers 2,547 2,547 0 0

06 Eyewash station 121,999 2,547 119,452 13,596

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

SUPPLY-01. Quantity of water available for workers. A current WPS provision requires that 

“enough” water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing 

tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, 

supplemented the rule with policy that stated that one gallon per worker would be considered 

sufficient. This potential revision would make it explicit, in the regulations, that one gallon of 

water be available for each worker for routine decontamination. Given the policy manual, it is 

likely that all WPS farms are in compliance with the potential requirement such that the 
112

incremental cost will be zero. Water would likely be supplied from existing wells or delivery

systems; some sort of containers would be necessary to have water available in the field.

SUPPLY-02. Quantity of water available for early entry events. Similarly, for tasks in treated 

areas during an REI, the WPS requires “sufficient” water be available for decontamination and 

the “How to Comply” manual stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient. 

The proposed requirement would increase the amount of water needed to three gallons. 

Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs to 

be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in 

the activity. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. 

(NASS, 2010), a gallon would cost about $0.003. Given these assumptions, the incremental cost 

of increasing water availability is estimated to be $2,500 annually. This amounts to less than 

$0.01 per WPS farm per year.

SUPPLY-03. Quantity of water available for handler decontamination. Currently, the WPS 

requires that “enough” water be available for handlers to use for routine and emergency washing, 

including emergency eye-flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the 

rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient. This 

potential revision would codify the existing definition of ‘enough’ water for decontamination. 

The impact of this requirement would be negligible given the existing requirement and policy

manual. As noted in SUPPLY-01, water availability would not generally be a problem.

Supply-04. Provide showers for handler decontamination. This option would require all 

establishments with handlers to install showers for decontamination purposes. The impact of this 

requirement would be substantial. Based on an estimate from an architectural engineer, material 

and construction costs to install a shower with plumbing and utilities would cost about $105,000 

(Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007). Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars 

for construction. Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $2.6 billion per year and almost $12,000

per WPS farm. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. In practice, most 

WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all 

applications themselves or turn to CPHEs. The cost for current CPHEs to install showers could 

be as much as $2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand 

for pesticide applications. In the short term, EPA estimates that there are over 150,000 handlers 

employed on WPS establishments who could lose their jobs. Some would likely transfer to more 

general employment categories, possibly at some loss of wages. Others would likely find 

employment with CPHEs, for which demand would increase. Thus, the final number of jobs lost 

as a result of this potential requirement is uncertain.

There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement. For use in an 

emergency, a decontamination shower may only cost about $630, not including installation 

(Grainger, 2013). Such equipment is usually for indoor use and it is unclear whether it would be 

appropriate for mixing/loading sites on-farm. If the goal is to provide handlers, and potentially 

workers, with an opportunity to clean off any residues before returning home, an outdoor shower 

with privacy panels may suffice for small farms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013). Some 

farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the 

more substantial facilities described above, but annualized costs might be less than $1 billion.
113

SUPPLY-05 and 06. Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements 

specify that handlers should have at least one pint of water available when working with 

pesticides requiring protective eyewear. Potential requirements would require there to be a 

sustained flow of water. SUPPLY-05 would require that there be sufficient running water at all 

permanent mixing and loading sites to provide 1.5 liters per minute. There would be little or no 

impact to this requirement as permanent sites are likely to have running water for other purposes 

such as diluting concentrated pesticides.

An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would require a separate eyewash station. The average cost of a 

portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 2008; Gempler’s, 2008). Given the number of 

CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates 

the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $66.7 million. Assuming that annual 

maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annualized cost of this 

potential requirement is about $13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate.

3.3.9 Emergency Response

The time between an accident and the provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in 

mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticide. Current requirements require “prompt” action 

in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of information about the specific 

pesticide to which the individual was exposed. Terms such as “prompt” lack specificity, 

however; they do not provide employers with clear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is 

considering potential requirements that would more precisely define standards for emergency 

response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as 

explained below.

EMERG-01 and 02. Response for worker exposure. Potential requirements would define 

expected emergency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes 

(EMERG-01) or 30 minutes (EMERG-02). Estimation of a precise cost of this requirement is 

not possible as field conditions are highly variable. However, as this merely clarifies existing 

requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones 

suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement. The 

most difficult aspect of the requirement for field workers will be identifying the pesticide to 

which an individual is exposed. In an early entry situation, the problem may be assumed to be 

the most recent application. However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, 

especially if workers are exposed to pesticide drift from an application performed on a different 

farm. 

EMERG-03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Similarly, potential requirements would 

define expected emergency response time in case of handler exposure as either 60 minutes 

(EMERG-03) or 30 minutes (EMERG-04). Neither potential time frame is likely to result in 

measurable impacts. In particular, identification of the pesticide to which the individual is 

exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers.
114

This concludes the analysis of the cost of each requirement option. The following chapters 

discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subset of the options discussed in this section. 

Chapter 4 describes the cost-benefit analysis used by the Agency in selecting the requirements 

for proposal. Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal 

on employment and small businesses. Chapter 6 discusses the ultimate benefits of the proposed 

revisions in terms of improved human health that results from less pesticide exposure, both from 

reduced pesticide incidents and from lower day-to-day exposure.
115

Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements

EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that will provide benefits to workers and pesticide 

handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler 

establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessive costs to employers. Out of the potential 

requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the 

requirements the Agency is proposing.

Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements.

Identifier Title

INFORM: Training, Hazard Communication, and Notification

TRAIN-02 Immediate Training of Workers, with 2-Day Exception

TRAIN-03 Annual Training of Workers

TRAIN-06 Expand Worker Training

TRAIN-08 Increase Worker Trainer Qualification Standards

TRAIN-10 Keep Worker Training Records – 2 years

TRAIN-12 Annual Handler Training

TRAIN-14 Expand Handler Training

TRAIN-16 Keep Handler Training Records – 2 years

TRAIN-20 Require Employees Receive Verification of Training

HAZCOM-01 Application Information Available on Request

HAZCOM-02 Availability of Pesticide Label and SDS

HAZCOM-05 Keep Application Information – 2 years

NOTIFY-01 Post Warning Signs if REI Greater than 48 Hours for Outdoor Production

NOTIFY-03 Oral Notification if REI Less than 4 Hours (Greenhouse)

NOTIFY-06 Revise Warning Signs

NOTIFY-08 Define ‘Adjacent’ Worker Housing as within 100 Feet

NOTIFY-10 Oral Information for Entry into Restricted Areas

NOTIFY-12 Keep Records of Early Entry – 2 years

NOTIFY-14 Revise Basic Pesticide Safety Display

NOTIFY-15 Add Safety Display to Worker Decontamination Sites

NOTIFY-16 Add Safety Display to Handler Decontamination Sites

NOTIFY-18 Notification of Application by Commercial Applicators

PROTECT: Age, Entry, and PPE

AGE-01 Minimum Age of 16 for Early Entry

AGE-03 Minimum Age of 16 for Handlers

ENTRY-01 Expand Restricted Area

ENTRY-02 Halt Application in case of Entry into Restricted Area

ENTRY-03 Limit Early Entry Time during Agricultural Emergencies to 4 Hours

PPE-01 Require Respirator Fit Test

PPE-02 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for WPS Employees working under a CCA

PPE-03 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for Employees working under CCAs

PPE-04 Revise Closed-System Standards

PPE-05 Render Contaminated PPE Unusable
116

Identifier Title

MITIGATE: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Response

SUPPLY-01 Routine Worker Decontamination Requirements

SUPPLY-02 Decontamination Requirements for Early Entry Events

SUPPLY-03 Decontamination Requirements for Handlers

SUPPLY-05 Water Flow Requirements for Handler Eye Flushing

EMERG-01 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency

EMERG-03 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency

This chapter provides a comparison of the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in 

developing the proposed revisions to the WPS. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of 

different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or 

more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement. The 

emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of providing the 

agricultural workers and handlers with the highest level of protection practicable while 

minimizing economic impacts to agriculture, and small businesses in particular.

In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered 

the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory

development process (e.g., farmworkers and farmworker advocate organizations, growers and 

grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticide safety trainers, researchers, and other federal 

agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA). Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this 

document as they lie outside the scope of a cost-benefit analysis. Other relevant factors include, 

for example, equity considerations (e.g., potential distribution of costs) and concerns over the 

feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory experiences. A discussion of all 

these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule.

4.1 Training Options

The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training for workers and 

handlers. Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections. 

Insuring that workers and handlers have the information necessary so that they can take 

appropriate steps to protect themselves from pesticide exposure is more efficient than attempting 

to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise.

4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training

EPA is proposing to require that all workers receive complete pesticide safety training prior to 

their entry into a pesticide-treated area with limited exceptions that allow for a two-day grace 

period (TRAIN-02). Requiring employers to provide the complete training to workers before 

they enter a treated area would ensure that workers understand how to protect themselves when 

working in pesticide-treated fields. This is an especially critical issue for many temporary 

workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than 

five days on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fall into this category. 

These temporary workers may work on multiple farms, especially for harvest, and never receive 
117

complete training. Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substantial improvement in 

pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this proposal will ensure that about 13,000 more workers 

will receive full training before they enter previously treated areas. These changes should 

decrease the number of occupational pesticide-related illnesses because workers would be better 

informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area.

EPA estimates that TRAIN-02 will cost about $5.80 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an 

increase in the number of trainings conducted to account for workers who are hired at different 

times. The alternative, TRAIN-01 (no grace period), is estimated to cost $7.10 per year per 

WPS farm. In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also considers the fact the workers 

themselves may bear some of this cost since many workers hired at harvest are paid by the 

amount they pick rather than by the hour.

4.1.2 TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and 

handler training

EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN-03) and handler (TRAIN-12) pesticide safety 

training be valid for one year from the date of training, instead of five years. This means that 

employees would be retrained on an annual basis. To be effective, training must be repeated at 

appropriate intervals. Pesticide safety educators have noted that “repeating basic safety 

messages increases adoption of improved safety practices (Spradley, 2007).” Thus, retention of 

pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training. 

Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better 

than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their 

patients. Thus, while both alternatives would be an improvement over the current five year 

cycle, annual training is likely to provide substantially greater benefits than biennial training.

Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS 

farms an additional $22.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about 

$8.10 per year. For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17.00 per 

year per WPS farm and $66.70 per year for CPHEs. Costs for biennial handler training is 

estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year for WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively.

While the difference in costs between the annual and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA 

balanced the higher cost of annual training with the importance of more frequent training. As 

noted above, annual training will lead to better retention of the self-protective information by 

workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 

exposure and illness in workers and handlers. Moreover, training reinforces many of the other 

WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs.

The Agency also considered an alternative based on a comment from the SBAR panel. This 

option (TRAIN-05) would require annual retraining but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 

10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see 

Chapter 2.2.1). EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms 

(those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15.40 per year under TRAIN-03 to 
118

$12.40 per year. However, this alternative would mean about 82,000 workers would not receive 

training, possibly for several years.

4.1.3 TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and 

handler training

Expansion of pesticide safety training content is a key component of the overall WPS rule 

amendments and affects multiple areas of the proposed changes. A major goal of this expansion 

is to support changes in the hazard communication component in the revised WPS. The new 

training reinforces EPA’s strategy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic 

pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure 

risks while putting less emphasis on pesticide-specific information that could lead to 

complacency in some cases and excess concern in others.

EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pesticide safety training to include additional 

topics on how to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN-06) and 

handlers (TRAIN-14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed 

requirements for early entry notification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard 

communication materials, especially the SDS.

The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training by about 15 

minutes. The longer training sessions would cost an additional $11.00 per WPS farm per year

for worker training and an estimated $3.20 per WPS farm and $14.70 per CPHE per year for 

handler training.

EPA also considered alternatives that would have supported the use of crop sheets instead of 

SDS as the primary means of hazard communication. These alternatives (TRAIN-07 and 15) 

would be slightly more expensive since explaining the details of crop sheets would be more 

complex than explaining the SDS. The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this 

estimate, nor is the cost of printing and distributing copies; the latter two are captured in 

HAZCOM-07 and HAZCOM-04, respectively.

Generally speaking, the benefits of crop and chemical-specific information do not appear to 

justify the costs of development, distribution, and training. Crop sheets may confuse workers 

with complex pesticide information, possibly before any product is used. Providing such 

information could be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide 

safety messages.

4.1.4 TRAIN-08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards

EPA is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS-trained 

handlers (TRAIN-08), leaving training to those qualified to train certified applicators or those 

who have completed a “Train-the-Trainers” program. An alternative evaluated here is to limit 

training only to those who have completed a Train-the-Trainers program (TRAIN-09). As 

discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers 
119

may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to 

train. The unique characteristics and demographics of the farmworker population, especially 

language and literacy issues, implies that there are substantial benefits to having trainers that 

have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse population. These trainers, 

i.e., those completing the Train-the-Trainers program, have the ability to convey pesticide safety 

information, the knowledge of adult education principles, and the communication skills needed 

to reach low-literacy audiences. Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding 

and retention of pesticide safety training by workers. This improvement would increase the 

likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined in the pesticide safety training 

and reduce the potential for exposure to themselves and their family members. Trainers of 

certified applicators will have the technical knowledge, but may not have the skills to convey the 

information to a farmworker audience. The cost of both provisions is estimated to be about 

$2.80 per WPS farm. However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have 

completed a Train-the-Trainer program could lead to shortages of trainers, even though the 

provision will be delayed for two years.

4.1.5 TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17: Record keeping

EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN-10) and handler 

(TRAIN-16) employee training for two years. As explained in Chapter 2, these proposals may

benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that 

applicable requirements have been met. Keeping records for two years is expected to cost WPS 

farms about $4.10 per year for worker training and less than $1.00 for handler training. For 

CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the cost of handler training is about $3.00 per year. 

Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of 

training and about $0.80 more per CPHE than retaining records for two years. Information from 

regulatory agencies indicates that a two year time frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify

training through records retained by the employer, especially if training is to be conducted 

annually. Therefore EPA concludes that, if training occurs more frequently than is currently 

required, the longer, five-year retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the 

two-year period.

4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification

There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employers to use verification 

cards to identify workers and handlers who have been trained in accordance with the WPS. The 

purpose of the program has been, in part, to provide some means of verifying compliance with 

training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they

change employers, thus reducing duplicative training. In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems 

with the current voluntary program for training verification in which workers and handlers 

receive cards they can show to subsequent employers. Primary among the problems is that cards 

may be lost or stolen and are too small to contain all the information needed for adequate 

verification. These problems reduce employers’ ability to rely on the cards and, therefore, the 

ability of employees to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the 

voluntary program to justify the expenditure. Eliminating the program (TRAIN-18) is estimated, 
120

in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would 

accrue to EPA. Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) is estimated to cost about $641,000 

per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification 

(TRAIN-20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program.

However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the 

proposed requirements for annual training (Section 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of 

training and thus shortens the period over which the information must be verifiable. The 

information will thus be more reliable. The proposed record keeping requirements discussed in 

Section 4.1.5 would provide sufficient supporting documentation. EPA also notes that a majority

of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers who may move frequently from farm to farm at 

harvest as these workers are typically paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked. 

Thus, the time these workers spend in training – especially repeated training – reduces their 

wages.

Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program have the advantage of 

being easy for workers to carry. They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time 

required to fill them out individually. In addition to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training 

register as verification has the distinct advantage of providing subsequent employers with 

sufficient information for their records, while verification card of the sort typically used would 

not. If subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain 

all the information, they are unlikely to be willing to accept the cards as proof of training.

4.2 Hazard Communication Options

The WPS requires agricultural employers to post information on pesticide applications for 

workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, nursery, or greenhouse, known as “central 

posting.” The current requirement for central posting includes the display of the following 

information: location and description of treated areas, the pesticide product name, EPA pesticide 

registration number, the pesticide active ingredient name(s), the time and date the pesticide is to 

be applied, and the REI, specified in duration (e.g., hours or days). Posting is required for 30 

days following the expiration of the REI.

EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to workers and 

handlers in the event of an exposure and so they may learn about chemicals they might be 

exposed to in the workplace. However, there are several problems with the central posting 

requirement that impede its intended purpose. On large establishments, or those where growing 

areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where 

workers or handlers are working. Employers have informed the Agency that it can be difficult 

to make changes to the information prior to beginning the application and to ensure that the 

information remains current. Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to 

workers and handlers. 

4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information
121

EPA is proposing to require that employers make pesticide application hazard information, 

available to workers, handlers, and their representatives upon request (HAZCOM-01). At the 

same time, this revision would eliminate the requirement for the application records to be posted 

at a central location. In addition, the application information would add the start and end times 

of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI. The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 

million annually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 

percent of applications.

Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting worker and handler exposure to pesticides can best 

be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps that workers and handlers can take to protect 

themselves. Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and 

handlers rejecting the standard safety principles from the training, leading to increased potential 

for exposure. In addition, workers may not routinely pass the central posting area because their 

workplace is at a different part of the establishment. Thus, central posting is not necessarily an 

effective means to communicate with employees.

However, this detailed information would be important in the event a worker or handler is 

poisoned and needs medical attention, for example. It is the healthcare provider who most needs 

to know to what the patient is exposed in order to provide the proper treatment. The proposed 

change would continue to make available, at a designated location, pesticide application 

information for workers and handlers

4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication 

Materials 

EPA is proposing that the agricultural employer compile the SDS and the product label in 

addition to the current application record (HAZCOM-02). The cost of this requirement is 

estimated to be $13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3. One alternative would 

be to add only the pesticide label to the current information (HAZCOM-03), which would cost 

about $4.10 per year per WPS farm. These cost estimates are based on posting the information 

at a central location. A second alternative would be to require crop sheets (HAZCOM-04), 

estimated to cost $33.00 per year per WPS farm. This cost estimates is based on the distribution 

of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area.

As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed information on crop sheets may confuse workers with 

overly specific information about pesticide hazards, leading to complacency in some situations 

and inappropriate concern in others. A simple, consistent approach to safety, provided through 

frequent training, is likely to be more effective. Hazard information is particularly valuable in 

case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provide the bulk of this value. While the pesticide 

label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for 

safe use and handling. The SDS provides information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and 

on treatment.

4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention
122

As discussed above in TRAIN-10 and -11, recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of 

verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five years

(HAZCOM-06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM-05) ($8.40 vs. 

$7.60 per WPS farm), However, state agencies have indicated that a retention period of more 

than two years provides little or no additional benefit.

4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets

EPA considered requiring registrants to publish crop-specific hazard sheets along with the labels 

for all agricultural products. This requirement would support the alternative approach to hazard 

communication under HAZCOM-04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training 

under TRAIN-06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know 

how to interpret and use the crop sheets. As noted in the discussions above, however, it is not 

clear that this additional information provides substantial additional benefits. While this 

additional information is useful in certain circumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse 

workers with complex pesticide application information that would be counterproductive to 

providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages. EPA estimates this 

requirement would cost $25.3 million over three years, equivalent to $2.9 million annually for 

ten years. This cost does not include the cost of developing these sheets, which would likely be 

substantial as they would have to be location-specific.

4.3 Notification Options

In addition to the more general training and hazard communication requirements, the WPS also 

requires that specific information be provided in certain situations. This information is often 

necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that would put them at risk.

4.3.1 NOTIFY-01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production

The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about 

areas where an REI is in effect unless required by the product label to provide both oral and 

posted warnings. NOTIFY-01 would require posting if the REI is longer than 48 hours, at an 

estimated cost of $11.1 million per year, and NOTIFY-02 would require posting for REIs longer 

than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7.9 million per year. On a per-farm basis, estimated to 

cost are about $28.30 per year for NOTIFY-01 and about $20.10 per year for NOTIFY-02. A 

WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from 

NOTIFY-02 to NOTIFY-01 is approximately $1.40 per worker. 

Entry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor 

contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 

(Calvert et al., 2008). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of 

awareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI. Given the 

magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an individual worker of posting are likely to be high, 

including the marginal benefits of posting when REIs are between 48 and 72 hours.
123

4.3.2 NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production

The current rule requires posting of the warning sign for all applications in enclosed space 

production (greenhouses and enclosed nurseries). EPA proposes to relax this requirement and 

allow employers the options of oral or posted notification if the product applied has a REI of four

hours or less. This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would 

accrue to small businesses who can easily inform a few workers that a REI is in effect.

Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently

enter unposted treated areas. Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without 

increasing workers’ risk of exposure. 

4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification 

To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs 

shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered requiring that agricultural employers create 

and retain records of the oral warning provided, signed by the workers who received the 

notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY-04) or 5 years (NOTIFY-05). Given the frequency of 

pesticide applications, a large quantity of records would be required. As explained in Chapter 3, 

these provisions would cost about $20.2 to $20.5 million per year, respectively.

The addition of the proposed recordkeeping component for oral notification could encourage 

employers to ensure workers receive accurate information, which in turn could lead to fewer 

workers entering fields under a REI and fewer incidents of occupational exposure. EPA has 

insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncompliance with the existing 

requirements and that there would be high benefits associated with these alternatives. Posting 

for long REI (NOTIFY-01) and training (TRAIN-06) are likely to provide similar benefits at 

lower cost.

4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

EPA is proposing minor modifications to the current WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon 

as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase “Entry Restricted” in place of the blanket 

“Keep Out.” The cost is likely to be inconsequential, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be 

about $0.25 per WPS farm per year. 

EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones symbol, but more critically considered 

requiring the REI signs to include information on the pesticide used to treat the field. As a result, 

the cost of this option is estimated to be about $8.00 per year per WPS farm. As noted in 

Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on the REI warning sign is not likely to help the 

worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits.
124

4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

When the WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs must currently be placed where 

they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated 

area, or an area affording maximum visibility and when treated areas are adjacent to worker 

housing. EPA proposes to revise the WPS to specify that warning signs must be posted in a 

visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of a treated area 

(NOTIFY-08). This is a clarifying revision and EPA anticipates negligible impacts. It will 

largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations.

EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and 

every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this provision would 

cost about $660 per year per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typically preclude 

walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would 

substantially reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertently enter a field under REI. Posting in 

cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY-01) is likely to result in higher benefits.

4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry 

tasks

The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in 

effect except for cases of “limited contact,” “no-contact,” “short-term,” “irrigation,” or 

“agricultural emergency activities” as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112). The 

WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these 

exceptions with the label-required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed 

on the label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker 

exits the field. EPA is proposing that agricultural employers provide more detailed information 

to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI. This additional 

notification includes the type of contact permitted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with 

which workers must be provided. NOTIFY-10 would require that this information be provided 

orally and is estimated to cost $698,000 annually or about $1.80 per WPS farm. NOTIFY-11 

would require the information be provided both orally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 

million per year or $2.70 per WPS farm per year. 

Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide-related illness in 

workers (Calvert et al., 2008). Providing workers with more information about how to protect 

themselves from pesticide exposure would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of 

pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. Given the 

differences in language and frequent low English literacy rates among farmworkers, written 

information may not be useful and could distract workers from the oral information. 

4.3.7 NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks

Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verifying and insuring compliance will 

provide substantial benefits. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers to obtain the 
125

signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required 

information and keep this record on file for 2 years (NOTIFY-12). The estimated national cost 

for this requirement is $469,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average. 

Extending the retention period to five years (NOTIFY-13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm 

per year, but the longer period appears to provide no significant benefits. According to 

discussions with state agencies, a two-year timeframe is adequate for enforcement needs.

4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display

The WPS currently requires agricultural establishments to post a pesticide safety poster listing 

basic pesticide safety information. With NOTIFY-14, the Agency is proposing to augment the 

required content to provide additional medical information and emergency contact information,

including contact information for the state or tribal regulatory agency. This additional 

information will reinforce the safety training in aspects that are not part of routine activities, i.e., 

recognizing pesticide poisoning and knowing whom to call in case of a pesticide exposure 

incident. If there are any changes in contact information, posters must be updated promptly. It is 

critical that such information be readily available because workers and handlers are unlikely to 

retain emergency contact information if it is only presented orally. 

The incremental cost of NOTIFY-14 would be the time required to include this information on 

existing safety programs, which would be done by the WPS farm. The annualized cost is 

estimated to be about $108,000 or about $0.30 per WPS farm per year.

4.3.9 NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays

Currently, safety information must be displayed at a central location on the WPS farm, along 

with any application-specific information (see HAZCOM-01, Section 4.2.1). EPA proposes that 

employers maintain the central safety display and also display the information at 

decontamination sites. NOTIFY-15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses 

handler sites. The value of displaying the information in a main area through which workers will 

frequently pass is to reinforce pesticide training. However, it is also important that the 

information be displayed at sites where the information will be most useful, that is, along with 

decontamination supplies.

The cost of these requirements comes from the cost of new posters or displays and the labor to 

post them. On an annual basis, the cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is 

estimated to be $2.0 million or $5.10 per WPS farm. EPA anticipates that these requirements 

will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation. The smallest WPS farms, for example, 

with two or three workers may need only one safety display, and will incur costs below the 

average. The cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 

or $2.00 for WPS farms that employs handlers.

An alternative (NOTIFY-17) would be to require safety information to be posted along with REI

warning signs. Although the additional safety display would help to reinforce safety training 

because they would increase the number of times they were seen, there is no particular value to 
126

associating the displays with REI warnings as accidental exposure can occur in many situations, 

not just entry into a recently treated field. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option to 

be about $4.8 million annually, or around $12.10 per WPS farm, on average, or nearly double the 

cost of NOTIFY-15 and 16 combined.

4.3.10NOTIFY-18: Notification by commercial applicators

The WPS currently requires handler and worker employers to exchange information about 

pesticide applications before the application takes place and immediately upon any change, 

including minor changes in the start and end time of an application. EPA is proposing to codify

existing guidance regarding when information must be transmitted. For example, minor changes 

in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not affect the REI would not have to be reported. No 

costs are anticipated; benefits are mainly the resolution of regulatory uncertainty.

4.4 Age Requirement Options

The WPS does not currently establish age restrictions on workers or handlers covered by the 

regulation. This is problematic for two reasons. First, young people may be more susceptible to 

pesticides because their systems are still developing. Second, adolescents generally take more 

risks than do adults; they may not accurately gauge risks and they may discount the potential 

consequences of those risks. Minimum age requirements for certain activities could have 

substantial benefits, specifically workers performing tasks in fields during a REI and as pesticide 

handlers where exposure may be high.

Under the proposal, these age restrictions do not apply to persons covered by the immediate 

family exemption.

4.4.1 AGE-01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities

Early entry activities are allowed under certain situations, including agricultural emergencies

where, for example, a freeze is expected to cause damage to a crop. The fact that the REI has not 

expired indicates that there is heightened risk from exposure to pesticide residues. Precluding 

adolescents from these activities protects their more susceptible systems from this exposure. 

Reduced exposure can reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide-related 

illnesses, as well as protect them from chronic and developmental effects that may be associated 

with children’s exposure to pesticides.

EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for workers to engage in early entry 

activities (AGE-01), which is estimated to cost about $156,000 per year, or $0.40 per year per 

WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of employing adults at a higher wage rate for these 

activities. However, the cost of this provision is actually one of scheduling available workers 

rather than employing different workers. This option would potentially protect about 19,000

workers under the age of 16, and cost about $8.20 per adolescent. A second option, to establish a 

minimum age of 18 (AGE-01), is estimated to cost $723,000 per year, or $1.80 per year per WPS 
127

farm. This option would cover about 86,900 workers under the age of 18 at a cost of $8.30 per 

adolescent. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the two options is very similar.

Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 

exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in early entry activities under the EPA’s 

proposed option.

4.4.2 AGE-03 vs AGE-04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides

Similarly, EPA considered two options for a minimum age requirement for WPS handlers, AGE03, a prohibition on persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides and AGE-04, 

which limits WPS handling activities to individuals 18 years of age and older.

The benefits of an age restriction for handlers are similar to those for workers engaged in early

entry activities. Moreover, since handlers work directly with pesticides, there is greater potential 

for risks to themselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit persons younger than 16 from 

handling pesticides (AGE-03). EPA estimates that this restriction would protect more than 1,000

adolescents currently handling pesticides. The alternative, a minimum age of 18 (AGE-04), 

would protect about 4,800 adolescents, including around 200 adolescents working for CPHEs.

The total cost of the proposed minimum age is estimated to be $466,000 per year and would 

likely only cost WPS farms about $2.40 per year, on average. Given the small number of 

adolescents under 16 tasked with handling pesticides, the cost is about $460 per adolescent. The 

estimated cost of limiting handling to persons over 18 years of age is $3.1 million per year 

nationally. This would cost an average WPS establishment about $11.20 annually and a CPHE 

about $317 annually, although the latter estimate in particular is likely to be highly conservative

because of the number of hours adolescents are assumed to work. Considering that nearly 4,800

adolescents may be engaged in handling activities, the cost is about $630 per adolescent. The 

cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adolescent protected, is somewhat better for the proposed 

option. However, the estimate for the minimum age of 18 is heavily influenced by the 

assumptions about the number of hours worked by adolescents in CPHEs.

Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 

exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in handling activities under the EPA’s 

proposed option.

4.5 Entry Restriction Options

Existing entry restrictions are primarily aimed at protecting farm workers during and after 

pesticide applications. The goal of the revisions is to strengthen those protections.

4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas

While the WPS currently includes requirements for entry-restricted areas around the treated area 

during applications to nurseries and in greenhouses, there are no entry-restricted areas during 
128

applications on farms and forests. Currently, a worker on a farm may be assigned to work in an 

area immediately adjacent to the treated area where a pesticide application is taking place. Many

incidents of drift and off-target applications have resulted in reported worker illnesses. Drift is 

cited in a SENSOR-Pesticides/CDPR publications as the leading factor contributing to pesticide 

poisoning incidents reported among agricultural workers from 1998-2005 (Calvert et al., 2008).

Additionally, the current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to 

contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler.” However, the current regulatory language fails to provide 

handlers with a clear course of action if they observe a person, other than a trained and properly 

equipped handler, to be present in the entry-restricted area.

EPA proposes ENTRY-01, the establishment of entry-restricted areas during applications for 

farms and forests. Extending the protection of entry-restricted areas for all WPS-covered 

workers is a simple way to improve worker safety. A second revision, ENTRY-02, specifies that 

handlers must “cease application” if a non-handler enters the treated and entry-restricted areas. 

The revisions entail minor regulatory improvements and clarifications while resulting in 

potentially significant impacts on reducing incidents of worker exposure to drift. The cost 

estimated for restricting entry to perimeters adjacent to an area being treated is negligible, 

because workers can be reassigned temporarily while the application takes place.

4.5.2 ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities

As described above (Section 4.3.6), the WPS provides for exceptions to entry restrictions so that 

certain activities considered critical to successful agricultural production can take place during a 

REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions allow entry into an area under an REI for activities 

with limited contact with treated surfaces, irrigation activities, certain short-term activities, and 

activities associated with agricultural emergencies. The “limited contact” and irrigation 

exceptions allow workers to be in a treated area for up to eight hours but existing regulations do 

not establish a limit on the duration workers are allowed in the treated area for agricultural 

emergencies. Since length of exposure is a factor in the amount of residue a person may contact, 

limiting the time in the field effectively reduces the dose a worker may receive.

EPA considered two options. ENTRY-03 would impose a four-hour time limit in a 24-hour 

timeframe for an individual early entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while 

ENTRY-04 would impose an eight-hour time limit for the agricultural emergency exception if a 

product requiring double notification (both oral and posting) was utilized.

As explained in Section 3.3, neither option entails measurable costs, given the rarity that double 

notification products are used combined with the occurrence of an emergency, and the possibility

of rotating workers if the activity is longer than normal. Thus, ENTRY-03, which would provide 

some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY-04, is proposed.

Another option would simply be to eliminate the exceptions to the REI and avoid all associated 

exposures (ENTRY-05). Agricultural production is subject to many weather-related risks and 
129

problems cannot always be foreseen. EPA estimates that eliminating the exception to the REI

could cost almost $250 million annually in lost production.

4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition

EPA considered requiring a monitoring program for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers 

working regularly with certain organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. If a 

handler’s cholinesterase levels dropped below a set threshold, they would be restricted from 

further applications until their levels returned to normal. EPA estimates that a national program, 

modeled on the current program operating in Washington State, would cost about $95 per 

handler involved in the program, or $15.2 million annually. 

The Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarely drop below the threshold 

of concern; only one percent of participating handlers had cholinesterase depression at the trigger 

level in 2007 (Furman, 2007). A secondary benefit of the program, according to the Washington 

experience, is the identification of farms that may need to alter their pesticide application 

practices, identified by handlers showing some cholinesterase inhibition, but not sufficient to 

warrant removal from further handling tasks. Most recommendations stemming from 

Washington farm evaluations are for increased training and proper use of PPE. EPA is 

proposing significant expansions to the current WPS requirements to improve handler training 

and encourage the proper use of PPE on all agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. 

Together, the training and PPE proposals are expected to address pesticide exposure risks faced 

by all handlers, including the select population of handlers that are at risk for cholinesterase 

inhibition. The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected 

to prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem 

after the exposure has occurred.

EPA also considered restricting the number of hours handlers may work with OPs and N-methyl 

carbamates to no more than 30 hours over a 30-day period (ENTRY-07). This option is 

estimated to cost about $4.2 million annually. However, the benefits of the approach are highly 

uncertain. Data to establish a specific limit of this type of proposal are not available. 

4.6 PPE Options

Personal protective equipment (PPE) can be critical for reducing exposure by routes such as 

inhalation and dermal exposure. Pesticide product labels provide directions for the appropriate 

equipment and the situations in which it is required. Provisions in the WPS support the label 

directions by setting criteria to ensure that PPE is of good quality and is used appropriately. 

Potential revisions reflect the goal of enhancing protections for workers and handlers.

4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator 

PPE
130

Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, loading, and 

application. The current WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ respirators fit 

correctly and that the handler is trained to use it, but the regulation does not explicitly require fittesting. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assume that respirators fit. Respirators that do not 

fit properly may result in preventable handler exposure to pesticides.

EPA is proposing to incorporate OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing into WPS 

requirements. The proposal will establish a consistent approach for all employers to follow that 

will improve protection when a handler uses a pesticide product that requires a respirator. 

OSHA’s standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, includes a specific standard for fitting the respirator on the 

user, instruction on how to recognize when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to 

take if this occurs. There is also a requirement for the respirator user to be medically evaluated 

to ensure the handler is healthy enough to use a respirator. EPA estimates the annual cost to be 

about $82 per handler that obtains a fit test or $10.6 million per year. The average annual cost 

would be about $54.40 for WPS farms that hire handlers. CPHEs are assumed to follow OSHA 

guidelines currently, given the nature of the business.

Ensuring that respirators fit properly will increase their effectiveness, ultimately leading to a 

reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting 

under CCAs

The current PPE exemptions for employees working under the supervision of certified crop 

advisors (CCAs) may result in reduced safety due to informational gaps. Employees may be 

unaware of the risks posed by pesticides while the supervisor may be unaware of the level of 

contact the employee has with treated surfaces. This is different from the ability of the CCA to 

make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk and the revisions will retain the exemption 

for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and perform crop advising tasks during an REI. 

The Agency is proposing to eliminate the exemption for the employees of WPS farms (PPE-02) 

and employees of commercial CCAs (PPE-03) who are not certified but are working under a 

CCA. Such employees would be required to use the label specified PPE and have available 

decontamination supplies and emergency assistance would be provided in case of a suspected 

pesticide-related illness.

As discussed in Section 3.3.7, the costs associated with these revisions is likely negligible 

because PPE and decontamination supplies would already be available and because entry to 

perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for uncertified employees 

(Jones and Smith, 2006). 

4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions

The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified PPE when using a closed system for 

mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, however, does not provide specific criteria for 
131

an acceptable closed system. State enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the 

existing language is vague, impractical, and unenforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs 

may have inadequate systems resulting in inadvertent exposure of handlers and others in the 

area. The proposed revision, PPE-04, would establish specific criteria for closed systems that are 

enforceable ensure and ensure that a system is protective of handlers. The proposed standards 

are based on California criteria. Properly designed and employed closed systems afford superior 

protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment

EPA estimates the cost of this proposal to be equivalent to about $6.9 million per year, with 

average annualized costs of about $25 for large and large-small WPS farms (those making more 

than $100,000 in annual sales), $12 per year for large family farms (those making more than 

$750,000 in annual sales), and about $48 per year for CPHEs. The costs include the purchase of 

new systems by some firms or farms and some increase in costs for the more frequent utilization

of the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their systems. In terms of costeffectiveness, considering the number of handlers, including self-employed commercial handlers 

and handlers on family farms, the cost per handler of improved protection is about $20 per year. 

4.6.4 PPE-05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable 

The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properly. PPE 

can become contaminated with pesticides from routine use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose 

the wearer to those pesticide residues. EPA proposes to require that contaminated PPE, if it 

cannot be properly cleaned, be rendered unusable before disposal. This clarification is in 

response to concerns raised by State agencies that contaminated PPE may be reused if not 

destroyed.

This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary exposure resulting from the 

wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from 

overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are discarded in a trash bin, a person in need of 

additional clothing may find the discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment 

apart would make it less likely that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the 

pesticide residues. 

The cost is expected to be negligible. The employer must dispose of contaminated PPE under 

the existing requirements and there is expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer 

to render the PPE unusable. 

4.7 Decontamination Supply Options

On-site decontamination can be a critical first step in mitigating exposure to pesticides. The 

WPS and associated guidance specifies the materials that should be available.

4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: Decontamination supplies for workers
132

The WPS requires that water for decontamination be available for workers engaged in tasks in 

fields previously treated with pesticides, but does not specify the quantity of water that is 

necessary. Existing guidance indicates that one gallon per worker is enough for such routine 

situations. SUPPLY-01 would incorporate this guidance into the WPS to eliminate any

regulatory uncertainty. No cost is expected with this revision.

Currently, the same standard applies to workers engaged in activities in fields during a REI. 

Given the potential for higher levels of residue remaining on plant material, accidental contact 

(e.g., a worker slips and falls into foliage) could result in higher exposure than might occur in 

routine situations. SUPPLY-02 would increase the amount of water that must be available to 

three gallons per worker. In Chapter 3, EPA estimates the cost for the additional water would be 

less than $0.01 per WPS farm. Water is generally available at negligible pumping cost or from a 

water district while the benefits from potential mitigation of accidental exposure appear high in 

comparison.

4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers

Similar to the situation for workers, WPS requires water be available for handlers without 

specifying the quantity. Guidance indicates three gallons per handler is enough for routine 

washing, and emergency decontamination. SUPPLY-03 would incorporate this guidance to 

eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. As above, no cost is expected with this revision.

EPA considered adding a requirement for handler employers to provide shower facilities for 

handlers, SUPPLY-04. The benefits of this option are highly uncertain. Provisions for 

emergency decontamination, including eye rinsing, are already in place or proposed (see 

SUPPLY-05 below). Showering prior to going home would reduce the likelihood of transporting 

pesticide residues to the handler’s home, but it is questionable whether many employees would 

routinely utilize showers even if they were available. Representatives of agricultural employers 

on the SBREFA panel noted that in their experience, when showers are available that handlers 

opt not to use them. There are a number of reasons people may not avail themselves of shower 

facilities, including the need for a change of clothes or a simple preference for showering in the 

privacy of their own home. Some cultural beliefs and practices may factor into this decision not 

to utilize existing shower facilities (Arcury et al. 2001).

Requiring employers to provide showers would be costly; the estimated cost of building each 

shower facility is $105,000. Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for 

construction alone, with WPS farms bearing the vast majority of the burden. The cost for 

CPHEs to install showers would be about $2.5 billion. This estimate does not include the cost of 

maintenance. SBREFA panelists commented that if the shower option were to become a WPS 

requirement, many agricultural employers would avoid the high cost of compliance by choosing 

not to employ handlers on their establishment. If this were to occur, a requirement for shower 

facilities for handlers would cause employers to avoid hiring handlers and could lead to job loss 

of over 150,000 handlers in the agricultural industry. As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.9), this 

may not be direct job losses, but rather the loss of higher-paid positions. Less expensive options, 

such as simple outdoor showers with privacy screens, might be used. But such options are even 

less likely to be used by an employee than a more complete facility.
133

The additional training content for handlers that is proposed in TRAIN-14, including take-home 

exposure information to protect the children and families of workers, along with the proposed 

clarification to the eye-rinsing requirements in SUPPLY-05 were also considered in comparing 

the relative costs and benefits of requiring showers for handlers. These provisions can 

effectively achieve similar benefits at a lower cost.

4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing

The current rule requires employers to provide water to handlers for use in case of an ocular 

exposure to a pesticide when the pesticide label calls for eye protection. Stakeholders have 

indicated that, even with protective eyewear, handlers, particularly those mixing and loading 

pesticides, can be exposed from splashes that enter the eye. This can result in serious injury to 

the eye.

For similar ocular risks in industrial situations, OSHA establishes eyeflush requirements that 

specify the length of flushing and flow rate. EPA proposes, under SUPPLY-05, to adopt these 

requirements for establishments with permanent pesticide mixing sites. As discussed in Section 

3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no cost since these sites would typically have a 

source of water.

An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would be to require portable eyewash stations that could be moved 

to temporary sites, i.e., fields to be treated. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.2), however, 

there are some drawbacks to the use of portable stations. According to state field personnel, they

are difficult to maintain, especially to keep clean and of a temperature safe to use in the eye. It is 

also not clear that they are substantially more effective than the traditional water bottle in rinsing 

the eyes. Moreover, they are expensive. EPA estimates the cost to be about $13.6 million per 

year nationally, or over $55 per year per farm or CPHE. The stations cost about $280 

(Gempler’s, 2008) and EPA assumes that maintenance costs are ten percent of the purchase 

price. The cost estimate also assumes that the stations last ten years, which may overestimate 

their durability.

4.8 Emergency Assistance Options

The current WPS requires the agricultural or handler employee to provide “prompt” 

transportation to a health care facility in the event of a pesticide exposure emergency. The term 

“prompt” lacks specificity and any delay in seeking medical attention during an emergency may

endanger the exposed worker or handler. The time between an accident and receipt of medical 

care may be critical in treating a person with pesticide poisoning.

OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive medical treatment, clarifying the 

requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if the injury is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not 

life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). Based on the physical differences between a WPS 

establishment and typical industrial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow 
134

agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker 

and to provide transportation.

EPA proposes EMERG-01 and EMERG-03, which would require employers to begin transport 

for workers and handlers to a medical facility within thirty minutes of learning of an exposure. 

The employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable 

information, to the treating medical personnel (see HAZCOM-02). EPA also considered 

requiring agricultural and handler employers to provide transportation to workers and handlers 

within one hour in the event of an exposure emergency (EMERG-02 and 04). A shorter time 

frame is clearly preferable. Neither time frame is expected to impose measurable costs, 

particularly as cell phones become more readily available and service becomes more reliable.
135

Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the worker protection 

standards. EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed rule to be between $62.1 and 

$72.9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates 

for farms and farm labor estimated from a longer series of data that show slower declines over 

time (see Chapter 3), the cost of the proposed rule is to be $63.0 to $73.8 million per year. Using 

a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $61.2 and $73.6 million per 

year. The range of costs reflects the difference of a two year delay in the implementation of the 

proposed training and notification requirements versus immediate implementation. A major 

driver of the total cost is the large number of establishments that are covered by the WPS, nearly 

400,000 farms, not counting those eligible for the immediate family exemption, and over 40,000 

commercial pesticide application firms including self-employed commercial applicators. Given 

a three percent discount rate, the cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of 

$750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $340 and $400 per year. The incremental cost to 

small WPS farms is estimated to be between $130 and $150 per year. For small farms, the cost 

represents 0.1 percent of average annual sales. As noted in Chapter 1, the farms impacted by the 

WPS are those agricultural establishments, including crop farms, livestock operations with crop 

production, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides. The impact on family 

farms is limited to changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost less than 

$40 per year, on average, to approximately 9,000 farms out of about 500,000 family farms that 

use pesticides. Commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected by the 

WPS, with an annual incremental cost between $170 and $190, although self-employed 

commercial applicators will face costs of only about $80 per year. Forestry operations are also 

covered by WPS, but we lack the data on co-occurrence of pesticide use and covered activities 

(hand labor) on these establishments to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. 

Pesticide use in forestry operations is likely to be widely separated from worker activities in both 

time and space, with the exception of seedling nurseries.

These costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $25 to $30 per year per 

employee, not including self-employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family 

farms) who benefit from some of the revisions.

The national incremental costs presented in this chapter should be considered an upper bound for 

two reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impact of 

individual requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we 

have assumed that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, 

farms that do not need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide 

safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the 

farm throughout the growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify all workers of 

all applications at the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed 

temporarily for certain peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers 

will only need to notify those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications 

to specific fields) and can do at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated 

assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crops and all employees of 
136

those farms. In reality, most WPS requirements cover farmworkers who engage in hand labor 

activities associated with crop production.

A more realistic estimate would consider that much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and that 

workers are not involved in hand labor activities. For example, the primarily livestock 

operations that also produce crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like corn and soybean 

that are highly mechanized. Since they are not engaged in hand labor activities, employers and 

employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. Only the handler 

requirements would apply. They would be required to:

 Conduct handler pesticide safety training;

 Maintain records of pesticide applications;

 Provide handler pesticide safety training;

 Provide handler safety displays and decontamination supplies;

 Comply with minimum age requirements for pesticide handlers; and

 Comply with all PPE requirements.

However, farms without fieldworkers engaged in hand labor activities would not be required to:

 Conduct worker pesticide safety training;

 Provide worker pesticide safety displays;

 Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor

 Provide notification of REIs, either orally or by posting.

If we separate the 153,000 primarily livestock farms from the 242,000 primarily crop farms and 

their 1.8 million workers, and assume that only the latter represent the farms with hand labor 

activities, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to $59.2 million 

per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively 

conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requirements and includes many crop 

farms that will not be using hand labor in production.

A lower bound estimate would include the 157,000 farms producing field crops, such as grains, 

oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, in the same category as the predominantly livestock operations. 

Production of these crops is highly mechanized and such farms may have pesticide handlers, but 

not fieldworkers of the kind covered by the WPS. In this scenario, which assumes over 84,000 

farms with 1.3 million, fully covered, workers and 310,000 farms with handlers only, total 

incremental costs are estimated to be between $39.1 and $43.7 million annually. It is difficult to 

assess the extent of bias in this estimate. It maintains the conservative assumptions about the 

individual requirements, but many farms that mainly produce field crops will also produce fruit 

and vegetable crops that utilize hand labor. On the other hand, some farms that primarily

produce fruit and vegetable crops will also produce field crops and some portion of their work 

force may not be covered by the WPS. Further, within the covered farms we include nearly 

11,000 farms that primarily produce cotton and/or tobacco as our categorization of the data does 

not allow us to separate farms of these types. Cotton is highly mechanized, but tobacco 

production often entails hand labor activities, so we include them in the covered farms.

It should be noted that, as the scenarios focus on a subset of farms, the estimated per-farm 

impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ

more workers per farm than do livestock operations. If we consider the livestock operations to 

be ‘handler only’ farms, the impacts on them is much smaller, on average, than to crop farms. 
137

Large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $180 to $190 per year, on average, 

while the estimated average impact to small ‘handler only’ farms is less than $50 per year. Large 

crop farms, in contrast, are estimated to bear additional cost of $375 to $440 per year, on 

average, which is slightly higher than the range presented in this chapter. The estimated 

incremental cost to small crop farms is $140 to $160 per year, very close to that associated with 

the upper bound of the national incremental cost.

This chapter provides the costs of the suite of revisions to the WPS that were selected on the 

basis of the costs, estimated in Chapter 3, and benefits, described in Chapter 2, as well as other 

considerations explained in the NPRM. It does not provide costs of alternative packages of 

revisions as this would not contribute additional information to the decision-making process. 

The relative net benefits of the options for the individual requirements, discussed in Chapter 4,

are largely, although not entirely, independent of each other. For example, the relative net 

benefits of annual to biennial training (TRAIN-03 and 04, see Section 4.1.2) would not be 

substantially altered if paired with written information about a pesticide if entering a field under 

a REI (NOTIFY-11) instead of oral information (NOTIFY-10) (see Section 4.3.6). Pesticide 

safety training provides workers with generic information about potential effects of pesticides 

and how to reduce exposure, but people tend to forget such lessons over time. Providing specific 

information at the time of potential exposure makes the training lessons actionable, but merely 

making the specific information more tangible will not make two-year old generic lessons more 

memorable. Thus, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed package of selected 

revisions to alternative packages of the rejected options would be redundant.

To formalize this mathematically, let the net benefits of Option A be designated NB(A). Then, if

NB(A) > NB(B) for Component 1, and

NB(C) > NB(D) for Component 2, then

NB(A & C) > NB(B & D) or any other combination for the two components.

Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, that is, the option of making no 

changes to existing requirements.

This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 explains the methodology used to estimate the 

cost of the proposed revisions. Section 5.2 presents the estimation where Section 5.2.1 addresses 

the proposed training component, Section 5.2.2 presents the costs of the proposed hazard 

communication and notification components, Section 5.2.3 summarizes the cost of proposed 

minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements, and Section 5.2.4 addresses the 

proposed decontamination supply and emergency response requirements. Section 5.2.5 sums up 

the components and presents the total estimated cost of the proposed rule. Section 5.3 then 

discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section 5.4 presents the analysis of small 

business impacts.

5.1 General Methodology
138

The most straightforward approach to estimating the cost of the proposed rule is to sum the costs 

of the individual regulations contained therein. While largely independent of each other, the cost 

of a suite of regulations is not necessarily the sum of the costs of individual regulations, 

however. In some cases, there is duplication as, for example, in the documentation of 

application information. Agricultural employers are required to have the information available 

for employees and to retain the information in their records, but the same document can be used 

for both purposes. For these cases, EPA identifies the duplication and subtracts those costs from 

the total.

In other cases, there is overlap without complete duplication as, for example, when one 

regulation requires additional content on a sign, which increases the material cost, and another 

regulation requires more frequent use of signs. These cases require a more complicated 

adjustment in which common costs are subtracted (e.g., the cost for the lower number of signs), 

but additional costs must be included (e.g., the higher cost of the signs). In the case of worker 

and handler training, the interactions between increased frequency and increased content 

(duration) are particularly complex and the simplest approach is to re-estimate the incremental 

costs for a subset of the regulations before summing them with the other regulations.

That said, the simple sum of the proposed revisions is $65.1 million dollars, which is within the 

estimated range of the total cost.

The general methodology for estimating the cost of a suite of individual requirements is similar 

to that for the potential requirements. We begin by estimating the cost per actor of the suite of 

requirements by summing over the regulations included in the regulatory option and adjusting 

for any common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this 

is done for the proposed requirements and for the baseline accounting for state requirements that 

may be more stringent than the current federal standard. Actors, again, are the various 

establishments, i.e., farms and commercial pesticide handling establishments, and their 

employees.

Step 1. Calculate the expected cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements 

within a protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs.

,a





= ,a







+⁄−a

∙ ,a,





∙ Prob()



+  ∙ ,a,





∙ Prob()





∈

where costR,a

X

t is the expected annual cost for the proposed requirements in protective category R 

= training, notification, age, entry, PPE, emergency preparedness, and decontamination supply. 

All other variables are as previously identified. The superscript X designates P, proposed, and B, 

baseline, and sr indicates that the activity or material required in regulation s is also an element 

in regulation r, which duplicates or adds to the costs in r. Duplicate costs arise when different 

regulations require the same activity or material, e.g., a document or a sign. Additional costs 

arise if different regulations increase costs in different ways, e.g., requiring more information in 

one regulation and more frequent dissemination in another.
139

Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted

per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors.

,





= ,a





× a,



a

for X = P and B. National level compliance costs may be estimated by summing across regions.





 = ,







Step 3. Calculate the present value (PV) of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. As with 

the individual requirements, we use a ten-year time horizon.

,



 = 

,





(1 + )







Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs.

, = ,



 − ,





National incremental cost, PV(NICR), is calculated the same way.

Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

 = () ×

 ∙ (1 + )



(1 + )

 − 1

where AICR is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 

previously defined.

Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule.

(

) = ,



Again, this is done for national level cost, as well as for annualized costs.

Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 

number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 

entity.
140

,

 = ,

 × ,

a

where ECR,e

X

is entity cost, Na,e is the number of actors per entity, and other variables are as 

previously defined. An entity is an establishment, primarily a WPS farm, of a certain size 

category, based on SBA criteria. The actors within an entity include the establishment and the 

workers, by type, in its employ. We then calculate the PV of costs over a ten-year time horizon, 

assuming that the number of workers will not change for a specific entity. Finally, we annualize 

the NPV to arrive at a cost per year. This has the effect of spreading the cost of any required 

investments across the time horizon as a business would in making a capital investment.

Step 8. Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline 

regulations and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective 

categories.



 = , − ,



For the purpose of the per-entity analysis, EPA requested a special tabulation from the 2007 

Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obtained information on the average number of 

workers employed by various types and sizes of operations. Size is based on annual revenues, 

where a small farm makes less than $750,000 in gross sales and a small feedlot makes less than 

$2.5 million in gross sales. This corresponds to the SBA definition of small business for the 

agricultural sector (SBA, 2008). Table 5.1-1 presents the characteristics used for the per-entity

analysis.

Table 5.1-1. Average Number of Workers and Handlers per WPS Farm by Farm Size.

Farm Size 1 Annual Revenue Workers Handlers

Large ≥ $750,000 20.0 2

Small < $750,000 3.6 0.41

Large-Small ≥ $100,000 and < $750,000 4.7 1

Medium-Small ≥ $10,000 and < $100,000 3.2 0

Small-Small < $10,000 2.5 0

1

Feedlots are considered large if annual revenue is more than $2.5 million. EPA divides small feedlots 

into large-small entities with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million, medium-small 

entities with annual revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and small-small entities with annual 

revenue less than $50,000.

Large WPS farms employ a substantially greater number of workers than do small farms. This 

distinction holds for nearly all types of farms, except for farms producing oilseeds and grains 

where even large farms employ, on average, fewer than five workers. Greenhouses employ the 

largest number of workers. Vegetable, fruit, and nut producers and nurseries also employ a large 

number of workers, although some are likely temporary workers employed at harvest or for 

certain seasons. Temporary workers also likely explain how small-small farms, with annual 

sales of less than $10,000, still employ between two and three workers, on average. Certain 
141

provisions, especially the notification requirements, only apply if the worker is on the 

establishment during application, REI, or within 30 days of expiration of the REI.

EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pesticides, but assume that large 

farms employ two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Throughout 

this analysis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on average, 20 pesticide applications per 

year. Most, but not all, would occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that 

applications are made slightly less than once per week, on average. It seems reasonable that one 

or two handlers could make or assist in this number of applications, especially as the employer is 

likely to be an applicator and as commercial applicators are likely to be hired for applications of 

some of the more hazardous pesticides such as soil fumigants.

5.2 Cost Estimation

This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We begin with a fairly 

detailed presentation of the estimation of the training component. The results of other 

components are presented in more summary fashion. Details of the estimation can be found in 

Appendix B.

5.2.1 Training Component

As an example, we explain the estimation of costs associated with training requirements in some 

detail.

The proposed changes to the training requirements consist of several options pertaining to 

worker training: TRAIN-02, Elimination of the grace period before training with exceptions; 

TRAIN-03, Annual worker training; TRAIN-06, Expanded worker training content (increased 

duration of 15 minutes); TRAIN-08, Stricter requirements for worker trainers; and TRAIN-10, 

Record keeping for two years. It also includes several options pertaining to handler training: 

TRAIN-12, Annual handler training; TRAIN-14, Expanded handler training content (increased 

duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN-16, Record keeping for two years. EPA is also proposing 

to require employers to provide verification of training, i.e., a copy of the training register, to 

their employees, TRAIN-20.

Step 1. Calculate the cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a 

protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs.

,a





= ,a







+⁄−a

∙ ,a,





∙ Prob()



+  ∙ ,a,





∙ Prob()





∈

for X = proposed and baseline.

Table 5.2-1 presents the baseline unit costs for establishments for the proposed training 

regulations for all regions except California. To better understand the distribution of impacts 
142

across farms, we modify the baseline for TRAIN-03, Annual Training, along the lines of that 

shown in Appendix A, Table A.1.a-21. Otherwise, there are clearly common baselines for the 

differing worker training and handler training elements. The proposed requirements merely 

extend current practices in different ways, e.g., in the content, which determines the duration of 

the training, and in the frequency with which workers are trained. TRAIN-02, 03, 06, and 08 all 

represent the same baseline for WPS establishments, which entail the provision of worker 

training. Thus, the baseline costs for the last three proposed requirements are subtracted from 

the total. Similarly, TRAIN-12 and 14 represent the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide 

handlers and the cost of TRAIN-14 is simply subtracted from the total.

Table 5.2-1. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

(WPS Farms), Year 1

Requirement Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

Other Small 

WPS Farms

CPHE

TRAIN-02 15.29 15.29 15.29 0.00

TRAIN-03 36.15 11.97 11.97 0.00

TRAIN-06 15.29 15.29 15.29 0.00

TRAIN-08 15.29 15.29 15.29 0.00

TRAIN-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN-14 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sum 106.06 69.10 57.84 48.18

Duplicate Costs

TRAIN-02, 06, 08

duplicate TRAIN-03

45.87 45.87 45.87 0.00

TRAIN-14 duplicate 

of TRAIN-12

12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

costTRAIN,a

B

48.17 17.60 11.97 24.09

costTRAIN,a

B

Cal 81.14 35.71 17.95 44.70

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The last row of Table 5.2-1 presents the total for the California baseline. California already 

requires an extended training for both workers and handlers, hence the baseline is based on the 

cost of proposed requirements. California also requires records to be kept for handler training. 

See Appendix B.1.

Table 5.2-2 presents the baseline costs pertaining to WPS and CPHE employees. For simplicity, 

we present the common baseline for multiple requirements, rather than repeat them. The main 

difference between regions is participation in the voluntary training verification program 

(TRAIN-18) and the extended training required in California.

Table 5.2-2. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

(Employees)
143

Requirement WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler

South, Southwest

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.53 0.35 0.37

costTRAIN,a

B

3.92 5.48 5.32

California

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 5.04 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN-20 0.53 1.08 1.13

costTRAIN,a

B

5.56 22.46 21.80

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.26 0.26 0.28

costTRAIN,a

B

3.66 5.39 5.22

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00

costTRAIN,a

B

3.40 5.12 4.94

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The same process applies to the cost of complying with the proposed regulations, although for 

ease, EPA firsts re-estimates the per-actor cost for worker training, covered by TRAIN-02, 03, 

06, and 08, and for handler training covered by TRAIN-12 and 14. The proposed worker 

training requirements include immediate training with limited exceptions, annual training, 

increased training content (duration), and heightened standard for trainers. Because of the 

requirement for annual training and reduced flexibility to delay the training of newly hired 

employees, EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct an average of 3.3 trainings per 

year, in lieu of 2.4 sessions in the baseline, and a small WPS farm will conduct an average of 

1.21 trainings per year, up from 0.8 sessions in the baseline. As for TRAIN-08 individually, 

EPA assumes that 85 percent of worker trainings will be conducted by a trainer of handlers and 

15 percent by people who have completed a Train-the-Trainer program. These percentages are 

multiplied by the average number of trainings per year to obtain the annual frequency or 

probability that a given training will be conducted by one of the two required trainers. The perfarm cost for the revised worker training is estimated to be about $95 per year for large farms 

and $34 per year for small farms (Table 5.2-3). Record keeping costs, TRAIN-10, are similarly 

adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm sizes.
144

Table 5.2-3. Per-WPS farm Costs for proposed worker training requirements.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Large WPS Farm

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 2.827 $ 80.31

Training by Train-theTrainer$37.87/hr 45 min 0.499 $ 14.17

costTRAIN,a

P

$ 94.48

Small WPS Farm

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 1.028 $ 29.19

Training by Train-theTrainer$37.87/hr 45 min 0.181 $ 5.15

costTRAIN,a

P

$ 34.34

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The per-worker unit cost is similarly estimated to be $9.43, as shown in Table 5.2-4. 

Considering the expanded content and annual training requirement, workers will spend 45 

minutes of time in training every year. EPA estimates that 90.3 percent of workers will be 

trained each year, accounting for returning handlers and those who fall under the exception to 

immediate training and leave employment after two days or less. In addition, EPA assumes that 

about five percent of workers will fall under the exception, although most will receive full 

training within a couple of days. Those not immediately trained will receive written and oral 

safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis.

Table 5.2-4. Per-worker Costs for proposed worker training requirements.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 45 min 0.903 9.09

Receive Safety Information 

(delayed training) $13.43/hr 10 min 0.048 0.11

Provide Safety Information $28.21/hr 10 min 0.048 0.23

Written Information 0.09/page 1 page 0.048 0.00

costTRAIN,a

P

$ 9.43

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Similarly, the combined handler training revisions increase the content and frequency of the 

trainings. The combined costs are shown in Table 5.2-5 for WPS farms, depending on size. As 

noted in Chapter 3.3, the training cost borne by the establishment will depend on the number of 

handlers employed. The probability that a WPS farm holds a training session will increase in 

comparison to the baseline, but there will be some sharing of resources. Thus, EPA assumes that 

there will be four handler trainings for every five large WPS farms and one handler training for 

every two large-small WPS farms. The annual frequency of training is then weighted by the 

probability the training is led by a particular category of trainer, which is unchanged from the 

baseline.
145

Table 5.2-5. Per-Establishment Costs for proposed handler training.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Large WPS Establishments

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.112 $ 4.24

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.080 $ 3.03

Training by Certified 

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.608 $17.15

costr,a

P

$24.43

Large-small Establishments

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.070 $ 2.65

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.050 $ 1.89

Training by Certified 

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.380 $ 10.72

costr,a

P

$ 15.27

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The combined effect of the handler training will result in per-firm costs of $41.75 for CPHEs, 

assuming the firms conduct 1.3 trainings per year, on average. The per-handler unit costs are 

estimated to be $20.83 for WPS handlers and $20.10 for CPHE handlers, which is simply the 

wage for one hour spent in training.

Table 5.2-6 presents the per-establishment unit costs and their sum, given the new unit costs 

estimated for the combined worker training requirements and the combined handler training 

requirements.

Table 5.2-6. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

(Establishments)

Regulation Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

Other Small 

WPS Farms

CPHE

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 94.48 34.34 34.34 0.00

TRAIN-10 11.45 4.29 4.29 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 24.43 15.27 0.00 41.75

TRAIN-16 2.49 2.49 0.00 2.65

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

costTRAIN,a

P

132.84 56.38 38.63 44.40

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Finally, Table 5.2-7 presents the compliance costs per employee for the proposed requirements. 

Compared to the individual requirements, higher costs for record keeping arise because more 

frequent trainings are required by TRAIN-03 for workers and TRAIN-10 for handlers.
146

Table 5.2-7. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

(Employees)

Regulation WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 9.43 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-10 0.13 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN-20 0.37 0.34 0.36

costTRAIN,a

P

9.93 21.73 21.03

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

These estimates are for immediate implementation of all requirements. Some elements will be 

delayed to allow for the development of new training material and so that sufficient qualified 

trainers can be trained. For simplicity, rather than develop estimates for each year during the 

implementation period that account for all interactions, we evaluate the costs given immediate 

implementation of all requirements and then given a two-year delay in the implementation of all 

requirements. The true estimate will lie in between these bounds.

These estimates also assume that all WPS farms provide workers with training whether or not a 

pesticide application is made. That is, EPA assumes that WPS farms find it more cost-effective 

to prepare workers in advance rather than attempt to bring everyone into compliance at the 

moment a pesticide application is made. As a sensitivity analysis, we consider two alternative 

scenarios. In the first, the WPS farm, as a cost-minimizing agent, will delay training until a 

pesticide application is necessary, thus saving the cost of training if pesticides are not needed 

during the year. This involves adjusting the probabilities used to estimate the expected cost to 

account for the farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. In the second alternative, we 

assume that WPS farms could delay training in the baseline, but that under the proposal, 

especially the stricter requirements for immediate training and on trainer qualifications, delaying 

training may prove costly because workers cannot be brought into compliance with sufficient 

speed. Under this scenario, only the probabilities in the baseline are adjusted to account for 

farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. As explained later, the cost estimates are 

similar across these three scenarios.

Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted

per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors.

,





= ,a





× a,



a

for X = P and B. 

Table 5.2-8 presents this calculation for the baseline. Costs per actor are given in the row 

immediately below the region(s) followed by the number of actors in each region. The sum of 

the products is given in the right-hand column. EPA estimates that, nationally, current 

regulations cost about $18.3 million annually. If training is provided only if a WPS farm uses 

pesticides, the national cost is estimated to be $15.7 million annually.
147

Table 5.2-8. Regional Baseline Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only)

Region

Large 

WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall 

WPS 

Farm

Other 

Small 

WPS 

Farms

CPHE WPS 

Worker

WPS 

Handler

CPHE 

Handler

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

South, Southwest

costTRAIN,a

B

$48.17 $17.60 $11.97 $24.09 $ 3.92 $ 5.48 $ 5.32

Na,South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $2,414

Na,Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 597

California

costTRAIN,a

B

$81.14 $35.71 $17.95 $44.70 $ 5.56 $22.46 $21.80

Na,California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $3,378

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

costTRAIN,a

B

$48.17 $17.60 $11.97 $24.09 $ 3.66 $ 5.39 $ 5.22

Na,Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 632

Na,Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $1,943

Na,Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1,786

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

costTRAIN,a

B

$48.17 $17.60 $11.97 $24.09 $ 3.40 $ 5.12 $ 4.94

Na,Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $2,947

Na,Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3,253

Na,Texas 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $1,725

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $18,675

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 5.2-9 presents the estimates of regional costs under the proposed training regulations. 

Summing the per-farm/firm and per-employee costs results in an estimate of $50.9 million 

dollars for the first year, assuming full implementation and all WPS farms conducting training. 

If WPS farms can delay training until necessitated by a pesticide application, the cost is 

estimated to be $43.4 million.
148

Table 5.2-9. Regulatory Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only)

Large 

WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall 

WPS 

Farm

Other 

Small 

WPS 

Farms

CPHE WPS 

Worker

WPS 

Handler

CPHE 

Handler

UCo

P

a $132.84 $56.38 $38.63 $44.40 $9.93 $21.73 $21.03 RCoi

P

t=1

Region N ($1,000) i at

South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $6,997

California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $5,700

Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $1,702

Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $1,824

Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $9,203

Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $5,723

Ohio 

Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $10,135

Texas/Mt 

West 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $5,375

Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $5,101

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $51,761

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Step 3. Calculate the PV of regional costs for the baseline and proposal.

,



 = 

,





(1 + )







Costs may vary over time because a few requirements will not be implemented immediately. As 

noted above, for simplicity we estimate upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes 

all requirements are implemented immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are 

delayed two years. Further, the number of entities and workers is expected to change over time, 

as discussed in Chapter 3.3.2.

Table 5.2-10 presents the PV of regional costs for the baselines and for compliance with the 

proposed package of training regulations. Over ten years, the PV of the national cost in the 

baseline is estimated to be about $153 million and the estimate for the proposed requirements is 

$425 million.
149

Table 5.2-10. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN 

only)

Region PV(RCo

P

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo i) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 58,725 20,185 38,540 4,386

California 46,821 27,828 18,993 2,162

Southwest 14,215 4,968 9,247 1,052

Subtropical 15,075 5,208 9,867 1,123

Midwest 77,592 24,823 52,769 6,006

Northeast 47,711 16,153 31,557 3,592

Ohio Valley 85,315 27,353 57,962 6,597

Texas/Mountain West 45,254 14,506 30,749 3,500

Northwest 41,943 14,651 27,292 3,106

National 432,652 155,675 276,976 31,524

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs.

, = ,



 − ,





The final two columns of Table 5.2-10 present the expected regional level incremental costs, i.e., 

the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs for the training 

components. Regional costs range from a low of $9.2 million over 10 years for the Southwest, 

which consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 

Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes, to a high of $58.0 million in the 

Ohio Valley, consisting of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin. The primary reason for the regional variation is the differing number of farm and 

commercial pesticide operations and differing numbers of agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers. The exception is California, which incurs relatively low incremental costs because its 

training standards are higher than current federal requirements.

Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

 = () ×

 ∙ (1 + )



(1 + )

 − 1

where AICR is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 

previously defined.

The right-hand column of Table 5.2-10 shows regional and national annualized incremental 

costs. For the training requirements, the proposed regulations are expected to cost the 

agricultural industry between $24.1 and $31.5 million annually, given a 3% discount rate. The 

range stems from the implementation schedule, where some requirements will be phased in over 

two years. For reference, the sum of the incremental costs estimated in Chapter 3 is $22.2 

million per year.
150

The assumption that all WPS farms conduct training before determining that a pesticide 

application is necessary does not have a major effect on the estimated cost of the proposed 

revisions. If WPS farms only conduct training when necessary, the incremental cost is estimated 

to be between $20.5 and $26.7 million, given that some requirements will be phased in over two 

years. If WPS farms are currently able to wait until a pesticide application is needed but will not 

risk delays under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $26.7 and $34.1 million 

per year. The ranges of cost under alternative assumptions overlap the range of EPA’s best 

estimate.

Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule.

(

) = ,



This step will be done after estimating the costs of the proposed requirements in the other 

categories.

Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 

number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 

entity.

,

 = ,

 × ,

a

Initially, we will simply examine regional variation in cost-per-entity for farms in general, 

distinguishing between large and small farms. Large farms are defined as those with annual 

sales of more than $750,000 or feedlots with annual sales of more than $2.5 million. In Section 

5.4, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely.

Step 8. We calculate the PV of per-entity costs before taking the difference between the baseline 

and proposed scenarios to determine the incremental cost per farm or firm. There are no data to 

indicate whether the number of employees per farm is changing over time and we assume it is 

constant for an individual farm. Large farms are assumed to employ two handlers and, according 

to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), large farms employ 20.0 workers, 

on average. Small farms employ 3.6 workers, on average (NASS, 2008b). Small farms also 

employ an average of 0.41 handlers, based on the assumption that large-small farms employ one 

and other small farms employ none.

Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline regulations 

and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective categories.





 = ,



 − ,






151

Table 5.2-11 presents the annualized per-entity costs associated with the training requirements

for the average large WPS farm, with 20 workers, and the average small farm, with 3.6 workers. 

California is the only region that varies significantly from the other regions. The incremental 

cost per establishment, assuming immediate implementation, is shown in the final column. If all 

requirements were delayed two years, the annualized incremental costs would be about $200 per 

year for large farms and $55 for small farms. The annualized cost to CHPEs would be around 

$84.

Table 5.2-11. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

(TRAIN only)

Farm size/Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

California 375 237 137

All Other Regions 375 132 243

SMALL WPS FARMS

California 91 55 36

All Other Regions 91 30 61

CPHE 173 63 110

Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate.

5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components

The rule changes that EPA is proposing include several requirements designed to improve 

information exchange (hazard communication and notification) to employees and between WPS 

farms and CPHEs. Proposed hazard communication requirements include making application 

information available (HAZCOM-01), augmenting the application information with copies of the 

label and SDS (HAZCOM-02), and maintaining a record of the information for two years 

(HAZCOM-05). General notification requirements are: NOTIFY-01, Post field warning signs 

if the REI is greater than 48 hours, NOTIFY-03, Allow oral notification of greenhouse workers if 

the REI is four hours or less, NOTIFY-06, Revise the content on warning signs (phased-in over 

two years to allow farms to replace existing warning signs), and NOTIFY-08, specify that 

warning signs must be posted if the treated field is within 100 feet of worker housing. For 

workers entering fields during the REI, revisions include NOTIFY-10, Provide additional 

information about the pesticide orally, and NOTIFY-12, Keep records of information provided 

for two years. EPA is proposing to revise the content of safety posters, NOTIFY-14, which will 

be phased in over two years. EPA is also proposing to require additional safety posters: 

NOTIFY-15, additional safety poster at worker decontamination location and, in NOTIFY-16, at 

handler decontamination locations. Finally, EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to 

when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm employer with information about a pesticide 

application, NOTIFY-18.

These two components can be addressed separately because there are no overlapping 

requirements between the two or between the training requirements. Overlap only occurs 
152

between elements within the components, consisting, for example, of the same signs or posters 

adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements.

We present the results of the estimation. Details showing the calculations are available in 

Appendix B.

Hazard Communication

Table 5.2-12 presents the annualized cost and the NPV of regional costs for the proposed and 

regional baselines for hazard communication requirements. All requirements are imposed 

immediately. The proposed revisions are expected to cost about $8.0 million per year, 

accounting for the cost savings from eliminating the central posting requirement (HAZCOM-01). 

On a regional basis, the states in the South and the Ohio Valley are expected to bear the majority 

of these costs, in part because of the large number of WPS farms in these regions. Costs are also 

somewhat lower in many other regions because representative states already impose some of the 

requirements or require that SDS be available from pesticide distributors, which will facilitate 

compliance. Texas already meets the proposed requirements so farms there, and in states with 

similar regulations, may see a reduction in costs due the elimination of the central posting 

requirement.

Table 5.2-12. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. 

(HAZCOM only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 46,645 30,088 16,557 1,885

California 19,409 18,351 1,058 120

Southwest 10,018 6,462 3,556 405

Subtropical 7,826 7,092 735 84

Midwest 67,933 61,554 6,379 726

Northeast 32,245 20,799 11,446 1,303

Ohio Valley 72,316 46,646 25,670 2,922

Texas/Mountain West 38,506 40,083 -1,577 -180

Northwest 18,157 11,712 6,445 734

National 313,055 242,787 70,269 7,998

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Table 5.2-13 presents the per-entity costs of the hazard communication proposals and baseline. 

Several states have requirements that are similar to the proposals and the impacts will be small, 

ranging from negative in Texas to less than $10 per year in Florida and Iowa. Other regions may

face higher incremental costs to obtain the required information. EPA does not anticipate a 

distinct difference in costs between large and small farms. The cost of complying with the 

hazard communication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products 

used on a WPS farm, not the number of employees or revenue. However, small farms are less 

likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any year is lower for 

small than for large farms.
153

Table 5.2-13. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

(HAZCOM only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

CA, Subtropics, Midwest, 

TX/Mountain West 108 102 5

All Other Regions 108 69 38

SMALL WPS FARMS

CA, Subtropics, Midwest, 

TX/Mountain West 90 85 4

All Other Regions 90 58 32

Source: EPA estimates.

Notification

The regional, incremental, and annualized costs of the proposed notification requirements are 

shown in Table 5.2-14. The estimated annual costs of $15.1 million are somewhat overestimated 

since some requirements will be phased in over a two-year period. EPA also estimated costs if 

all requirements were phased in, which would somewhat underestimate the costs, at $11.7

million per year. The simple sum of the proposed costs is $14.6 million per year.

Table 5.2-14. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY 

only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 65,885 45,413 20,471 2,330

California 42,690 37,062 5,629 641

Southwest 15,244 11,050 4,194 477

Subtropical 14,618 11,843 2,774 316

Midwest 90,539 59,721 30,818 3,508

Northeast 50,400 37,149 13,251 1,508

Ohio Valley 98,234 65,772 32,462 3,695

Texas/Mountain 

West 52,188 34,882 17,307 1,970

Northwest 38,669 33,114 5,555 632

National 468,466 336,006 132,460 15,076

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

The final two columns of Table 3.5-14 present the expected regional level incremental costs, the 

difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs. The regional incremental 

costs are a function of the number of WPS farms and CPHEs in the region.

Results of the per-entity analysis are shown in Table 5.2-15. Large WPS farms are relatively less 

impacted by the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to 
154

save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs by posting because it is more efficient than orally 

informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relatively higher due to the increased 

posting requirements for REIs and for worker and handler safety displays. Costs may be 

overstated, however, because small farms may rely more on temporary workers who will not be 

on farm when some applications are made or during the REI and thus will have relatively fewer 

posting events over time.

Table 5.2-15. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

(NOTIFY only)

Farm size ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 272 254 18

SMALL WPS FARMS 120 78 42

Source: EPA estimates.

Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirements

because revisions codify existing interpretations of applicable requirements.

5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE

The proposed rule includes several categories of regulations that are intended to better protect 

workers and handlers. EPA is proposing AGE-01, Minimum age of 16 for workers entering 

fields during the REI, and AGE-03, Minimum age of 16 for handlers. The proposed entry

requirements consist of ENTRY-01, Expand the restricted area during application; ENTRY-02, 

Limit worker time in fields during the REI; ENTRY-03, Halt applications if workers enter the 

restricted area; and ENTRY-05, Codify exception to REIs. Regarding PPE, EPA is proposing 

PPE-01, Require respirator fit test; PPE-02, Eliminate exemptions for WPS employees acting as 

CCAs; PPE-03, Eliminate exemptions for employees of CCAs; PPE-04, Revising standards for 

closed mixing and loading systems, PPE-05, Simplifying enclosed cab substitutions for PPE, and 

PPE-06, Clarifying disposal of contaminated PPE.

None of the requirements within these categories overlap with any other proposed category of 

regulation.

Age

The two proposed age requirements do not interact with any other regulations. In this case, the 

regulatory costs can simply be summed. Table 5.2-16 presents the NPV for the baseline and 

proposed costs. As explained in Section 3.3.5, the impacts are estimated as an increase in labor 

costs, not compliance costs.
155

Table 5.2-16. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 7,568 6,788 780 89

California 4,447 3,948 498 57

Southwest 1,718 1,538 180 20

Subtropical 1,572 1,470 102 12

Midwest 10,561 9,487 1,074 122

Northeast 5,644 5,049 594 68

Ohio Valley 11,400 10,236 1,165 133

Texas/Mountain West 6,060 5,441 619 70

Northwest 4,052 3,600 452 51

National 53,023 47,558 5,465 622

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

The annual cost of the age restrictions on handlers and on workers involved in early entry events 

is estimated to be $620,000. Annual per-entity costs are provided in Table 5.2-17. CPHEs are 

not expected to be impacted because few commercial establishments would employ adolescents 

under 16 years of age to handle pesticides.

Table 5.2-17. Annual Per-Entity Baseline and Proposed Labor Costs, Incremental Costs. 

(AGE only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS 41.20 26.90 14.30

SMALL FARMS 7.95 6.90 1.05

CPHE 470 470 0

Source: EPA estimates.

Entry

The proposed entry restrictions are largely definitional. As explained in Section 3.3.6, there are 

no measureable costs to the individual regulations. The total cost of the entry component is, 

therefore, also near zero.

PPE

There could be some overlap between reporting requirements in the PPE category, but the effect 

on costs is minimal. Table 5.2-18 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten-year time 

horizon, at the regional and national levels. Annually, the new PPE regulations are expected to 

cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million.
156

Table 5.2-18. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only)

Region

RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 41,429 18,913 22,515 2,563

California 18,860 16,899 1,962 223

Southwest 11,284 6,073 5,211 593

Subtropical 6,775 3,025 3,750 427

Midwest 96,435 57,979 38,456 4,377

Northeast 42,680 24,896 17,784 2,024

Ohio Valley 69,585 33,886 35,700 4,063

Texas/Mountain West 34,791 16,099 18,692 2,127

Northwest 30,174 19,186 10,988 1,251

National 352,013 196,955 155,058 17,648

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Table 5.2-19 presents the per-entity cost of the PPE requirements. The cost for small WPS farms 

represents the average cost over all small farms, including the medium- and small-small WPS 

farms that would generally not employ handlers. California’s requirements are similar to those 

proposed, with the exception of some record keeping, so costs to farms will be substantially

lower than in other regions. CPHEs will bear some costs, primarily to upgrade closed mixing 

and loading systems, with self-employed commercial applicators facing a smaller incremental 

cost than enterprises with multiple employees.

Table 5.2-19. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS

California 284 254 30

All Other Regions 281 163 118

SMALL FARMS

California 45 39 6

All Other Regions 49 19 30

CPHE, multiple handlers 656 574 82

CPHE (‘self-employed’) 245 167 78

Source: EPA estimates.

5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance
157

Certain provisions of the WPS are intended to reduce the effects of any accidental exposure that 

occurs. In terms of supplies, the proposed rule includes two requirements when workers enter a 

recently treated field: SUPPLY-01, Water requirements for routine decontamination, and 

SUPPLY-02, Water requirements for decontamination during early entry (i.e., if the REI is still 

in effect). The proposal also includes two requirements for handlers: SUPPLY-03, Water 

requirements for routine decontamination, and SUPPLY-05, Water flow requirement for 

eyeflushing. EPA is also proposing to define “prompt” emergency assistance to be 30 minutes 

for worker emergencies, EMERG-01, and handler emergencies, EMERG-03. 

There are no overlapping requirements for any of these regulations, so the total cost for each of 

these categories is the simple sum of the individual items.

Supply

The revisions to the requirements for supplies for routine and emergency decontamination 

largely codify existing guidance. However, one provision, SUPPLY-02, will increase the 

amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers when entering a field under 

a REI. EPA estimates the costs to be about $2,500 annually, as shown in Table 5.2-20.

Table 5.2-20. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 383 381 2.6 0.3

California 164 160 3.8 0.4

Southwest 83 82 0.8 0.1

Subtropical 65 64 1.1 0.1

Midwest 557 554 2.9 0.3

Northeast 266 264 2.7 0.3

Ohio Valley 593 590 3.4 0.4

Texas/Mountain West 316 314 1.8 0.2

Northwest 153 149 3.3 0.4

National 2,580 2,558 22 2.5

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

The per-entity costs of these requirements are negligible. Table 5.2-21 presents the estimated 

baseline and proposed costs per year. Costs are largely proportional to the number of employees. 

The per-handler costs for the water flow requirement are negligible, as can be seen by the 

estimated incremental cost to a CPHE, because running water is typically available at mixing and 

loading sites so that concentrated forms of pesticides can be diluted.

Table 5.2-21. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY 

only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)
158

LARGE FARMS

All Regions 2.25 2.20 0.02

SMALL FARMS

All Regions 0.46 0.45 0.01

CPHE 7.50 7.50 0.00

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Rows may not sum due 

to rounding.

Emergency Assistance

The new regulations dealing with emergency assistance are all definitional in nature and EPA 

does not anticipate measureable impacts. See Section 3.3.8.

5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule

Having accounted for the overlap between the individual components of the proposed rule, the 

total cost can be estimated by summing the costs of the eight components. Table 5.2-22 presents 

the NPV of the baseline and proposed regulatory costs, assuming all elements are implemented 

immediately. Nationally, the proposed rule is estimated to increase the cost of complying with 

the worker protection standard by $636 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three 

percent discount rate and assuming all requirements are implemented immediately. The annual 

incremental cost under this assumption is estimated to be about $72.4 million. If implementation 

of all the training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 years, the 10 year cost is 

estimated to be $544 million and the annual incremental cost is estimated to be about $61.9

million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed 

regulations is estimated to be between $60.1 and $73.1 million.

Table 5.2-22. PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 229,461 130,594 98,867 11,253

California 136,051 107,908 28,143 3,203

Southwest 54,559 32,171 22,389 2,548

Subtropical 47,403 30,174 17,229 1,961

Midwest 358,643 229,144 129,499 14,739

Northeast 185,163 110,527 74,636 8,495

Ohio Valley 353,557 200,596 152,962 17,409

Texas/Mountain 

West 183,883 118,093 65,791 7,488

Northwest 136,588 85,853 50,735 5,774

U.S. 1,685,308 1,045,058 640,250 72,871

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

Figure 5.2-1 shows the contribution of the eight categories of the proposed rule to the total 

incremental cost. The informational regulations, i.e., the training, hazard communication, and 
159

notification requirements, make up almost three-fourths of the total incremental costs. The 

protective regulations (minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of 

the remaining cost, with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly one-fourth of the total 

incremental cost. The requirements focused on mitigation are largely definitional in nature and

contribute less than one percent of the cost.

Figure 5.2-1. Contribution of components of the proposed Worker Protection Standard to 

total annualized incremental cost, $72.9 million.

Average per-entity costs are presented in Table 5.2-23. As explained above, these costs are 

calculated by taking the per-farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per-worker and handler 

costs, multiplying by the average number of workers and handlers given the type and size of the 

operation. Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations, but often only

slightly. We present California and the Texas/Mountain West regions, where the per-entity costs

are below the national average, and the regions where per-entity cost is highest. The cost 

estimates assume that all requirements become effective immediately and that the WPS farms 

make pesticide applications every year over the ten year time horizon, which overstates the 

expected cost of the proposal. Incremental costs for large farms are expected to average just 

over $400 per year, ranging from an additional $200 per year in California to about $430 per 

year in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley. Small farms are likely to face 

impacts of under $150 per year, on average, ranging from $90 per year in California to $170 per 

year in the Ohio Valley. If implementation of all training and notification requirements is 

delayed for 2 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $345 for large farms and $130

for small farms. In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely.

Training

43%

HazCom

11%

Notification

21%

Age

1%

Entry

0%

PPE

24%

Supply

0%

Emergency

0%

Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$24.1 - 31.5 million

$11.7 - 15.1 million

$620,000

$17.6 million

$2,500

$8.0 million
160

Table 5.2-23. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs by Region. 

(Total)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS

 California 1,080 880 210

 Ohio Valley 1,080 650 430

 Texas/Mountain West 1,080 680 400

 National 1,080 670 410

SMALL FARMS

 California 350 260 90

 Ohio Valley 360 190 170

 Texas/Mountain West 360 220 140

 National 360 210 150

CPHE, multiple 

handlers 1,310 1,120 190

CPHE (‘self-employed’) 250 175 80

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Row calculations 

subject to rounding.

The incremental cost to CPHEs with multiple handlers is estimated to be between $170 and $190

per year. The incremental cost for self-employed commercial handlers is low because they will 

already meet the increased training requirements through the applicators certification process.

Table 5.2-23 presents the incremental costs to the average farm in the nation if it were located in 

various regions, given those regions current regulations. Table 5.2-24 presents the costs to the 

average farm in each region, which considers how differences in workers per farm affect the 

results. These results indicate that typical farms in the Ohio Valley will be less impacted than is 

suggested by Table 5.2-23 because farms there have relatively fewer workers than do states like 

Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest.

Table 5.2-24. Average Worker Per-Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total)

Region Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm

workers/farm EICo i workers/farm EICo i

South 15.8 390 2.9 160

California 54.8 360 10.0 90

Southwest 21.2 420 3.9 160

Subtropical 38.3 510 7.0 150

Midwest 11.9 350 2.2 140

Northeast 23.3 440 4.2 170

Ohio Valley 13.1 380 2.4 160

Texas/Mountain 

West 13.0 340 2.4 120

Northwest 51.3 630 9.3 180

U.S. 20.0 390 3.6 150
161

Source: EPA estimates. Row calculations subject to rounding.

A final way to consider the costs of the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is 

the cost per employee covered by the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 

17,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the 

average cost to be between $26.50 and $31.20 per year per employee, including handlers 

employed at CPHEs.

All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many

current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. EPA has made a number of 

assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state 

regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline 

and the proposed rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While 

assumptions attempt to represent the average or typical farm or CPHE, in practice EPA has 

tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than 

would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is 

unknown.

5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment

EPA also calculates the per-employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal 

incremental cost per WPS farm worker (not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is 

estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on 

employment decisions. The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training 

requirements, which are expected to cost about $5.50 per year. This is offset by a reduction in 

the per-worker cost of the notification requirements of $1.20 per year as greater emphasis is 

placed on posting REI information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0.10 per 

year to the cost of employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0.01 per 

year. Table 5.3-1 presents this information.

Table 5.3-1. Annualized Per-Employee Cost of Proposed Requirements

Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler

Training 5.48 15.11 15.03

Hazard Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notification -1.15 0.00 0.00

Age 0.07 1.88 0.00

Entry 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPE 0.00 42.27 0.00

Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4.41 59.26 15.03

Source: EPA estimates.

The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but is still relatively

minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $15.10 per year to employment costs, but 

the main driver is the PPE category at $42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed 
162

requirement for fit testing respirators. The age restriction may add about $2.00 per year to 

employment costs by restricting farms from using lower-wage adolescents to mix, load, and 

apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around $60 per 

year, assuming the average baseline standards. We estimate that the cost to employers of a 

handler is $20.83 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight hours per day and assuming 

only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $25,000 per year. An increase in cost 

of $60 per year represents about 0.25 percent of the total cost, a marginal increase that would not 

be expected to have an impact on jobs.

The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be about $15 per year, all of which is a 

result of increased training.

5.4 Small Business Impacts

This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the WPS rule may have on 

small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and revenue for small 

WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should 

have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions.

Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 5.4.1, 

and the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in 

September 2008. The current analysis presented here takes into account comments received 

from the panel that influenced the proposed requirements. For example, the requirement for a 

sufficient flow rate at permanent mixing and loading sites was suggested by the panel as an 

alternative to a requirement for portable eyewash stations. Based on the current analysis, EPA 

concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of 

regulations on small entities, including businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments. 

When significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, 

agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 

effects on significantly impacted small entities.

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 

economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 

incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sales as significant, costs less 

than one percent of annual sales as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of 

sales as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA 

considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if 

a substantial number of firms will be impacted.

Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we use the following 

thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial”:

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

30% of all small farms;
163

 Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents 

less than 20% of all small farms; or

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 

10% of all small farms.

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 

substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows:

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

20% of all small farms;

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small 

farms; or

 More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5% 

of all small farms.

Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 

incremental costs on a per-company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to 

develop cost-to-sales ratios. 

In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. 

We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA 

estimates that small CPHEs will not face a significant impact as a result of this rule. The 

estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, less than $200 per year, is only 0.10 percent of the 

average annual revenue for small CPHEs, $354,000 per year (D&B, 2010).

In Section 5.4.2, we present the estimated compliance cost by type and size of WPS farms and 

estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a percentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are 

estimated assuming both immediate implementation of the proposal as well as a two-year 

delayed implementation of the training and notification requirements.

5.4.1 Industry Profile

EPA uses data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) to identify the number of 

small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The Census of Agriculture is 

conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as well as the people who 

operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, operator characteristics, 

production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas.

EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles 

for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 

greenhouses, and nurseries). Crop producing farms were then separated into two main size 

classifications (large and small) according to the SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined 

as those with annual gross revenue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 

million in annual sales. Table 5.4-1 presents the number of farms, by type, and the proportion of 

the total that are small farms.

Table 5.4-1. Crop-producing farms, by type and size, and average number of employees.

Farm Type Number of Small Farms1 Average Number of Employees
164

Farms (%) Large Farms Small Farms

All Crop Farms 1,564,178 95.7% 16.1 0.8

All Crop Farms using 

pesticides 788,582 92.6% 17.6 1.4

WPS Farms 2394,658 86.2% 20.0 3.6

WPS Farms 2using 

pesticides

304,348 83.9% 20.9 3.9

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b).

1

Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue. 

2 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor.

The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests 

and efficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enterprise. 

If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can 

jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of food produced. Similarly, labor 

remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand 

the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms, i.e., 

those with less than $750,000 in annual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 

define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium-small farms 

as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with 

annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.4-2 presents the number of farms, annual 

value of crops sold, and number of workers, by type and size. These categories of farms provide 

the typology we use to characterize the impacts of revisions to the WPS on small farms.

Table 5.4-2. Average annual sales and workers, by Farm type and size.

Type All Small 1 Large-Small 1 Medium-Small 1Small-Small 1

Farms Producing Crops

 number 1,496,722 264,197 477,699 754,826

 sales $ 66,277 $ 300,043 $ 36,680 $ 3,188

 workers 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.3

Farms Using Pesticides

 number 730,387 221,735 290,611 218,041

 sales $ 109,865 $ 304,107 $ 41,208 $ 3,839

 workers 1.4 2.7 1.1 0.5

WPS Farms 2

 number 340,369 139,237 121,223 79,909

 sales $ 152,986 $ 334,448 $ 42,733 $ 4,055

 workers 3.6 4.7 3.2 2.5

WPS Farms 2 Using Pesticides

 number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880

 sales $181,742 $337,326 $45,587 $4,445

 workers 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.7

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (2008b).

1

The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three 

subgroups: large-small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per 
165

year; medium-small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and smallsmall farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 

those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large-small 

feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium-small feedlots, with 

annual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small-small feedlots, with annual sales less than 

$50,000 per year.

2 EPA defines WPS Farms to be those farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 

WPS provisions, however, do not apply unless a pesticide application is made within a specified time 

and distance from where employees are working.

It is worth noting that small-small WPS farms, defined as those reporting less than $10,000 in 

annual sales, also employ an average of nearly three laborers. It is somewhat difficult to 

reconcile the low revenue with multiple employees. It may be that these employees are very

temporary and are associated with a few tasks such as harvest that demand relatively high labor 

input over a short period of time. It may also be that these employees are engaged in other 

revenue-generating activities not directly related to the farm's own production.

5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

EPA estimates the incremental cost for the various WPS farm sizes according to the 

methodology described in Section 5.1. Per-entity unit cost is added to the per-worker cost times 

the number of workers. Large-small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler, on average, 

while medium-small and small-small WPS farms are assumed to rely on commercial applicators 

or the owner/operator to make pesticide applications.

Table 5.4-3 presents the number of WPS farms, average sales, and estimated annual incremental 

cost of the rule by farm size for all farm types. Annual incremental costs are based on existing 

requirements in most areas of the country except for California. As shown in Section 5.2.5, the 

incremental cost for a small WPS farm in California is substantially less than the national 

average due to the regulatory baseline even accounting for the relatively higher number of 

workers per farm. Despite variation in the number of workers across the different regions of the 

United States, estimated incremental costs are fairly consistent with the Northwest region 

somewhat higher and the Texas/Mountain West region expected to have incremental costs per 

entity less than the national average.

EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue and does not find a 

significant impact from the rule. Overall, the impact of the rule is 0.1 percent of average sales. 

Only the very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $4,500 per year, may face impacts 

above one percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one 

percent of sales could be over 40,000, given the number of small-small establishments. 

However, this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as includes the nearly 

5,000 small-small farms in California that would face impacts well below the national average. 

It also includes over 14,000 farms that are primarily livestock operations and over 13,000 farms 

that are primarily field crop and forage producers whose employees are unlikely to engage in 

hand labor activities that would trigger WPS provisions. These farms are likely to bear little or 

no cost as a result of the proposed revisions.
166

Table 5.4-3. Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms making pesticide applications

All Small WPS 

Farms making 

pesticide 

applications

Large-Small 

WPS Farms

making 

pesticide 

applications

Medium-Small 

WPS Farms

making 

pesticide 

applications

Small-Small 

WPS Farms

making 

pesticide 

applications

Number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880

Average Sales $181,742 $337,326 $ 45,587 $ 4,445

Immediate Implementation

Incremental Cost $ 148 $ 232 $ 111 $ 82

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.8%

Two-Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 126 $ 202 $ 90 $ 67

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5%

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b); EPA calculations.

1

Training and Notification only.

EPA examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small-small farms in order to 

gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two 

sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small-small WPS farms. First, is whether 

WPS training requirements will apply to small-small farms every year of a ten-year time period, 

which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 5.4-3. Less than 55 percent 

of small-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007 (NASS, 2008b) and if these farms hire 

workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety 

training if an application has been made. Under this scenario, the incremental cost to smallsmall WPS farms would average under $60 per year.

A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small-small farms 

employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary

basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications 

made well before workers are hired. For small-small farms, the hazard communication and 

notification requirements comprise a large share of the cost at $40 per year, based on 20 

pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. It is likely that small-small 

farms will make fewer applications per year when workers are or will be present and will thus 

have fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small-small farms make only five

applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required (e.g., in the 

30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the proposed rule is 

also less than $60 per year. If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been 

made and only five applications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements, 

the incremental cost of the rule for small-small farms averages only $35 per year.

Given that, for small-small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard 

communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated, EPA concludes that, even for the 

smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the proposed rule will generally be less than one percent of 

the value of annual sales of agricultural products.
167

Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in both acute health effects to workers and 

handlers as well as health problems that occur later; if the proposed rule changes are 

implemented, agricultural workers and pesticide handlers will have better information and 

protections that will enable them to reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to 

improved health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes will 

provide a range of benefits to agricultural farm workers and handlers. The proposed rule 

changes would ensure that workers and handlers have the information needed to best protect 

themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. 

By proposing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the revised rule is expected to 

substantially mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for adverse health effects 

(acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include 

requirements intended to reduce exposure by: 

 Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides –The 

proposed rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as 

proposing changes to ensure that the training is more effective. 

 Reducing exposure to pesticides – Among other things, the proposed rule changes and 

clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when 

pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should 

directly reduce exposure to the agricultural workforce. 

 Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur – Accidental exposures are inevitable, 

and the proposed rule increases safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to 

respond to exposures. 

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to agricultural 

workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals 

considered by the Agency in developing this rule. The preamble to the proposed rule describes in 

detail the proposed requirements, and how they are expected to better inform workers about the 

risks and causes of pesticide exposure, protect them against exposure, and mitigate the effects of 

exposure. This chapter discusses how these three approaches can reduce the health effects of 

exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that exposure can have. The 

proposed changes include proposals for improved training requirements, in terms of the 

frequency of training agricultural workers receive, and the content of that training. Other 

proposed requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in 

combination with training to improve farmworkers’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect 

themselves. There is evidence that training can be an effective tool to increase workplace safety. 

Within agriculture, Barnett et al. (1984) found a pilot education project dramatically increased 

the understanding of routes of exposure, safer storage of pesticides, and a greater understanding 

of how to protect children from take home exposure. Both Strong et al. (2008) and Salvatore et 

al. (2009) report better self-protection practices after safety training for Hispanic farmworkers. 
168

6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers 

and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 

families. However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This 

section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced 

acute exposures to workers and handlers) and those that cannot.

Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by:

 avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to farm 

workers and handlers.

 mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents through a 

better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers.

 avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents (e.g., 

developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers.

 reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers, handlers and their families.

Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 

have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these only represent a portion of 

the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 

as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and 

adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to 

appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 

the benefit estimates in this chapter. 

Also, provisions in the proposed rule are designed to clarify emergency response procedures and 

or the amount of decontamination supplies available. These provisions can reduce the severity 

of the accidental poisoning events, and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. 

Because our estimates are based on preventable incidents, the benefits to reduced severity are 

underestimated. There is not enough available information to determine how much severity 

would be reduced in a given incident.

The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, 

are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncertain 

causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore it is 

impossible to quantify many important health effects from reduced pesticide exposure. These 

health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to workers and handlers 

will be discussed in a semi-quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are 

described, but cannot be quantified.

The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticide exposure, followed by a discussion of 

the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 

families. Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 

benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 

from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 

surveillance databases, but are potentially very important to human health, and may be reduced 
169

by the proposed rule. The final section of the chapter presents a break-even analysis that shows 

some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness. 

6.2. Who is at Risk?

6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture 

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 

large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the 

approximately 2.3 million farm workers (see Table 3.3-4) that are hired by agricultural 

establishments, all of whom are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from 

pesticide exposure (NASS, 2008b). Agricultural workers do not necessarily handle pesticides 

directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides either through contact with 

residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected 

application. EPA assumes there are nearly 250,000 pesticide handlers, included in the farm 

worker population, that handle pesticides directly; another 72,000 handlers are employed at 

commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2010, See Section 3.3.2). The 

agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues 

and that exposure can pose significant long and short term health risks. It is difficult to quantify

a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because 

workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with different 

toxicities and risks and are exposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of 

frequencies. However, as a result of an extensive review of the epidemiologic evidence 

published in the peer-reviewed literature there is evidence, which EPA regards as strong, that 

pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health outcomes.

6.2.2. Children and families

Several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 

for children. These include training components designed to minimize exposure to family

members to pesticides that get taken home; measures that reduce exposure to workers and 

handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits for certain 

worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are 

particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn 

children are particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different 

exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects 

into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems 

are still developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et 

al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are 

exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pesticide 

exposure. 

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for 

chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 

means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 
170

lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 

continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 

developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and chemicals differently than adults 

metabolize pesticides and other chemicals. The proposed changes to the WPS also include 

restrictions on allowing adolescents to serve as pesticide handlers. These changes are important 

because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, which is also 

discussed below.

Take Home Exposure

Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 

exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al., (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 

urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a 

sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary

sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 

Bradman et al. (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different 

pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, 

and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 

non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 

significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 

farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher 

levels in the worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 

transported home on farmers clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 

pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the take home exposure 

pathway, Vida et al. (2007), reported results that indicate that take home exposure is an 

important source of exposure for children. The studies cited above consistently found higher 

levels of pesticides in the agricultural households compared to non-agricultural households, and 

that levels of Organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest 

levels of azinphos-methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a 

farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al., 2004, Coronado et al., 2006). Curl et 

al., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which 

suggest the take home pathway is the source for the residues. Exposure studies on 

organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home 

pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007;

Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

Research has shown that agricultural workers are generally unaware that occupational exposure 

to pesticides can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al., 2009 conducted 

interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several 

misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed 

through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less 

harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to 

work quickly, and, as the article states “previous research has [shown] that farmworkers often 

report delaying showering for over an hour after work in order to allow their bodies to cool fully

for fear of developing arthritis or other health problems.” Quandt et al. (1998) found that 

farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target, and that acute 
171

(not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al., 2007). Other exposure 

routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, 

or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures (discussed 

below) may be particularly important for long-term development. 

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents

Young pesticide handlers face more risks from pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by 

proposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is evidence that adolescents and children 

do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 

to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 

and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 

context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 

risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 

risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during 

worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al., 1998). As reported in Reed et al. (2006), “young 

agricultural production workers were 3 times more likely to die on the job than their 

nonagricultural counterparts.” This statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and 

suggests that younger workers take more risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older 

workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and 

Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and 

symptoms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al., 2006). When teens were asked 

whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self-reported frequency for use of 

respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 

was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 

teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 

attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 

leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al., 2006).

The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 

risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through 

these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 

risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al., 2010). In an international 

setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, 

neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 

applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 

in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high 

levels.

Salazar et al. (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 

teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 

among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to 

be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In the focus group, when asked whether they

washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, participants responded that they did 

not have the time and/or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, 

participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they
172

appeared to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it 

was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss 

machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et 

al., 2004).

According to Calvert et al.(2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 

youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed 

to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The

literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. 

Therefore it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 

decisions. It is not certain why risky behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a 

consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors 

and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, 

but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al., 2010). The 

cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which 

indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking 

process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that 

more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, will not 

protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk adolescents do 

not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, such as the 

establishment of minimum age for certain activities (with an exception for adolescents covered 

by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety.

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

This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 

exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposures to workers and handlers and their families, 

including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of 

these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of 

developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic 

occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 6.6 and Section 

6.8. 

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects

The use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 

narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a 

broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many

ways, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al., 2010). 

Exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute 

symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irritation to more 

severe effects. Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure. 

Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and 

dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). 

Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness 
173

(Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. 

These are just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide 

exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 

different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure 

(Reigart and Roberts, 1999). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers 

and handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including 

several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 

Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide-related 

illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and 

handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 

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

Calvert, et al. (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture 

industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning 

incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates 

varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order

of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the 

sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers 

for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et 

al. found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California 

surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the 

poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms 

were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), 

and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye 

contact. 

Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 

high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 

period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 

one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 

is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 

can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 

of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at 

least two post-exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health-care professional. 

Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 

and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 

up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases4. 

The impact on the financial situation of a low-income farmworker can be dramatic.

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

This section discusses reproductive and other risks to children of workers and handlers. These

are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm families; 

many others, including some cancers also have an association with pesticide exposure. The 

 

4 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf
174

discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 6.6, because 

most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides and cancer has been based 

on occupational exposure. 

Reproductive Risks 

Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 

reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al. (2007) found 59 studies that examined the relationship 

between pesticides and reproductive outcomes and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. 

A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 

Table 6.3-1. 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. 

As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 

between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 

defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 

nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 

studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death which includes 

“spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 

preconception exposure was associated with early first-trimester abortions and post-conception 

exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al., 2007). For most 

effects, half or more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 

exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 

the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 

publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 

suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 

Potential Health Effects in Children

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 

pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure may have particularly important 
175

effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al. (2009) studies 

have found an association between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood 

leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 

of developmental toxicity (i.e., structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth 

and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 

pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 

Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain 

tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes 

often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 

occur, for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an 

application or through drift of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field. 

Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 

exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 

the systems in adults. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than those of 

younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood.. In

particular brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through 

synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron 

connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases

the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 

during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 

particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). In addition, occupational exposure beginning in adolescence 

gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves 

over a full lifetime. 

Several studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and 

development are on-going. Three key cohorts, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 

are looking at pre- and post-natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth 

outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long-term childhood neurobehavioral and 

neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are: 

 The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and 

Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord 

blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental 

outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 

pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 

comparisons between pre- and post-cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 

 Mount Sinai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, 

African American, and Caucasian. This team has associated urinary metabolites (TCP 

and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The enrollment of the 

Mt. Sinai cohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpyrifos. 

However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase-out of residential 

uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their publications. 

 The CHAMACOS cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in 

the Salinas Valley, California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This 

cohort is exposed to many pesticides from multiple pathways such as occupational 
176

exposures and take-home exposures. This team has, however, associated urinary

metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. 

The cohort most relevant to the WPS rule is the cohort associated with the Center for Health 

Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS). The CHAMACOS cohort, 

being studied by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily

Latina women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from 

this cohort, several studies have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during 

pregnancy on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi 

et al., 1999; Bradman et al., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and their

children (Bradman et al., 2005; Eskenazi et al., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2004; 

Young and Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2007). These 

studies have investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 

fetal growth and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al., 2004), and the relationship between 

prenatal and child organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s 

neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et al., 2007). 

The published exposure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic 

organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as 

well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos 

(TCP), and parathion (4-nitrophenol) metabolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 

commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children 

(Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young children in a farmworker community are exposed 

to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated 

with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al., 2007), abnormal 

reflexes (Young et al., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al., 2004). 

Similar research in other cohorts is being conducted by both Columbia University and the Mt. 

Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban women and their children, so the 

pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are 

exposed are smaller, but these studies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three 

cohorts report delayed mental development associated with an increased exposure to OP 

pesticides (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, Engel et al., 2007). The CHAMACOS and 

Mt. Sinai cohorts both report positive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes 

in children (Engel et al., 2007, Young et al., 2005). Increased developmental disorders were 

reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 

2006, Lovasi, et al., 2011, Engel et al., 2011).

Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and 

the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 

hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded 

that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were 

associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al., 2010). Similar 

associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, 
177

chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 

pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al., 2006, Levasi, et al., 

2011, Engel et al., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al. (2010), 

found an association between OP metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to 

children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median 

had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors.

The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 

epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 

However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 

between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 

that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro-developmental and 

neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures. 

6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

In the next section, a quantified estimate of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 

these quantified estimates are based only on the value of reduced illness from acute pesticide 

exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 

sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. 

The estimates, however, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for 

which sufficient data are not available to quantify these benefits. 

The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section, 

when they are not acute exposure to a worker or handler that is easily observed and reported. 

Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will 

result from the WPS, and dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value of 

reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is impossible to 

quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to 

families can result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in children, 

and it is impossible to quantify the benefits from the proposed WPS rule changes that may

reduce these effects. 

The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non-quantifiable 

benefits from chronic exposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 6.8, based on 

the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 6.6. 

6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by further protecting workers 

and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 

families. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute pesticide exposure to be $11.3 

million annually, although important non-quantifiable benefits are discussed later in the chapter. 

This section quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 

handlers associated with acute pesticide exposure.
178

6.5.1. Methodology and Data

We use a two-step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through 

avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents 

that will be avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of 

pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines 

whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of 

pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of 

reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 

6.5.2, underreporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated 

benefits. This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of underreporting was known. 

A discussion of underreporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at the end of 

Section 6.5. 

The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. 

The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will 

underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 

valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL).

For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use two complementary databases: 

one that gathers sufficient detail on the exposures that led to the incident report but lacks national 

representation (NIOSH’ Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure, 

SENSOR), and one that is nationally representative, but lacks the necessary exposure detail 

(American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Poison Data System, NPDS). Data

for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for 

Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health. SENSOR is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to 

pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a three-year period, 2003 to 2005, during which time 

nine states (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and 

Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Data from California were submitted in 2003 and 

2004. SENSOR reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide 

involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to 

estimate the proportion of incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule.

Because of the limited geographic coverage of the SENSOR data, EPA relies on data from the 

National Poison Data System (NPDS) to estimate the annual number of pesticide incidents in the 

United States. Illness from pesticide exposure is a poisoning event, and the NPDS tracks 

occupational pesticide poisonings. NPDS is a comprehensive surveillance system developed in 

1983 and maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) to track 

acute illness and injury related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information system 

with geographically specific and near real-time reporting. The system contains detailed 

toxicological information on poison exposures reported to poison centers around the country, 

capturing an estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison centers in the 

United States. The NPDS data does not have sufficient information to determine whether a 

reported incident could be prevented. NPDS data are also used to estimate the distribution of 
179

effects, including death, resulting from pesticide incidents. This is explained in more detail in 

Section 6.5.4. 

The value of avoided incidents is measured as avoided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 

Information on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the 

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 

related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and 

sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). HCUP databases bring 

together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data 

organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patientlevel health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 

the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 

costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 

services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals.

Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4.

6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

There is concern that pesticide incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 

particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before an occupational pesticiderelated illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they have 

treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 

the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report 

the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide 

related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being 

tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al., 2001).

(1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 

uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 

rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 

common pesticides results in flu-like or cold-like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 

dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory

problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 

exposure to poison ivy. Many farmworkers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to 

pesticide exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and 

may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues.

(2) Workers and handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, 

many pesticide-related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical 

intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, 

causes some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this 

inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of 
180

exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will 

gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many 

agricultural workers with treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of 

California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance system showed that in 

40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment 

(Das et al., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. 

Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handlers’ access to medical care is poor. A report on 

migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 

20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 

reduced health care access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005).

The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low-income persons. 

Although low-income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or 

have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs:

 Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significant 

barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to nondisabled low-income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 

immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 

five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, 

some states use monthly budgeting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it 

difficult for low-income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for 

employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify. 

 Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. 

Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are eligible for Medicaid may have difficulty 

completing the application and enrollment process. Given their limited English skills, 

it can be very difficult for them to complete long application forms or meet extensive 

verification requirements, particularly if there is limited availability of language 

assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and 

Shin, 2005). 

A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeking medical care for 

agricultural workers, including the loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through 

retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington 

State Department of Health, 2003). 

Many agricultural workers average 6-day work weeks during their peak work season. Without 

sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 

miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek 

medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their 

medical bills would be covered by workers compensation and feared employer disapproval if it 

were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm 

(Washington State Department of Health, 2003). 

(3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 

treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specifically diagnose the illness or 
181

injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 

such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 

drawn. Like their patients, physicians and other healthcare providers often have difficulty in 

ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 

those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 

poisonings for other causes, but physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide 

poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a 

pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide 

exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming 

the causes. 

(4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 

recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be underreported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 

Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 

compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 

difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington, 1991) 

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 

requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 

bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 

completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al., 2002, Baker et al., 1998). For 

example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 

healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 

becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they might have to defend 

an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 

statement" (Arizona, 1990).

If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 

not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 

literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, are underreported, 

although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 

to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute 

symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms which may occur 

many years after exposure, as discussed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate 

symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is 

common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of 

underreporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5-1. 
182

Table 6.5-1 Summary of Results 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 (ChafeeBahamon et al., 1983)

Observing usage patterns of a 

poison information center by 

hospital staff over a two-year 

period

“Sufficiently Large”b

1987

Interpretation and Uses of 

Data Collected in Poison 

Control Centers in the United 

States (Veltri et al., 1987)

Identifying the strengths and 

weaknesses of the American 

Association of Poison Control 

Centers National Data 

Collection System

67%

2008

Hidden Tragedy: 

Underreporting of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses (US 

House of Representatives, 

2008)

Identifying issues involving the 

inclusiveness of reported 

workplace injuries and 

illnesses

69%

2008

Examining Evidence on 

Whether BLS Undercounts 

Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses (Ruser 2008)

Identifying underreporting for 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

and how they can be corrected.

20-70%c

Notes: 

a The EMD evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCC; 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

The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 

(SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser estimates that 

the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent 

(Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII 

omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers 

are not recorded in the SOII. Work-related deaths are also unaccounted for within the survey. 

The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused 

by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some 

correlation may exist.

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 

injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 

According to experts, a major cause of underreporting may be due to the fact that employers may

have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and 

illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). 
183

There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each 

focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control with those poisonings 

for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial 

underreporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting 

by physicians (i.e., Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – poisoned people 

not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these 

studies.

Harchelroad et al. (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 

toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 

470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26% were ever 

documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 

exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non-reporting. 

Chafee-Bahamon et al. (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 

similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 

among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 

hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 

hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 

poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases.

The third study, by Veltri et al. (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 

illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may

occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center 

could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and 

injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 

poisonings may be consistently low

There are several reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 

OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 

incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 

above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents;

 No central reporting point for all incidents;

 Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes;

 Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects;

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 

effects;

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects;

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians;

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases.

There are good reasons to think that underreporting is at least as significant in the agricultural 

sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the characteristics of 

the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) describes the hired farmworker population as “... 
184

younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign-born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized 

to work in the United States.” These attributes point toward a relatively disadvantaged 

workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or report pesticide incidents to 

their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and immigration status 

described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek medical care, which 

would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and available to be counted in 

poisoning databases. USDA research based on NAWS data also reports that farmworkers have 

difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for 

two-thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to 

receiving care. The problem is more severe among unauthorized workers (NASS, 2008a).

Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a 

population that does not have a lot of resources to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to interact 

with health workers because of their immigration status, or have difficulty communicating with 

health workers when they do seek medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure. 

The limited available data for pesticide poisonings of farmworkers are consistent with the 

conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to 

medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of acute benefits from 

avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 

underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5.

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 

for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 

annual average of 2,170. EPA reviewed all pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR from 

2003-2005 and identified a total of 460 occupational cases of which 263 of the cases, 57 percent,

occurred in agricultural settings where WPS is applicable. Thus, of all occupational pesticide 

incidents found in NPDS, EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 incidents occur on farms, 

nurseries, and greenhouses annually. 

The review of the SENSOR data identified 63 cases that would likely have been avoided under 

the proposed revisions to the WPS, as explained below. Another 84 cases might possibly have 

been avoided. Thus, EPA concludes that 24 to 56 percent of agricultural incidents, or 14 to 32 

percent of all occupational cases, would be likely or at least possibly avoidable through the 

proposed changes. Given the number of occupational incidents reported in NPDS, EPA 

estimates that 297 to 693 acute incidents would be prevented annually under this rule, before any 

adjustment is made for under-reporting. 

By reviewing the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR, EPA was able to identify the 

proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA then reviewed these cases for the 

cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 

the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “likely”, “possible” or “not 

likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following 

guidelines:
185

 Likely:

o A technical proposed requirement, such as respirator fit testing or training, field 

posting, or extension of the entry –restricted area to forests and fields could 

mitigate the exposure. If the details of the case were not robust, the case was 

downgraded to “possible.”

 Possible:

o More frequent or more comprehensive training could mitigate the exposure.

 Unlikely

o The exposure was caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a gust of wind

o The incident was dermatitis caused by dust exposure

o The exposure was to the neck of a handler as a result of application to row ends in 

orchards

o The exposure was caused by malfunctioning equipment.

o Consensus of the reviewers was not achieved in the review

o The information in the case report was insufficient to determine if the changes 

would mitigate the exposure.

EPA did not use all the available cases for this determination. Certain pesticides, identified as 

Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be applied by certified applicators or applicators under 

their direct supervision and these applicators are subject to separate regulations, which are also 

being revised. Although WPS training could be a factor in avoiding or mitigating incidents 

involving RUPs, EPA excludes them from consideration here so as not to double count avoided 

incidents. The incidents that remain here are those that involve farmworkers or handlers that 

were not applying RUPs. 

Cases deemed “likely” to be avoided were used to calculate the low-end ratio of acute exposure 

cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents. The combination of cases deemed “likely” and 

“possible” to be avoided was used to calculate the high-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 

unintentional pesticide incidents. 

The grey box below provides examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis. 
186

The following are examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis:

“Likely” Cases

Event ID FL00589: In 2003, a farmworker was exposed to Sevin (Carbaryl) while picking oranges. The report 

indicated that the supervisor was not trained to train the workers and therefore, the workers were not 

trained. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS 

rules given the new requirements for worker training as well as more stringent requirements for individuals 

performing the worker training sessions. 

Event ID WA01520: In 2005, a handler on an apple farm developed neurological and gastrointestinal 

symptoms while spraying a tank mix of Imidan 70-WP Agricultural Insecticide. In using the ground sprayer, 

he felt the spray on his rubber suit and could see the mist through his full face respirator. While his 

supervisor had instructed him to change the filter every 3 days, he indicated changing the filter whenever 

he smelled pesticides. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed 

changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for increased worker and handler training as well as 

the new requirement of a proper fit test and training in the use of handler respirators.

Event ID WA00898: In 2003, a handler on an apple orchard developed ocular symptoms after rubbing his 

eyes while hanging pheromone (Isomate-C Pheromone) strips. He was provided gloves and goggles, but 

chose not to wear them. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed 

changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for increased worker training with expanded 

content.

“Possibly” Cases

Event ID MI00382: In 2005, a handler was mixing fungicide (Oxidate Broad Spectrum Bactericide/Fungicide) 

from noon to 9:00 pm on a truck and rested his arm on an area with a small spill. The report indicates that 

while the worker was wearing a rubber apron, gloves and glasses, he or she should have worn coveralls 

over a long-sleeved shirt and boots. Also, he or she did not check the label for PPE requirements. We 

assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS rules 

given the increased frequency of training and expanded training content for handlers. 

Event ID WA01523: In 2005, an apple applicator suffered an occupational exposure as the pesticide he was 

mixing, Enviro Micro Sulf Micronized Wettable Sulfur, splashed into his right eye. The report indicates the 

individual was wearing safety goggles. We assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by 

the proposed changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for handler training, which would 

cause the handler to be more careful when mixing pesticides. 

Event ID LA01935: In 2005, a handler spilled the soil fumigant K-Pam 540 on his foot soaking through the 

boot. While the exposed individual was wearing PPE, the report indicates no further actions were taken 

once the boot was soaked. We assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by the 

proposed changes to the WPS rules given more frequent training emphasizing the importance of 

decontamination procedures. 

“Not Likely” Cases

Event ID WA01120: In 2003, an applicator developed ocular and dermal symptoms, but has a long standing 

history of allergic symptoms particularly when around pesticides. We assume that this case is not likely to 

be avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS rules, which do not specifically target people particularly 

prone to allergic reactions. 

Event ID WA01217: In 2004, an apple thinner developed dermal and respiratory symptoms while working. 

He reported dust on the trees, but records show a ground application was made two weeks prior to onset; 

the restricted entry interval for the product, Procure 50W is only 12 hours. Without further details 

concerning the use of PPE, we assume this case is not likely to be avoided by the proposed changes to the 

WPS rules. In this case the entry was well after the restricted entry interval and there is no evidence that 

the dust reported was pesticide residue. 
187

Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation 

of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 24% and 56% of pesticide poisonings where the 

WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases 

similar to those deemed “likely” to be avoided due to the proposed changes, as discussed above. 

The higher estimate is based on those cases in addition to those deemed as “possible” 

preventions after the proposed changes. Some of those “possible” cases may not be prevented by

the rule changes (for example, if any were intentional exposures). 

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR Cases Avoided under the Proposed Changes for the 

Worker Protection Standard 

Likelihood of being avoided by 

Proposed Rules

Number 

of Cases 

Avoided

Percent of Cases 

where WPS is 

Applicable

(263 Cases)

Percent of 

Occupational 

Cases

(460 Cases)

Likely 63 24% 14%

Possible 84 32% 18%

Both Possible and Likely 147 56% 32%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR data. 

To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents that would be avoided by this rule, 

EPA multiplies the percentages in Table 6.5-2 by the annual number of incidents obtained from 

the NPDS data, or an annual average of 2,170 occupational incidents. Given that 14 to 32 

percent of comparable SENSOR cases, i.e., all occupational cases, are likely and/or possibly 

avoided by revisions to the WPS, EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS can 

prevent between 297 and 693 incidents annually (See Table 6.5-4). This estimate accounts only 

for reported incidents, which likely make up less than 20 percent of all incidents occurring on 

WPS farms.

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

As explained in Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 

medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 

These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are 

discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the 

effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they

require more treatment, including hospitalization. Workers and handlers suffering from more 

severe effects are more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, one would expect that a more 

severe effect would result in a longer period of recovery during which the victim is unable to 

work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute 

incident will prove fatal in order to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality.

Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 

given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by
188



 = [

] + 

where Vi

Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti] is the expected medical cost for the 

case, and VPLi is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We identify four severity 

levels as described below: No Effect, Minor Effect, Moderate Effect, and Major Effect.

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as

E[

] = (|) × [ + 

]

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 

severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 

InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any selftreatments.

The value of lost productivity is

VPLi= (ωw∙work + ωH∙housekeeping + ωL∙leisure)∙DURi

where VPL is the value of productivity, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time 

spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, 

and DUR is the duration of the effect.

The value of a reduction in premature mortality, the fifth possible outcome of exposure, is 

simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value 

of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates are 

derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For 

example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, 

then the value of saving one statistical life equals $500 times 10,000—or $5 million. Note that 

this does not mean that any identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate 

value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical 

case. This analysis uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This 

value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL, and then adjusted 

from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010a).

Probability of Effect

EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 

for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 

annual average of 2,170. As shown in Table 6.5-3, about 14 percent of the acute cases 

considered resulted in “no health effects,” 65 percent in “minor effects,” about 20 percent in 

“moderate effects,” fewer than 1 percent in “major health effects,” and about 0.05 percent of 

cases per year result in “death.” The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of minor 

or moderate effects. 
189

Table 6.5-3: Average Annual Estimate of Annual Pesticide Related Poisoning Incidents 

based on NPDS Data

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

No Clinically

Observable Symptoms1 309 14.2%

Minor 1,416 65.3%

Moderate 429 19.8%

Major 15 0.7%

Death 1 0.05%

Total 2,170 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from a special tabulation of NPDS data from AAPCC

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The five severity categories in the NPDS data are defined as follows (American Association of 

Poison Control Centers, undated): 

 No effect: The patient did not develop any signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure5.

 Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure, 

but they were minimally bothersome and generally resolved rapidly with no residual 

disability or disfigurement. A minor effect is often limited to the skin or mucus 

membranes (nausea, diarrhea, drowsiness, skin irritation, first-degree dermal burn, sinus 

tachycardia without hypotension, and transient cough are all examples of minor effects).

 Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that 

were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more systemic in nature than minor 

symptoms. Usually, some form of treatment is indicated. Symptoms were not lifethreatening, and the patient had no residual disability or disfigurement (corneal abrasion,

acid-base disturbance, high fever, disorientation, hypotension that is rapidly responsive to 

treatment, and isolated brief seizures that respond readily to treatment are all examples of 

moderate effects).

 Major effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were 

life-threatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement (e.g., 

repeated seizures or status epilepticus, respiratory compromise requiring intubation, 

ventricular tachycardia with hypotension, cardiac or respiratory arrest, esophageal 

stricture, and disseminated intravascular coagulation).

 Death: The patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the 

exposure (NPDS annual report terminology, undated).

Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 

the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the distribution of 

cases across the five severity levels. As shown in Table 6.5-4, the estimated number of national 

 

5 Cases categorized as “No Effect” do not have clinically observable symptoms, and correspond to that category in 

the tables. 
190

incidents that may be prevented with the rule are between 297 and 693. The estimates, except 

for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of Cases 

Prevented Annually

Clinical Effect Share of Total

Low End Estimate 

(13.6%)

High End 

Estimate 

(20.1%)

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms1 14.2% 42 99

Minor 65.3% 193 453

Moderate 19.8% 59 137

Major 0.7% 2 5

Death 0.05% 0.14 0.32

Total 100.0% 297 693

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3.

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers, except for “Death.”

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

Valuation of Effect

The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10). The 

estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated 

number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is 

likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed Section 6.5.2. 

Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those 

affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 

illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay

for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particular, these estimate do not: (1) address the value 

of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness (i.e., 

defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 

consider ex ante values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment 

returns individuals to their original health state (i.e., is equivalent to avoiding the illness 

entirely).

It is also important to recognize that the financial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 

farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 

paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 

jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a 

greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 

because agricultural work is often seasonal.
191

In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 

rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 

are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 

hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except 

“death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 

sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost 

productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 

illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 

For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 

work, household activities, and leisure.

Direct Medical Costs

As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by

E[

] = (|) × [ + 

]

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 

treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 

In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 

utilized the NPDS data for 2000-2005, which has information on whether cases were treated at 

health care facilities. Table 6.5-5 presents the number of NPDS cases that were seen at a health 

care facility (1,307 cases), the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each 

category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the 

probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we use the share of cases from 

NPDS that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-5.

Table 6.5-5: Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide-Related Acute 

Exposures, NPDS 2000-2005.

Clinical Effect

Cases Seen at 

Health Care 

Facility Total Cases

Share of Cases Seen at Health 

Care Facility

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms1 107 309 34.6%

Minor 826 1416 58.3%

Moderate 359 429 83.7%

Major 14 15 93.3%

Source: NPDS data, 2000 – 2005

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 

specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, 2007. For 

Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) the average charges 

reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $23,101 in 2007. 
192

Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from physician visit benchmark fees for 

evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 

medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals) 6. 

Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 

established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 

describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 

2007, the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category

was $42.48 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $67.60 for new patients. 

Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the 

average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $55.10. That cost seems low, but the data 

reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services, 

payments that reflect the care that low income patients receive. This may be an underestimate, 

especially for moderate cases, where some treatment is required, which would imply that the 

outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 

Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 

treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-6. 

Table 6.5-6 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF|i)

Outpatient 

Cost

Inpatient 

Cost

Expected Medical 

Cost 1

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms2 34.6% $55.10 $0 $19.08

Minor 58.3% $55.10 $0 $32.14

Moderate 83.7% $55.10 $0 $46.11

Major 93.3% $55.10 $23,101 $21,612.36

Source: EPA estimation.

1Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

2

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The Value of Lost Productivity

The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is 

typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 

As noted above, we calculate this value as

E[

] = ( + h + 

) × 

Where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect.

 

6The average facility charge for all providers in 2007 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp
193

BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 

leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2007b), 

an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a sevenday week. The National Agricultural Workers Survey reports the average workweek for 

farmworkers to be similar, at 42 hour per week (DoL, 2005). We use the BLS figure here 

because it corresponds to the BLS Time of Use Survey discussed in the next paragraph. The 

estimates are not sensitive to this assumption, because leisure and household activities also have 

a value in our analysis. 

Time spent in housekeeping activities varies considerably by gender. According to the American 

Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2007c), employed males aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 

hours per day in household activities7and employed females aged 16 and over engage in 2.94 

hours per day of household activities. There are 78.25 million men employed in the United 

States and 67.79 million women (BLS, 2007a). Thus, the weighted average of time spent in 

housekeeping is 2.31 hours per day.

Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 7.46 

hours per day.

The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and 

handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $10.01 per hour. This analysis 

assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. For farmworkers, this may be an underestimate, 

but the results are not sensitive to this assumption, because we are also measuring the value of 

lost leisure and housekeeping time. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for 

a personal/home care aide, $9.50 (BLS, 2007a). This labor category was chosen as most closely 

representative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an 

injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the 

after-tax wage rate for workers, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work 

and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 30.8 percent (Tax 

Foundation, 2008), which leaves an after-tax return of $6.93 per hour.

Table 6.5-7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 

in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 

Table 6.5-7 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day

week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 

estimated to be $135.69 per day.

 

7 Household activity is a broad category that includes all tasks to maintain a household, such as cooking, cleaning, 

home and vehicle maintenance, decoration, and yard care, as well as organizational activities like paperwork.
194

Table 6.5-7: Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value 

(ω)

Total Value per 

Day

Work 5.60 a$10.01

c

$56.07

Housekeeping 2.94 a$9.50d$27.93

Leisure 7.46 b$6.93

e

$51.69

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $135.69

Sources:

a BLS, 2007, Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times 7 days per week and subtracting the weekly time known for work 

and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

cEPA Estimates – see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2007 CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($380) and 

assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $9.50 per hour.

eCalculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (30.8%). 

The duration of illness by medical outcome/severity is derived from severity definitions for the 

NPDS data. The NPDS data report the duration of clinical effects for minor, moderate and major 

severity levels as a range, such as “greater than 8 hours and less than or equal to 24 hours.” For 

the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basically a 

weighted average of the possible durations in the NPDS data. The weights are the share of cases 

reported in the NPDS that have that duration for each severity level. For example, for moderate 

clinical effects, 6.1% of patients have duration of effects for less than two hours, while 28% have 

durations between 2 and 8 hours, etc. 

Since exposure durations by clinical effect were reported with the NPDS 2006 Annual Report as 

a range of time (e.g., > 8 hours, <= 24 hours), we created a low-end and high-end scenario for 

each duration category. The low-end scenario uses either the low-end estimate if an exact 

duration range was given (e.g., > 24 hours, <= 3 days; the low-end is 1 day) or if the range is 

one-sided (e.g., < 2 hours), then the midpoint was used (e.g., for < 2 hours; the low-end is 1 

hour). The high-end scenario uses the high-end of the duration range given (e.g., > 8 hours, <= 

24 hours; the high-end is 1 day). For this analysis, one month was assumed to be 30 days; a 

duration of greater than 1 month was assumed to be 1-3 months, with one month for the low 

estimate, and 3 for the high estimate; anticipated permanent was assumed to be 1 year at the high 

end. The unknown duration was excluded from the analysis. 

There are no data available on the duration of clinical effects for “no effect.” However, people 

who visited a health care facility for “no effect” (34.6%) were assumed to experience reduced 

productivity for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low-end duration of one hour (about 

.04 days) and the high-end duration is 2 hours (about 0.08 days). Because only 34.6% of cases 

with “no effect” visited a health care facility, the average duration for no effect is 34.6% of .04 

days for the low end (0.014 days) and 34.6% of .08 days for the high end (0.029 days).

Table 6.5-8 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 

with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 
195

days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($135.69) to yield high and low 

estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 

Table 6.5-8: Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by Clinical 

Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario

Average Duration 

of Clinical Effect 

(Days)a

E[VPLi]

c

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms1

Low-End 0.014 b$1.96

High-end 0.029b$3.92

Minor Low-End 0.52 $70.39

High-end 1.78 $242.07

Moderate Low-End 1.05 $141.99

High-end 3.39 $460.23

Major Low-End 3.95 $535.72

High-end 14.41 $1,954.97

Sources: 

a With the exception of no effect, the average duration in days was calculated as the weighted average of duration 

estimates for each severity level, with the weights given by the share of patients with that duration. As a simple 

example, 31.9% of patients with a clinical effect level of “moderate” had a duration of 8 – 24 hours, so the weight 

on 8 – 24 hours is 0.319 for the moderate effect level. 

b The average duration for no effect was assumed to be the shortest duration group presented (< 2 hours); so the 

low-end duration is the midpoint of 1 hour or 0.04 days and the high-end duration is 2 hours or 0.08 days, scaled 

by 34.6%, the percentage of cases that sought care.

c With the exception of no effect, the unit cost for lost productivity day by scenario and clinical effect was 

calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity 

($135.69).

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 

The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA 

(2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 

reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 

resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 

productivity is included in the VSL.

Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents

The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10. For each 

level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of 

premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity

levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-9 shows the low end estimates, 

which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the number of 

prevented cases, while Table 6.5-10 shows the high end estimates. 
196

Table 6.5-9: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to 

the WPS

Clinical 

Effect

Avoided 

Cases 

per Year

Medical 

Costs per 

Case

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case

Premature 

Mortality per 

Case

Average Annual 

Total Cost

Avoided

No Clinically

Observable 

Symptoms1

42 $19.08 $1.96 $0 $900

Minor 193 $32.14 $70.39 $0 $19,900

Moderate 59 $46.11 $141.99 $0 $11,100

Major 2 $21,612 $535.72 $0 $45,500

Death 0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $1,082,000

Total 296 $1,159,400

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded. 

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

Table 6.5-10: “High-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed 

Changes to the WPS

Clinical 

Effect

Avoided 

Cases 

per Year

Medical 

Costs per 

Case

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case

Premature 

Mortality per 

Case

Average Annual 

Total Cost

Avoided

No 

Clinically

Observable 

Symptoms1

99 $19.08 $3.92 $0 $2,300

Minor 453 $32.14 $242.07 $0 $124,200

Moderate 137 $46.11 $460.23 $0 $69,400

Major 5 $21,612 $1,954.97 $0 $117,800

Death 0.32 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $2,524,600

Total 693 $2,838,300

Source: EPA Calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 

to 2.8 million. Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is between 

$10.2 million and $24.9 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $8.7 

million and $21.3 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied. 
197

There are limitations to these estimates. As discussed above we expect that a large proportion of 

accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning of workers and handlers never get reported to a national 

poisoning center for various reasons. Migrant farm workers and handlers may be less likely to 

report acute poisoning cases to poison control centers. Other workers with incomplete 

information on the requirements of the WPS may also not report poisoning cases for fear of 

reprisal. All indications are that underreporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore 

not included in the NPDS or SENSOR databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. This 

underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward. 

In Table 6.5-11, we show the effect of under-reporting at different rates on our monetized 

estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% underreporting), 

then the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is 

underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-11 shows a range 

of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 

10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about 

underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and underreporting is equally

likely in all poisoning cases, then the high-end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due 

to the rule would be over $28 million per year, substantially higher than those reported above, 

which assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these 

unreported acute exposures of workers and handlers are also not known. If reporting rates vary

by severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, 

then the effects of underreporting would be correspondingly lower. For example, if deaths were 

never under-reported, but all other severity levels of illness were under-reported, the high-end 

estimate of the value of prevented poisonings with only 10% reporting would be about $5.7

million per year. This is because the value of a statistical life is so high, the results change 

dramatically with changes in the estimated number of deaths prevented. Later in this chapter we 

will use of $11.4 million as our estimate of acute benefits after adjusting for underreporting, 

which corresponds to a reporting rate of 25%, which is a plausible estimate based on the 

underreporting studies discussed in Section 6.5.2. 

Table 6.5-11. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions 

about Underreporting

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% 296 $1,159,400 693 $2,838,400

50% 592 $2,318,800 1,386 $5,677,800

25% 1,184 $4,637,600 2,772 $11,353,600

20% 1,480 $5,797,000 3,465 $14,192,000

10% 2,960 $11,594,000 6,930 $28,384,000

Source: EPA Calculations

All estimates presented in this chapter include only the effects of reduced illness from acute 

exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section. There is no attempt 
198

to measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be substantial; we 

calculate only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. 

It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesses are borne primarily by

farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the members of our society with the least ability to 

absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) 

farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 

a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relatively

greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families are 

below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000 - $12,499 per year, and 

average family income is $15,000 -$17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can 

consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005).

Some of the proposed requirements will be implemented later than others. Most requirements 

have an effective date 90 days after the rule is signed; some proposals will be effective two years 

after signature. The delayed requirements include the changes to training topics and materials, 

requirements on who can train workers, changes to the content of warning signs, and the 

requirement that a handler suspend or cease application if a person enters the treated area. The 

quantified benefit estimates presented in this section are not adjusted for this change. This is 

because most of the delayed changes, such as training materials on how to safeguard the families 

of workers and handlers are unlikely to show up data used for estimating illnesses, as discussed 

in that section. Of the cases that were used to generate the estimates of illnesses prevented, only 

six would possibly have been prevented by the individual items that are required two years after 

signature of the rule. In all cases the relevant provision is that an application be suspended if a 

person enters the treated area. In at least three of these six cases, other provisions of the 

proposed rule would likely have protected against the exposure. If all six cases are classified as 

unlikely to be prevented until year three, the quantified estimates of benefits change slightly. 

They are reduced, because some exposures will not be prevented for two years. The change in 

estimates is relatively small, however; annualized benefit estimates are reduced between $12,000 

and $30,000 per year, depending on the discount rate and whether the high or low end estimates 

are used.

The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 

families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 

6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers 

and Handlers 

In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 

presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 

reflected in the estimates, e.g., potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 

are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. 

EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health 

effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning 

surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects 

to farmworkers, pesticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this 
199

section, EPA presents a semi-quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break-even analysis”) 

to chronic health conditions, i.e., chronic cases avoided due to the rule. 

It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 

outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a 

causal link between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information linking 

pesticide exposure and illness is compelling enough to suggest some of the statistical 

associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall 

pesticide exposure reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be 

quantified at this time.

While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 

pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 

evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically several 

epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within 

different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before 

researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. The 

environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in terms of both quantity and quality of 

pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA believes additional causal links between pesticide 

exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time.

Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real 

world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposurechronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 

the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 

collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 

issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency

for Research in Cancer (IARC) currently lists dioxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite 

carcinogens, and several other pesticides are listed as probable carcinogens. Research is 

underway to determine if other pesticides are also carcinogenic. There is a large body of 

epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (such as cancer, 

neurological, respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result 

from pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to 

specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. 

There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by federal governments in the U.S. 

and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest several plausible hypotheses to link 

pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is 

the Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other 

collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, 

including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses, investigating a broad 

array of potential illnesses. A cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 

links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al., 1996, 

Nordby et al., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between 
200

agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al., 2006). The Korean 

Multi-Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 

as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 

(Yoo et al., 2002). The National Cancer Institute recently initiated a collaborative effort, 

AGRICOH, which is designed to encourage international collaboration. It encompasses 22 

cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from 

pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al., 2011). 

Studying chronic health effects of long-term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is 

complicated by many factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals, not just pesticides;

exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e., intermittent or sustained; and 

multiple routes of exposure, e.g., dermal and inhalation. Many epidemiologic studies that include 

certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 

other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely result from appropriate, label use 

of pesticides, however, misuse does occur (Bell et al., 2006). These certified applicators that 

form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural 

workers and handlers. 

Another complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 

implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 

protective equipment, revised re-entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide 

products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today

contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 

necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g., if the pesticide was already cancelled or 

withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 

and other factors have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several 

decades, which is the relevant period for investigating chronic effects with typically long latency 

periods such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be 

interpreted with caution when applied to current regulatory questions.

Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 

linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early exposures may occur from pesticides 

that are on the bodies or clothes of workers and handlers. A number of studies have shown the 

potential for “take home” exposures, where an agricultural worker brings pesticide residues 

home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). Because one of the changes in the rule is an 

increased focus on training about the take home pathway, this type of exposure should be 

reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including 

children.

These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be 

evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health 

impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 

pesticides, but these reviews indicate there is cause for concern over generalized pesticide 

exposure, and in some instances shows the importance of exposure mitigation for individual 

pesticides. The proposed WPS rule changes are designed to protect against agricultural worker 
201

or handler exposures when the current state of the science does not support action on individual 

chemicals.

Later in this section, EPA summarizes some of the research on chronic health effects from 

pesticide exposure that have shown possible links to blood and prostate cancers, neurological 

effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fertility effects like 

impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes, and respiratory problems like asthma. Although 

several other associations have been measured in the literature, these are selected for discussion 

here due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of 

studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular 

pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests that the long term health of 

agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific 

research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, quantitative benefits are not possible to 

estimate. A discussion of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from 

reduced chronic exposure is presented in Section 6.8.

6.6.1. Cancer Risks

Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 

various peer-review bodies, there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 

associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in 

experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has 

only identified two classes of pesticides to be human carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides 

and those with dioxin contaminants), but classifies non-arsenical pesticides as probable human 

carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999). However, many studies have evaluated other possible links 

between pesticide exposure and cancer. 

Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 

articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide 

exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 

specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 

cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 

exposure (Bassil et al., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele 

et al., 2011, Wigle et al., 2009, Turner et al., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et 

al., 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 

pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 

Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 

agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 

excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 

and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 

cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 

of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 

pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 

engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009).
202

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researchers (for 

example, Alavanja et al., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al., 

2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 

stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang, 2009). 

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 

example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 

exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al., 1997). 

Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973 -1990, a time period 

coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 

et al., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and 

Blair, 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, 

possibly as a result of pesticide exposure; however this is not known with certainty at this time. 

Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general 

population, Koutros, et al. (2010a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 

lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 

population-based case-control study in Sweden, including increased risks for users of glyphosate 

(Eriksson et al., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers, 

however additional research is necessary to understand whether the link is causal in nature, and 

the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the 

risk of these cancers.

In a review by Bassil et al. (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 

leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies 

with statistically significant results. Several case-control studies looked at children that had been 

exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia whose parents used 

insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant 

(Bassil et al., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the 

systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether population bias was a factor in 

the results of this review. 

In the Bassil et al. review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 

examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 

the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 

associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 

pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 

pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 

postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 

risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al., 2007).

Wigle et al. (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 

exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers’ children. They found no evidence of a direct 
203

link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report an 

association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides and 

their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other 

significant related exposures.

Prostate Cancer 

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 

are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 

disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al., 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 

prostate cancer which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 

non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 

members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 

increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al., 2010a). Case-control analysis within the AHS 

suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 

only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al.. 2003). Additional followup within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al., 2006 and 2007; 

Christensen et al., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure 

varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway

that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 

not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic 

variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 

and prostate cancer (Koutros et al., 2010b). Although these genetic variations do not fully

explain the cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environmental exposures may

play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, 

possibly due to differing study designs used. 

In investigations of farmworker populations, prostate cancer associations have also been found. 

For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in 

California, and concluded that high levels of exposure to various types of pesticides left Hispanic 

workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer.

Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 

this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al. 2012). For the 

purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 

outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 

a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 

among those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. 

This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 

and prostate cancer. It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the 

aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 

slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 

to distinguish clear causal pathways. However the study is supportive of previous work

concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 

the AHS.
204

Lung Cancer

There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al.

(2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 

AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in 

the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the 

population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung 

cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; (Lee et al., 2004).

6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects

Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide 

exposure, however none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary

investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are 

preliminary investigations other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 

However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 

and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general 

neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the proposed changes to WPS rules 

reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these chronic health 

effects as well.

Neurological Function

The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 

spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al., (2007), investigated the 

hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Study participants included licensed 

private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 

contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of 

PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those 

who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a doseresponse relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no 

association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has 

recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant selfreporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if 

participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al., 2011).

In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al. (2007) 

evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 

and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude 

that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 

exposures of pesticides on the job.”

Sanborn et al. (2007) examined the non-cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found 

most (39/41) studies displayed a positive increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 

association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 
205

preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 

depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al., 2007). Kamel et al., 

(2007a), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime 

pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides.

In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nonagricultural Hispanic 

workers, Rothlein et al., (2006) examined the possible neurobehavioral effects of low-level 

chronic organophosphate pesticide exposure. Residues of these pesticides were found in a 

substantial portion of workers’ homes. A significant correlation was observed between urinary

metabolite levels and total organophosphate house dust levels. Poor performance on five 

neurobehavioral tests was associated with higher levels of the average combined thiomethyl 

metabolites in adult farmworkers. According to the authors, the correlation found between 

environmental contamination and levels of urinary metabolites further demonstrates the takehome pathway of pesticide exposure and the need for better home hygiene practices. 

Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies 

(Rauh et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2011; and Bouchard et al., 2011) have investigated the 

relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 

neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 

al., 2011), reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides 

and adverse neurological symptoms. The authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data 

at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of 

action, among other study characteristics. 

Respiratory Function

Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory

effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 

trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 

asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 

several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et 

al., (2008) reported an association between pesticide exposure to a range of pesticides and 

asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of 

asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an 

important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworkers, 

rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as 

well. Salam et al., (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among 

those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children 

with early onset asthma. An international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 

(Salameh et al., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms.

Studies have also reported an association between pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 

inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 

a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes 

it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 

Hoppin et al. (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and 
206

chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an association that was stronger among those with a 

high pesticide exposure event.

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause-effect relation 

between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes. However, the totality

of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with 

plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic 

adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 

and standards. 

6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

The proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides, 

as well as reduce the non-occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There 

is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure 

would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In 

general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, 

the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for 

use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed WPS changes are a 

way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to occupational 

health. 

The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 

illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 

by family members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those 

stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by 

tremors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, instability and falling, all of which result in difficulty 

performing everyday functions (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation). Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is 

a cancer that starts in the immune system, with symptoms of swollen lymph nodes, weight loss, 

fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment for NHL, has 

a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National Cancer Institute, 

2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is often fatal. The 

five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of people diagnosed 

with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011).

Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore 

prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 

pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 

disease are great, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 

paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have 

been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 

estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower-
207

growing NHL (Kutikova, et al.) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half 

years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al.). These costs are very high, especially so 

relative to the income for workers and handlers, and the value of reducing these illnesses is likely

to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs, which is likely an under-estimate of 

the true cost of illness. 

The next section details the break-even analysis methodology, which considers the value of 

potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness-to-pay to avoid 

illness or death. 

6.8. Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

In this section, EPA presents a “break-even” analysis. This analysis shows that preventing a 

very small number of illnesses potentially associated with pesticide exposure could result in 

benefits to human health equal to or greater than the difference between the quantified benefits 

and the estimated costs of the rule. As described below, preventing only a few pesticide-related 

illnesses annually, less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate 

enough in benefits to close the gap between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the 

quantified estimate of benefits from reduced acute exposures. The break-even number of cases 

is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist over 

a long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we consider nonHodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma 

to demonstrate the potential benefits in the proposed rule from reducing exposures to chronic 

illnesses. These are the illnesses for which there is evidence of an association with pesticide 

exposure and for which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer-reviewed literature 

or may be transferred. 

6.8.1. Background

The break-even approach uses EPA’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute 

exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the proposed rule. 

The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from 

reduced chronic exposure would need to be for the total annual benefits of chronic illness 

reduction to equal costs. A break-even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data are 

lacking (OMB, 2003). Although we cannot quantify net benefits of chronic disease avoided, we 

can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes to cause the 

net benefits to become positive. This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also 

be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures to 

pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits. 

Break-even analyses have been used by EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all benefits 

could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water 

used this approach to highlight benefits that could not be quantified (EPA, 2011; EPA, 2010b;

EPA, 2006c; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break-even analyses were based on prevented 

illness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to 

what is done here. These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known 
208

causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g., gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial 

contamination of water. The break-even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide 

exposure and chronic disease, where causal links are considered in the peer-reviewed literature 

(see Section 6.7). 

The costs of environmental regulations are traditionally much simpler to quantify than benefits to 

health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily

estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are often difficult to quantify due 

to data limitations, as noted above, or the non-pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as 

noted in Section 6.5 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide 

exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will 

likely accrue as a result of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS.

Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the public health benefit of pesticide exposure 

reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are 

unable to quantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While 

exposure reduction is an anticipated outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the 

magnitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are indirect, i.e., they influence 

behavior associated with pesticide safety practices. Similarly, while statistical associations have 

been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic 

health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 6.5, the causal nature of these associations 

have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic 

health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this 

time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease 

outcomes in the population (i.e., there is a multi-factorial web of disease causation), however it is 

plausible that some instances of disease (specific cases) could be attributable to pesticide 

exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 

and their families. Relative to other studies of the effects of occupational exposure to chemicals, 

studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to 

specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied 

by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 

also difficult with this mobile population, making it harder to identify exposure based on 

available application data (Zahm et al., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993).

The break-even analysis is meant for illustrative purposes. The analysis is designed to 

demonstrate the magnitude of potential health risk reduction which would be necessary to 

equilibrate the total WPS costs using traditional and conservative assumptions from the 

environmental economics peer-reviewed literature. 

In Section 6.6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors report 

observations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. Included in that 

discussion is information on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort 

study of about 90,000 farmers and their spouses initiated in the early 1990’s. The study is 

recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that have been extensively

validated. Because of these characteristics and strengths, it is appropriate to use the results and 

findings of this study in evaluating pesticide risks. OPP has been systematically evaluating this 
209

study in collaborative projects with the AHS investigators with respect to algorithms, exposure 

assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting 

epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound 

scientific principles and use of Bradford Hill criteria for evidence of causation. The work 

products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent 

Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform hazard identification and 

characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that 

past and current exposures differ from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while 

studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard characterization, additional information outside of 

any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real-world exposure potential. The 

putative associations suggested in epidemiology studies like the AHS can help in evaluating 

potential health outcomes associated with exposures and assist in conducting an economic 

evaluation of possible benefits from reducing exposure through an enhanced worker protection 

standard.

6.8.2. Method

For the acute estimates earlier in this chapter, the number of cases prevented was found by 

evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break-even 

analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end 

of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be prevented for the benefits 

to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the 

farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 

reduction for all diseases and their fatal effects, if any, although it is likely that different 

exposure-response profiles exist for specific pesticide-chronic health effect association. 

As discussed in Section 6.6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, 

non-specific pesticide exposure. For this break-even exercise, however, we will consider only a 

few illnesses associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 

cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma. Numerous 

observational studies have been performed evaluating pesticide exposure in association with 

these human health outcomes. While scientific consensus has not established these associations 

as causal in nature, evidence is suggestive of an association. For illustrative purposes, these 

health outcomes are identified for the break-even analysis. 

It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) 

included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic 

exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have 

shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may

not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to challenges of performing 

observational studies in the farm worker population. 

To estimate the break-even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on 

disease incidence, which describes how many cases of disease can be expected to be diagnosed 

each year. 
210

Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use 

an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure 

consists of four components:

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness;

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication;

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 

activities; and

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering.

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they

are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 

the WTP estimates presented here. 

Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 

consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subjects. For 

example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 

non-fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use 

benefits transfer to find estimates. This involves applying available estimates of WTP for 

preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 

For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 

EPA currently recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 million (in 

2008 dollars) to value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a 

distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 

The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simply the sum across illnesses of the value of 

prevention times the number of prevented cases, which are the prevented share (PrevShare) 

times the number of cases:

h  = ∙ 



= ∙ h∙ 



where ωi can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the breakeven analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater than or 

equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute benefits. 

The break-even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between the estimated 

cost (Cost) and the estimated acute benefits (Acute):

h ≥  − .
211

The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to 

the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, ChronicBE. A simplifying 

assumption is that PrevSharei is equal for all diseases, which means that the percentage reduction 

in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary cause of 

lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with tobacco 

smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have little effect 

on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShareLung Cancer is 10% of 

the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the estimated 10 – 15% 

of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al., 2008).

6.8.3. Data

To perform the break-even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 

the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 

The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 5 and the quantified acute benefits of the rule were 

estimated in Section 6.5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly 

available. Estimates of WTP are from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate 

for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used 

in the analysis are summarized in Table 6.8-1.

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 

non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 

21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al., 2011). An 

estimate of the WTP for reducing a case of non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million was derived in 

the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

(EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al. (1996), from which it was determined that 

the median risk-risk trade-off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 

58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non-fatal lymphoma was 

calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the current estimate of VSL of $7.9 million, we 

estimate a mean WTP for non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million (VSL × 58.3%).

Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is a common cancer among American men and the second leading cause of 

cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003 – 2007 (U.S. Cancer 

Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were about 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, 

on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases 

reported in 2007. The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 

cases in 2012. In addition, CDC reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer 

on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 

2010). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non-fatal 

cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 
212

overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the 

incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 

al., 2003; Koutros et al., 2010a).

An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 

Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 

is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is 

appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 

lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al. (2006) 

estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 

Kutikova et al. (2006), the treatment costs for indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 

under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for nonHodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 

yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $780,000. 

This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer that 

may be low, considering several new treatment and drug regimes that are very expensive. 

Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more 

aggressive and require more expensive treatment than those found in elderly men.

Chronic Bronchitis

Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which 

bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long-term cough, shortness of breath, 

excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 

life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 

Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year (Centers for Disease 

Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per year (639 from the same source). These figures 

are misleading, because the CDC criterion for a diagnosis is that a patient has been identified 

within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million 

diagnoses are more likely to reflect the number of patients with the disease, rather than new 

cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the 

incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using the prevalence would be misleading, so for this 

analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This is disappointing, because reduced lung 

function can have important impacts on quality of life, and past EPA economic analysis has 

provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic Analysis for the 

Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide 

estimates of the WTP of $800,000 to avoid chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991).

Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually

(Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 2010). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than 

the general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14th leading cause of 
213

death in the United States8, but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. 

The progressive neurological effects of Parkinson’s, such as swallowing problems which lead to 

undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s 

Disease Foundation 2010 and University of Maryland Medical Center 2009). Because of these 

complications, we take a conservative approach in this break-even analysis, and ignore the 

fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, there was no available estimate of WTP to avoid 

Parkinson’s disease. We propose to use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for 

Parkinson’s disease, because in some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted 

mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. The WTP to avoid chronic 

bronchitis is $800,000, which we will use for Parkinson’s disease. 

There are reasons to think this value is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, 

and sometimes cured, while Parkinson’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, 

there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma 

above was based on a study by Magat et al. (1996), which compared risk-risk tradeoffs for 

curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a noncancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 

nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 

reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA used for estimating WTP for 

avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about 

$3 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $800,000 here. Moreover, possible 

fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis.

Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most 

common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States 

Cancer Statistics, 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects about 226,000 new cases of lung cancer to 

be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate 

of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from 

lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (National Cancer Institute, 2012). 

Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few 

years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned above (Section 6.8.2), we will assume that 

lung cancer preventions happen at 10% of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which 

roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer among non-smokers. This is because changes to 

the WPS are not expected to have large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, 

which is smoking.

There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peerreviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the 

analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 

and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non-fatal 

lung cancer. This will be the same value ($800,000) used for Parkinson’s disease, because they 

 

8 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s disease by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et al., 

2010).
214

come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic Analysis 

for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005)9.

Asthma

Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic 

difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al., 2012) , is another common 

respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin et al., 2008)). 

Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 

Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and 

asthma does not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. CDC 

estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for 

Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 

478,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001 – 2009 divided by nine 

years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal – in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma 

(Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this 

analysis. 

The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount 

rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $2,200 to a perpetuity to represent preventing 

development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $73,000 per 

case10. 

 

7 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 different 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 

illustrative 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 population 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. 

10 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. 
215

Table 6.8-1. Information for Calculating Break-Even Number of Cases Avoided

Disease

WTP to Avoid 

Disease, ωi

($1000) Annual Cases

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 4,606 49,000

Fatal NHL 7,900 21,000

Curable Prostate Cancer 780 223,000

Fatal Prostate Cancer 7,900 29,000

Parkinson’s Disease 800 60,000

Curable Lung Cancer 800 36,000

Fatal Lung Cancer 7,900 190,000

Fatal Bronchitis 7,900 640

Asthma 73 480,000

Fatal Asthma 7,900 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

6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation

In Chapter 5, the costs of proposed WPS changes were estimated to be between $62.1 million 

and $72.9 million per year. To find the break-even point, we need to find the reduction in illness 

that closes the gap between the estimated costs and the quantified acute benefits. For this 

analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates benefits of at least the difference 

between the high value of the estimated costs ($72.9 million) and estimated acute benefits of 

$11.4 million, for a difference between estimated costs and quantified benefits of $61.5 million. 

Reducing the national rate of these illnesses by 0.006% (and the rate of lung cancer by 0.0006%)

is more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that close the high estimate 

of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness would have an 

estimated benefit of $64.6 million dollars annually. The results here obviously change based on 

assumptions about under-reporting of acute pesticide incidents, because that changes the estimate 

of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits 

estimate would be about $2.8 million (See Table 6.5 –11). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% 

(0.0007% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $75.3 million in benefits is more 

than the total high-end costs estimate of $72.9 million.. The reduction to break-even with only

$2.8 million in acute benefits is about 0.0065%, and about 0.0059% to break even with a gap of 

$61.5 million.

Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.006% would reduce the 

number of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases by an average of 2.94 non-fatal and 1.26 fatal cases 

per year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 13.38 non-fatal and 1.74 fatal

cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.6 per year; reduce the number of fatal 

bronchitis cases by 0.04 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 28.8 cases, and fatal 

asthma cases by 0.20 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the 
216

reduction in other diseases, or 0.0006%, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average 

of 0.22 non-fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per year.

Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases 

nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a much smaller population, farmworkers 

and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break-even chronic benefits 

will not change, they will represent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population, 

which we describe below.

It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural 

community than the general public, because of the associations between pesticide exposure and 

disease described above and in Section 6.5. However, we do not make that assumption here. 

Instead, we assume that the worker/handler face illness equal to their share of the population. 

The share is about 0.75%, based on the 2,323,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 

308,700,000 (Census Bureau, 2011). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers 

required to reach the break-even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases. 

A reduction in these illnesses of just under 0.8% (0.08% for lung cancer), will generate $64.8

million in benefits, more than required to reach the break-even point. Across all diseases, the 

reduction is about 53 cases annually out of over 8,000 cases that might occur. Table 6.8-2 shows 

the calculations for farmworker cases. The estimated farmworker cases are 0.75% of the annual 

cases for the United States, and the break-even cases are the number of cases that prevented to 

reach the breakeven point. In dollar terms the $64.8 million per year to break even represents an 

annual WTP per farmworker of less than $28. 

Table 6.8-2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break-Even” Analysis

Disease

Annual 

Cases

Incidence

(per 

100,000) 1

Annual Cases 

Farmworkers2

“Break-Even” 

Avoided Cases

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s 

Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.95

Fatal NHL 21,000 6.8 158 1.26

Curable Prostate Cancer 223,000 72.2 1,678 13.42

Fatal Prostate Cancer 29,000 9.4 218 1.75

Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 451 3.61

Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 271 0.22

3

Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1,430 1.143

Fatal Bronchitis 640 3,207.0 5 0.04

Asthma 480,000 5,507.0 3,611 28.89

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 26 0.21

Source: EPA calculations.

1 Calculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census 

Bureau, 2011).

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 0.08% for lung cancer and 0.8% for the other diseases
217

It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break-even analysis is 

plausible. As discussed above Table 6.8-2, the number of cases needed to reach the break-even 

point is small relative to the number of cases we estimate in the farmworker population, even 

when we assume that their rate of disease is equal to the population at large. As discussed in 

Section 6.6, there is a possible association between the diseases discussed here and pesticide 

exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likely to develop these diseases. 

The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach the break-even 

point, even if rates for farmworkers are not reduced to the level of the general population. For 

this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three diseases, based on the AHS. 

The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide applicators and their spouses. This cohort is 

healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. Although 

farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to 

pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite different: farmworkers may be more likely to be 

exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. Pesticide 

handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to certified 

applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be exposed than 

are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against pesticide 

exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of these 

differences in occupational exposure, it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher or 

lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates 

implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these 

estimates. 

For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al. (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized 

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the AHS cohort with a confidence interval of 1.05 to 1.2411. Using the 

1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more likely than the general 

population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the 

AHS population. 

If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 

likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 

rates shown in Table 6.8-2 by dividing the number of cases per year by the U.S. population; for 

prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a year that are treatable, and 29,000 that result in death. 

Because only males get prostate cancer, the incidence rate among males is twice as high, with 

223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for 

farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100,000. At the higher rate, we should expect 

about 1,913 cases annually in the farmworker population, even if we assume that only half of 

farmworkers are men, which is an underestimate. 

The break-even number of cases of non-fatal prostate cancer with a 0.8% reduction among

farmworkers is 13.42 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the 

risk only slightly. To reach the reduction of 13.42 cases annually would require a reduction in 

the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163.55, still well above the general population level. 

 

11 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.
218

A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The incidence rate for the general 

population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farmworkers have a rate 14% higher, their rate 

would be about 21.4 per 100,000, resulting in about 249 cases per year. The break-even number 

of cases is about 1.75 annually. To reach the high-end reduction the incidence rate among 

farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21.3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the

diseases considered here: all of the reductions in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, 

and with the exception of lung cancer and possibly chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence 

rates remain higher than the general population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010a) report a 

standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We 

estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 

procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would 

be about 18.6 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.95 cases annually would change the 

incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.44 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 

among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.90 per 100,000, 

still well above the rate we estimate for the general population of 6.8 per 100,000. For 

Parkinson’s disease, van der Markl et al. (2011) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS 

cohort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That 

corresponds to an incidence rate of about 31.5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19.5

among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to the break-even point 

among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31.3 per 100,000. Among farm 

women in the AHS, Hoppin et al. (2008) reported an incidence rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for

those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence 

rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per 

100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be 

about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 

population. Reducing cases to the break-even point among farmworkers would reduce the 

estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 to about 226 per 100,000, while the fatal asthma 

incidence rate would remain unchanged at 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other diseases described 

above, even after reductions in cases among farmworkers to reach the break-even point, the rate 

of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for the general 

population.

As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are 

higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break-even point. The two 

exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to 

determine the correct rate among non-smokers. Valcin et al., (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 

among non-smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in 

association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, 

but does not compare them to a non-agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports an odds 

ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide 

exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those are may not reflect the 

low-level chronic exposure relevant for the break-even analysis. However, if we assume the 

farmworker rate is even 1% higher than the general population we see the same pattern: the 

number of cases among farmworkers can be reduced to the breakeven point, yet the incidence 

rate is the same as the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other 

diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate 
219

of the general population (Alavanja et al., 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are

generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 

If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.08% (only 10% of the reduction for 

other diseases), the change in the estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 

to 5.12 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.03 per 100,000 for fatal 

lung cancer. 

In general, the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and 

quantified acute benefits from the rule are small. The reduction in cases relative to the 

farmworker population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to 

farmworkers. 

There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break-even analysis is necessary. 

Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break-even 

point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 

cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred. 

These diseases discussed here are chronic conditions that may have long latency periods of 5-15 

years, i.e., a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. 

Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate 

means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.7% to 0.98%. At a 7% discount rate, 

the reduction to reach the break-even point would reach 1.20%.

6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions

The break-even analysis does show that preventing only a very small number of chronic illnesses 

can have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis 

demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year 

across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that is required to 

ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS. 
220

Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden

Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork 

burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of 

complying with regulations that require firms or individuals to file reports, maintain records, or 

otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources 

expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 

Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and 

Notification (Proposed Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, in 

conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic 

Analysis. See Appendix B.

The total estimated annual respondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 8,316,993

hours. This is an increase of 6,541,862 from the 1,776,131 total burden hours in the ICR

approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. The increase in burden is due to both 

program changes and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and 

frequency of required information exchange. The program changes include modifications to 

restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard 

communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); increased posting of 

pesticide application information; provisions for information during emergency assistance; 

recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. 

Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made where appropriate, due to better information 

available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates. 

The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all proposed 

revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated 

incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions. 

Respondent records are not required to be submitted to the Agency. They are to be retained on 

the establishment and accessible for inspection.

There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor proposed 

rule imposes any requirements on the Agency. 
221

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

$5 – 14 million/year $1.2 million/year $28 million/year EA Chapter 6.5

 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 6

 Break-even analysis of the 

reduced effects of chronic 

pesticide exposure

 Annual chronic benefits necessary to break-even $61.5 million.

 Annual risk reduction needed to achieve break-even point: less than 0.8%

among farmworkers.

 Annual break-even WTP per farmworker: less than $28.

EA Chapter 6.8

COSTS

Monetized Costs

 $546 – 640 million 

over 10 years at 3% 

discount rate

 $62 – 73 million/year

$39 million/year $75 million/year EA Chapter 5.2

Quantified Costs

Qualitative Costs

TRANSFERS none
222

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.

Small business

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

 The rule will affect over 200,000 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. Highest anticipated impact less than 1% of annual 

sales.

EA Chapter 5.4

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 $60, but this is about 0.25 percent of the cost of a part-time 

employee.

EA Chapter 5.3
223

References

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C Bailey, 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/nchs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf.

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 Epidemiol, 160:876-85.

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, 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. 

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 cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May

1;157(9):800-14.

American Association of Poison Control Centers, undated. NPDS Annual Report Terminology, 

http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/NewsMediaResources/NPDSAnnualReportTe

rminology.aspx,

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 Levels 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 migrant 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.

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).
224

Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Romero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AO 

Wollitzer, and JC Barbaccia. 1984. Educational intervention to prevent pesticideinduced 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.

Beamer, 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 Hoppin, 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 among 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., 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.

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural 

Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125–131. 

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. 2010. Employer costs for employee compensation, Historical listing, Table 1. 

Management, professional and related occupations. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ocwc/ect/ececqrtn.pdf.

BLS. 2008. National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oessrci.htm

BLS. 2007a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation- December 2007. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03122008.pdf

BLS. 2007b. Employment Cost Index- December 2007. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/eci_01312008.pdf

BLS. 2007c. National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes_nat.htm

BLS. 2007d. Occupational Employment Statistics NAICS 999200 - State Government, 

excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm.
225

BLS. 2001. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - March 2001. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_032001.pdf

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. 

Pediatrics. Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, 

Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and 

IQ in 7-year-old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and 

TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabolite 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, 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 

Epidemiology 17.4 (2009): 331-49.

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, 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

Bradman MA, ME Harnly, W Draper, S Seidel, S Teran, and D Wakeham. 1997. “Pesticide 

Exposures to Children from California's Central Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.” J Expo 

Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217-234.

Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta, D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S 

Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G 

Logroscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B 

Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 

2009. Meeting report: consensus statement-Parkinson's disease and the environment: 

collaborative on health and the environment and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE 

PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect. 117, 117–121

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, WA Alarcon, A Chelminski, MS Crowley, R Barrett, A Correa, S Higgins, H Leon, 

J Correia, A Becker, R Allen, and E Evans. 2007. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers 

Who Gave Birth to Infants with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place—
226

Florida and North Carolina, 2004–2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007): 

787-791.

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 Lackovic, 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 Johnon. 2009. 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. 2012. United States Cancer Statistics, 2012. Centers for Disease Control. At 

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/toptencancers.aspx. Accessed September 20, 2012. 

CDC. 2012. 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. Centers for Disease Control, May 6. At 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid=mm6017a4_w

CDC. 2012c. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats, Asthma. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm

Census Bureau. 2006. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2006: NAICS 115112 - Soil Preparation, 

Planting, and Cultivating, United States. U.S. Census Bureau, at 

https://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2006/us/US115112.HTM.

Centers for Disease Control, National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), United States 

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/textidx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=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.

Cherlor Manufacturing Company, Inc. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.cherlor.com. 

Accessed May 8, 2008.
227

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.

Cooper, SR, SP Cooper, SS Felknor, VS Santana, FM Fischer, EM Shipp, and MS Vela Acosta. 

2005. Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmworker Adolescent Populations: Implications 

for Health Research and Interventions, Public Health Rep. 120(6): 622–629, Nov–Dec.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffith, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and 

exposure to organophosphate 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. 2007. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National 

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 pesticide 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 Occup Environ Hyg. 

2(7):357-67, July.

Curwin, B, W Sanderson, S Reynolds, M Hein, and M Alavanja. 2002. Pesticide use and 

practices in an Iowa farm family pesticide exposure study. J Agric Saf Health, 8:423-33.

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 nonfarmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among 

migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303-312.

Davis, S, et. al. 2006. Letter to Administrator Steve Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency. 

Farmworker Justice. December 15.

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. 
228

Dick FD, G De Palma, A Ahmadi, NW Scott, GJ Prescott, J Bennett, et al. 2007. 

Environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism: the Geoparkinson 

study. Occup Environ Med. 64(10):666–672. 

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 Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

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.

D&B. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. 

http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS 

Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and 

performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic 

pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 165(12):1397-404. Epub 2007 Apr 3.

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. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table. Office 

of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March. 

www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler-exposure-table.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

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, 2010b. 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. 2009. WPS Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report 2008. Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 2008. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions to Two Related 

Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

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.
229

EPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal 

Standards. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental 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 (4606-M) 

EPA 815-R-06-014 October 2006. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf

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, 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lt2/upload/2006_03_17_disinfection_lt2_an

aylis_lt2_economic_main.pdf

EPA. 2002. Children Are at Greater Risks from Pesticide Exposure, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2002. At 

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis. Office of 

Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 8. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0046-0013.

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 

non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 

123(7):1657-63 Oct 1.

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzien, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT 

Holland. 2004. Association of in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure 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 exposure and neurodevelopment in 

young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect. 115:792–798.

Furman, J. 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2007 Final 

Report. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries: Division of Occupational 

Health and Safety. December. At 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/DOSH_ChE_Report07_F

inal_010407.pdf.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. 2007. Construction Management Division. Personal 

communication.

Gempler’s. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com. Accessed 2008.
230

Goldman, L, B Eskenazi, A Bradman, and NP Jewell. 2004. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide 

Exposure among Pregnant Women Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas, 

California.” Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 491-499.

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives, 

Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362.

Gorell JM, CC Johnson, BA Rybicki, EL Peterson, and RJ Richardson. 1998. The risk of 

Parkinson’s disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living. 

Neurology. 50:1346–1350. 

Grainger. 2013. Guardian Equipment Emergency Shower. 

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GUARDIAN-EQUIPMENT-Emergency-Shower4HRJ8?Pid=search. Accessed August, 2013.

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.

Hancock DB, ER Martin, GM Mayhew, JM Stajich, R Jewett, MA Stacy, et al. 2008. Pesticide 

exposure and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a family-based case-control study. BMC 

Neurol. 8:6. 

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.

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin 

Lymphoma 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. 

Pesticide 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):1449-54, 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.

Jones, A, and L Smith. 2006. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & Worker 

Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue 
231

Paper, "Making the Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor 

Employees & Aerial Apps. On behalf of National Alliance of Independent Crop 

Consultants, Certified Crop Advisors.

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, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, 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, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K 

Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, 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, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, 

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.nlm.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.

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. 2006. 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 cancer 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 Fervers, 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):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29. 
232

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 Public Health. 2011 

Jan;101(1):63-70.

Lu, C. RA Fenske, NJ Simcox, and D. Kalman. 2000. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an 

Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home 

Exposure Pathways.” Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290-302.

Machlin, SR, and K Carper. 2007. Expenses for Office-Based Physician Visits by Specialty, 

2004. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Statistical Brief #166. At 

http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st166/stat166.pdf. Accessed 

April 29, 2008.

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 study. Environ Health 

Perspect, 114:1838-42

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.

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 

2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American 

children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect. 118(12):1768-74, Dec. 

Mills PK, and R Yang. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ 

Med. 45:249-258.

NAAA. 2008. Elementary Level Curriculum Guide. National Agricultural Aviation 

Association. At http://www.agaviation.org/sites/default/files/elem.pdf.

NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey data for number of farms and workers. 

http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed July 2013.

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. 2008a. Farm Labor, February 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available here: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2008/FarmLabo-02-15-

2008.pdf.

NASS. 2008b. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php.

NASS. 2007. Farm Labor, November, 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available here: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2007/FarmLabo-11-16-

2007.pdf.
233

NASS. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Issued June 2004. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php.

NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Issued March 1999. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.php.

National Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National 

Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012. 

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. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NIH 

publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicators 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/_literature_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. 

Oborain. 2013. Outdoor shower with drainage pan. http://www.oborain.com/. Accessed 

August, 2013.

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using 

a hybrid contingent valuation method," 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.

OMB. (1996) Economic Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Office of Management and 

Budget. January 11. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide.

OSHA. 2004. Supporting Statement for the Information-Collection Requirements of the 

Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134). OMB Control No. 1218-0099. Occupational 

Health & Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 

http://www.osha.gov/Reduction_Act/1218-0099.html#text9. Accessed May 9, 2008).

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms

Accessed August 4, 2011.

Plog, BA. 1996. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. BA Plog, ed. National Safety Council, 

United States, pp 29-30, Fourth Edition.
234

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, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang, 

and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment 

in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845-e1859

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven-Year 

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common 

Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201.

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use 

and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of 

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314–320. 

Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 1999. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Fifth Edition, 

available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare

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-HealthInsurance-Coverage-and-Access-to-Care-Report.pdf

Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Lasarev, J Sanatana, and L McCauley. 2006. Organophosphate 

exposure and neurobehavioral performance among agricultural and non-agricultural 

Hispanic workers. Environ. Health Persp. 114:691-696.

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 children 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 exposure. West J Nurs Res. 

26(2):146–166. 
235

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 

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 

Physician 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.

Snipes SA, B Thompson, K O'Connor, B Shell-Duncan, D King, AP Herrera, and B Navarro. 

2009. "Pesticides protect the fruit, but not the people": using community-based 

ethnography to understand farmworker pesticide-exposure risks. Am J Public Health

99Suppl 3:S616-21, Nov.

Spradley, P. 2007. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. American Association of Pesticide 

Safety Educators. June 7.

Staples. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.staples.com/. Accessed April, 2008.

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive 

Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69-74, Feb.

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors 

in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249-

272. 

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, Richards 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.

Thun, MJ, LM Hannan, LL Adams-Campbell, P Boffetta, JE Buring, D Feskanich, WD Flanders 

et al. 2008. "Lung cancer occurrence in never-smokers: an analysis of 13 cohorts and 22 

cancer registry studies." PLoS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008).

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a 

systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41. 

Tuthill. 2008. Product and price lists, Tuthill Corporation at http://tuthill.com. Accessed May

8, 2008.
236

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries 

and Illnesses. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government Printing 

Office.

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.

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/American 

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.

Veltri, 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 Agricultural 

Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99. 

Washington State Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health 

Assessments. 2003. Summary Results of Yakima Farmworker Focus Groups about 

Pesticides and Health Care. Available here: 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/focus_group_summary_030922final.

pdf

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 

childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 117:1505-1513. 

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 

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.

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 53. 

Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides: Summary of 

Data Reported and Evaluation (1991). Available here: 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf 
237

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.

Yang, RC, and PK Mills. 2009. Proportionate cancer incidence in the Laotian population of 

California, 1988-2006. Cancer Causes Control. 20(6):1011-6, Aug.

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.

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, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among 

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53.

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1997. Cancer Feasibility Studies Among Migrant Farmworkers, 

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32:301–302 (1997).

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, 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, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes 

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33.

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 

Suppl 3:893-908, June.