1



# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS RI N 2070
- AJ22 Docket: EPA
- HQ
- OPP
- 2011
- 0184

Prepared b y BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYS IS DIVI SI ON

OFFI CE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 204602



## 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 Ch apter 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
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 553

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 Trai ning
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 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 Ch apter 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
- 0 1: 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 Noti fication 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
............. 1244

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 AG E
- 01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities
................................ ..................... 126 4.4.2 AGE
- 03 vs AGE
- 04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides
.............................. 12 7 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 fro m 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 Tr aining 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
................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1635

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
- Eve n Estimation
................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 215 6.8.5. Break
- Even Conclusions
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 219 Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden
................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 220 Accounting Statement
................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 221 Refere nces ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2231



## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF **THE PROPOSED**  **AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD**  **REVISION S** 

**E xecutive 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 analy sis 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 Enf orcement Fairness Act. The document also discusses the costs and benefits of alternative options considered b y EPA in the development of the proposal. Pesticides are designed to be toxic and their use is inherently risky . Between 2000 and 2009, an avera ge 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 b y the WPS. The true number of occupational accidents is likely to be significantly more due to lack of reporting. Acute s ymptoms 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, respi ratory depression and loss of consciousness. In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. Occupational incidents are probabl y 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

by standers 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 potentiall y 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: asy mmetric 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 latt er 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 kind s 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 haz ards 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 exposure2

to pesticides on agricultural e stablishment. 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 alt ernative requirements and is proposing a set of requi rements 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 $ 6 2.1 and $ 72. 9 million annually , using a three percent discount rate. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 6 1.2 and $ 73. 6 million per year. The majority of the costs , $59.6 to $70.4 million per year, are borne b y farms, nurserie s, 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 c ommercial 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 ye ar 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 chro nic 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 appl y 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 analy sis. Associated crop production is likely to include forage crops or field crops like grain and oilseeds that are highl y 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 $5 9.2 million per year. Costs Key conclusions from the cost anal ys is are presented in Table 1. Most of the imp acts of the revisions to the WPS will be felt b y the 395,000 U.S. farms that hire labor. The cost to individual farms will depend on the number and type of emplo yees employed. EPA estimates that large farms , defined as those with more than $750,000 in sa les and which average about 20 employees, will incur costs of $ 3 40 to $ 400 per ye ar, on average, using a 3% discount rate. Smaller operations that average two to three workers are estimated to incur costs between $ 1 30 and $ 150 per ye ar, 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 substantial3

number of small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Around 3,000 family farms may be impacted b y the proposed standards for closed mixing and loading s ys tems with annualized costs of less than $60 per ye ar, although this figure masks the fact that some farms may choose to invest in new equipment. Commercial pesticide handlin g 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 30 0,000 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 employ ment.

 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 b y $60 per ye ar, 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 employ ment. 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 exposure s 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 pest icide 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 acut e 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 b y 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 underreporti ng 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 w ould be about $1 4 million/year. Second, our approach onl y measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible sy

mptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. These benefits are summarized i n 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 T he 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 popul ation. 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 li fe can be quantified at this time. T he peer
- reviewed literature contains well
- documented and biologicall y plausible statistical associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects
. For example, epidemiological researchers have observed links between pesticide exposure and ly mphohematopoietic tumors, lung and prostate cancers as well as neurological effects such as5

Parkinson’s disease, among others. However, the current state of scientific research concerning the possible association between pesticide exposure and these chronic disease s is such that i t would be premature at this time to conclude that there is a causal link between pesticide exposures and the chronic disea se 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 out comes which , if avoided, would equal the total cost of the rule ( i.e. , the “break
- even” anal ys is). The health effects potentially caused b y occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who su ffer 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 analy sis described in Section 6.8., if the proposed rule prev ents only a very small number of chronic illnesses , it could have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best availa ble information, this analy sis 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
. In cluding onl y six diseases in the break
even analy sis, EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurre nce of just those chronic diseases shown in Table 3 b y 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
- Hod gkins ly

mphoma  Prostate Cancer  Parkinson’s Disease  Lung Cancer  Chronic Bronchitis  Asthma Break
- even analy sis for only these illnesses shows that , if the proposed rule changes prevent a relativel y small number of cases , then the total benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs. Many of the changes to current WPS requirements specificall y 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 the6

fetal stage, reduci ng exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick day s, fewer day s 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 workday s, and a better quality of life.7



## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF **THE PROPOSED**  **AGRICULTURAL WORKER**  **PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION**  **S Chapter**  **1 .**  **Introduction** EPA is proposing modifications to the Wo rker 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 w as first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992
. This document provides an anal ys is 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 provid es 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 b y the rule. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in develop ing 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 i nteractions 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 ( Regulat ory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory

Flexibility

Act as amended b y 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 analy sis also serve as input in preparing an anal ys is required under the P aperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501
- 21). 

### 1.1 **Back ground**  The EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implementation of two primary regulations. The Certification of Pesticide Applicator s 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 currentl y 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 emplo ye rs 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 gree nhouses. The WPS regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on8

agricultural establishment. Broadl y speaking, the W PS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm w orkers 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 pesticide s, and (3) mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accid ents. These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency ’s pesticide worker safety program, are intended to reduce and prevent potential e xposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, agricultural employees , and the general public, including vulnerable populations, such as children. This economic anal ys is focuses on the W PS rule
. The WPS rule is directed toward the working conditions of two ty pes of employees , which, throughout this document, we refer as ‘handlers’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those employees who handle agricultural pesticides (mix ing , loading , appl ying pesticides, and performing other activities linked to pesticid e application) . These emplo ye es may be directly exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and non
target organisms. In principle, at least, pesticide handlers also know with which chemicals they work and have acc ess 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 exp osed to pesticides through c o ntact with treated plants, resid u es left on other surfaces, or through the air or water on the farm or other operation. On th e i r own, worker s may have little information about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be expose d o r even if they are exposed. Changes to WPS will largel y impact two ty pes 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 pro posed rule accrue primaril y 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 way s farmworkers and handlers can minimize thos e 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 a cute w ork
- related p esticide p oisonings reported to p oi son control c enters . From 2000 to 2009, the number of cases reported b y 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 dataset9

on occupational exposures (SENSOR
- Pestic ides, described in more detail in Chapter 6) indicates that about 57 percent of reported occupational cases occurred on establishments where WPS requirements appl y. If that rate applies to Indicator 11 data, about 1,400 incidents annually would be reporte d from WPS establishments. Although the number of cases was generall y 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 likel y 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 by standers and non
- t arget organisms, even if they do not lead to a clearl y 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 narrowl y 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 way s, 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 s ymptoms. The acute sy mptoms 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 sy

mptoms that can be caused b y pesticide exposure; Reig art and Roberts (1999) list almost 100 different s ymptoms 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 Sec tion 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. I llness 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

phy sicians. Das et al . found that about half of all pesticide related illness cases in the C alifornia surveillance sy stem were agricultural workers. Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common sy

mptoms 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 s everal 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 takeh ome exposure that could be changed through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesti cides are much less harmful than spray s and liquids, PPE is less regularl y worn when there is financial pressure to work quickl y, and farmworkers were delayed washing their hand s 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 , o ther exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray

drift from nearb y agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures may

be particularly

important fo r 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 expos ure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. At various development stages, humans metabolize chemicals differentl y, 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 non
farm household s in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found significantl y higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which onl y 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 l iterature 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 a l. (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 A dolescents working on farms or as handlers can be exposed to pesticides via the same pathway s 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 likel y. 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 wh ile 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, particularl y in the areas of judgment, risk
- taking and decision making a bility (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 . (2 004) 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 s omewhat cavalier attitude toward health and safety issues (Salazar et al ., 2004). According to Calvert et al

. (2003) , pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working yo uths were more likely

than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide i llness, 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, ad olescents 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 ef fect on these developing phy siological sy stems. 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 s ynaptic pruning and myelination (important phy siological process that reduce the excess neuron connections in the brain and enclosing individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase the efficiency of information proce ssing) (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularl y harmful (Golub, 2000). In addition, the earlier occupational exposure gives more time f or 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 expos ure to pesticides, as well. Although the children and families may suffer illness from an acute exposure, the more likel y 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 ty pe 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 particularl y important effects on neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) find an association betwe en 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 an d 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 b y 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 fo r 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, man y studies hav e evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. Sy nthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles and meta
- anal yt ic results indicate evidence of an association between various pestici de exposure and ly mphohematopoetic cancers (non
- Hodgkin’s ly mphoma (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 pesti cide occupational exposure (Bassil et al ., 2007; Blair and Beane
- Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010 a ; 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
- analy ses of mortality survey s of farmers find excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and c ancers 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
- anal ys es 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 agriculturall y exposed occupational grou ps (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 specificall y, 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: asy mmetric 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 th e consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, there may be a sociall y 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 Asy mmetric 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. Asy mmetric information arises in two way s. First, there may

be barriers to employees obtaining the information if not provided b y the employer . Man y 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, especiall y internet acc ess, 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. Finall y, information regarding pesticides and pe sticide 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. Sy

mptoms 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. L ong - 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 result14

in workers and handlers with insufficient information to make informed choices about their sa fety. 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 ty pe could imply

that there are fewer protections for workers and handlers than would be sociall y 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 rea dil y observable, but occur due to chronic exposure. Moreover, there are numerous pesticides, many with complex effects on human and environmental s ys tems, 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 emplo ye es covered b y 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 challenge s 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 non
agricultural workers. Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure, because their body s ys tems are still developing. Poverty, poor nutrition and lack of access to health care can exacerbate the risks from this exposure.15

 The cumulative e ffects 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 famil y incomes below the poverty level. 

### 1. **3 Affected Communities**  The primary

entities that will be impac ted b y 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 han dlers , and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s). Other affected entities include family

farms that use pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses providing crop advisory services. Under the proposed revisions, s tate agencie s are expe cted to incur only minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations
. 

### 1.3 .1 Agricultural Employees WPS offers protections to as man y as 2.3 million agricultural employees (NASS, 2008b ). The current rule is intended to protect worker s and handlers on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operations although most workers in forestry

would generall y not be at substantially more risk than the general public due to pesticide use patterns in forestry
. Pesticides of one ty

pe 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 ye ar. According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 200 8b), 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 appl y pesticides. Over several ye ars, however, it is likely

that nearl y 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, man y 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 way s they can minimize their exposure, to provide warnings about treated areas, to provide protective measures such as personal protective equipme nt , and to provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultural pesticides. The costs of the proposed rule are not generall y 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 emplo ye r is defined as an y person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the management or condition of an agricultural establishment, and employ s 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 analy sis, we distinguish two ty pes of establishments affected b y the rule : (1) farms , including livestock operations that produce crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and forestry operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s ). Within each ty p e, 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 provision s 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 W PS also sets standards for engineering controls, such as closed mixing and loading s ys tems 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, 394,6 58, as the likely universe of farms covered b y 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 man y organic producers also have conventionally grown fields and organic
- approved pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefull y and are subject to WPS standards of safety. The number of these farms actuall y 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 W PS requirements would rarel y impact forestry operations. Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments The number of c ommercial p esticide h andling e stablishments or CPHEs is derived from Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B, 2010 ) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employ ment Statistics ( BL S, 2008 ) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farm s. About 5,000 individual firms were identified from a search of D&B for firms that are listed under the NAI CS code 115112 (Soil preparati on, 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 (SI C) 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 defin ed as CPHEs under WPS. EPA also estimates that there are 1,562 aerial applicators covered b y the WPS , based on information provided by the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008). EPA further estimated, based on the number of commercial a pplicators certified for plant production, that there are nearl y 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 proble ms 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 anal ys is, 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 trai ning 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 s ys tems 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 du ring handling tasks. The final two categories revise regulations to provide greater clarity and to help employers adequatel y 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 sho uld be revised. First, there are efficiency gains for state and local agencies responsible for implementing worker protection standards. Many states rel y on the federal standards because data on pesticide effects are largel y assessed at the national leve l 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 p otential 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 significantl y 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 inadverte ntly

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 way s, 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 Env ironmental 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 pe sticides either through contact with treated surfaces or through handling activities including mixing, loading and appl yi ng pesticides. Broadl y speaking, the WPS is meant to (1) inform workers and handlers about the pesticides they use or to which they

com e 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 b y E PA. The discussion provides a general overview of each potenti al change to the WPS; the proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR part 170 provide s the actual regulatory

language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not discussed. The NPRM for the proposed rule presents a dditional 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 disc ussion 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
- regulat ory programs that have been established to improve worker safety. The remainder of the chapter is organized according to the way s the proposals will improve worker safety ( i.e. , to inform workers, protect against exposure , or mitigate the effects of expos ure). 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 pes ticide expo s ure, 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 require ments, restrictions on entry into a treated area , and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirement s to protect against exposure
. T he 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 p esticide w orker s afety p rogram is comprised of three major components:  protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural w orker p rotection regulation and support activities;  the establishment of federal competency standards for the certification of pesticide applicator s ; and  the n ational h ealth c are p roviders ’ pesticide i nitiative. 

### 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 thes e 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; farmwork er 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, h andlers, 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. Regionall y, nationall y, and internationally , NASDA
- RF, in collaboration with EPA, works with a variety of partners (community
- based organizations, businesses, educators, re searchers, health care providers, regulators, subject matter experts, agricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the targeted communities and develop creative community
- based action plan s to enhance risk reduction via targeted training and outreach methods including: workshops, hands
- on training, fact sheets, manu als, exams, Web, DVDs, and webinars. EPA partners the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification Sy stem for Oc cupational Risk (SENSOR) program, which gathers information related to occupational pesticide incidents, including those experienced b y 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 support s state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulate s the competency of pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement22

with USDA to s upport the training of applicators using RUPs through the cooperative ext ension services in each state. A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national h ealth c are providers p esticide i nitiative, 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 o utlines the health effects associated with different classes of pesticides and suggests treatments b ased on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, EPA also works closel y with the Migrant Clinicians Network, which operates a project to improve pest icide 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 effectivel y with pesticide
- r elated 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 pes ticide 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 f rom pesticide exposure. T he label reflects the risk mitigation measures required b y 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 ty pical farmworker, because they are not involved in the use of the pesticide; as noted previously , they are potentiall y exposed via contact with treated surfaces after the application has been completed. The WP S complements the label b y 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 p rotect 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 agri cultural use products covered b y the WPS and are more appropriatel y, efficientl y, 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 tr aining , 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 co nditions 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 application
specific and pesticide
- specific information available when needed. N otification includes measures to ensure that workers know about pesticide
- treated areas and that reinforce pesticide sa fety training . Better hazard communication and notification impart s 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 re quirements 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 e xpected benefits as well as an y disadvantages . For each of the possible modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAI N
- 04). These indicators are also used in Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented. For complete det ails 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 day s. 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 ye ars. 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. F ull 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 tr eated area. An exception is available for a 2
- day grace period with provision of essential Right
to - 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 t raining prior to entry into a treated area.

(TRAIN
- 01 )

Worker Training Frequency
Training r equired every five years Annual training required: (TRAIN
- 0 3 ) 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 h azard information

– SDS

(TRAIN
- 0 6 ) Further expand 11 basic safety

training requirements to include :  Take home exposure  Early entry notification  Understanding h azard information

– crop sheets and product
- specific training (TRAIN
- 0 7 )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 “Train
the
- 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 i n lieu of the full pesticide safety training
. After five day s 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 employee s 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 are as, providing workers with the full information they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. It would also prevent the possib ility 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 h arves t 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 day s 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 ye ars. Unit VII.A of the NPRM provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative options. TRAIN
- 03/04 The proposed optio n (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 ye ars. Peri o dic training i nsures that critical information is ret ain e d; Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infect ion s in themselves and their patients. Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial t raining, 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 cy bersecurity . OSHA requires annual training in workplaces where lea d and hazardous chemicals are present. Many agricultural employers are already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in pesticide safety would s ynchronize with these requirements. TRAIN
- 05 A second alternative, sug gested b y 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 applicatio n 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 way s exposure to pesticide occurs, (2) hazards associated with exposure, (3) routes b y which pesticides can enter the body, (4) signs and s ymptoms of pesticide poison ing, (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 way s 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 b y 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 agricult

ural 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 meas ures 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 provide d 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 d etails. TRAIN
- 08 The proposed option would eliminate training of workers b y certified applicators and handl ers. The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a train
- the
- trainers program would have bett er and more relevant skills to provide higher quality training programs, which result in better worker protection. The experience of c ertified applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less relevance for w orkers where the primary concern is post
- application exposure via contact with treated plants and other surfaces. Further, without additional preparation, c ertified applicators and handlers may

not have the adult education skills needed to successfully co nvey the information to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally
- distinct backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properl y qualified trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereb y e nsuring 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 fo r workers. Handlers must take the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five ye ars. 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 Requirem ent**  **Alternative Requirement** Training Frequency Training r equired 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 requirem ents 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 ye ars. 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, peri o dic training i nsures that critical information is ret ain e d; Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to preve nt infect ion s 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 pe sticide 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) p roduct label information , (2) hazards, (3) routes b y which pesticides can enter the body , (4) signs and s ymptoms 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) s afety

requi rements 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 Handle r training would be expanded to include way s 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 ent e r s the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on respirator use, fit
- testing of respi rators, and me dical 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 expl ain the information found in crop sheets.30

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification Currently there is no requirement for emplo ye rs 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 trai ning verification cards supplied b y 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 emplo yee has a valid card. However, there is no requireme nt 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 Record**  **s 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

tr aining 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 wou ld 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 ye ars. These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies b y establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. A cle ar advantage of the five
ye ar option over the two
- ye ar retention option is that it matches the current five
- ye ar training cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN
- 03 and 04), a five
- ye ar retention period provides greater benefits than a two
- ye ar re tention period as enforcement actions may not be brought immediatel y. On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed EPA that a two
- year retention period is adequate. Verification TRAIN
- 17 Th is potential requirement would elim inate EPA’s optional verification card system. States would retain the right to develop their own verification card s ys tem (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 currentl y include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in p ractice, be verified. Finally , with the current five
- ye ar 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 sy stem, verification cards provide little benefit t o either the emplo ye r or the employee. In fact, many states do not participate in the sy stem.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 ke eping 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 sy stem may

be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are in compliance with training requirements. Similarly , with annual o r biennial training (TRAIN
03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or falsified and will be more reliable, potentiall y reducing the need for employees to take multiple trainings and for emplo yers to prov ide 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. TRA IN
- 19 The proposed option is similar to TRAI N
- 18 but does not require the use of the verification cards and would simply

require the emplo yer to provide a cop y of the training record to the trained employee. In comparison to TRAI N
- 18, this requirement wou ld 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 TRAI

N
- 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 day s 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 D isplay at a central location , f or 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 Speci

fic Information and Availability No requirements for pesticide
specific 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 Recordk

eeping Application
- specific i nformation must be displayed prior to application and for 30 days after the REI Application and pesticide
specific i nformation must be available no later than the day of application. Retain records for 2 years ( HAZCOM
- 0 5 ) Application and pesticide
specific i nformation must be available no later than the day of application. Retain records for 5 years ( HAZCOM
- 0 6 ) 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
- 0 7 ) Application Specific Information and Availability HAZCOM
- 01 Agricultural emplo yers are currentl y 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 day s after the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM
01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application
- specific information as current ly 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, i n 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 posting34

requirement for the pesticide application information and instead make the application information available upon request b y workers, handlers, or their authorized representative. Th is approach to hazard communication has c e rtain 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 RE Is, so specific warnings will occur. Finall y, man y 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 emplo yer. 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, sy

mptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide labe l informs on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product. OSHA require s employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are already required b y OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemi cal 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 , especiall y, the S DS . Information on the chemical and the s ymptoms 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 onl y the pesticide label, but not the SDS . Th is would at least ensure quick identification of the chemical in case an incident occurred and may help to speed a proper diagnosis b y confirming that s ymptoms 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 si mple, consistent pesticide safety m essages such as respect for the REI whether it35

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 ef fectivel y 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 ye ars (HAZCOM
- 05 and 06, respectivel y). 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 WP S 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 Notif

ication 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 b e implemented. Current no tification 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) b y 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 emplo yees . 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 transmi tted from commercial applicators’ employers to the agricultural employer.36

Restricted Entry Interval Notification Current ly , agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a REIby 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 c urrently no requirements for documenting compliance with the se notification requirements. EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REI s in more situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provid ed 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 f

or 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 no t apply to “no contact” situations.)

Agricultural e mployer 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 t o 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  Acknowledge ment of notification by printed name and signature of workers  Retain for 2 years

(NOTIFY
- 1 2 ) Require recordkeeping:

 Notification, except labeling hazard and precaution information  Acknowledge ment of n otification by printed name and signature of workers  Retain for 5 years

(NOTIFY
- 13 )38

REINotification Under the current rule, n otification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers by the agricultural e mployer either orall y or b y 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 pesticide s appli cations wh e re 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 REIdate could be confusing, espec iall y 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 REIgreater than 72 hours. This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY
- 06, but is clearl y less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to remember REI information for three day s 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
- 04/0 5 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 ye ars (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

REIWarning 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.” T he proposed option would make replace the red circle with a re d octagon, a widely
- recognized sy

mbol for stop
. Itwould also change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accuratel y reflect the message that workers and handlers should generall y remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter under certain conditions t o perform earl y- 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 convey s danger, the skull and crossbones sy mbol is currently

used on toxicity

category Iand II pesticide products and for field designation of certain highl y hazardous pesticides including fumigants. Widespread use of the graphic for all pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases. The field
specific information may not be particularl y 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 availab le (see NOTIFY
- 10 and 11). NOTIFY
- 08 REIwarning s igns 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 affordi ng 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 fe et 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 emplo yees 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 s ince good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage the plants. Notification to Workers Performing Earl y Entry Tasks Earl y 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” e xception , employers must make sure that workers performing earl y e ntry tasks wear all PPE required b y 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 excep tions; 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 pro ximate cause of entry , but some incidents could have occurred during emplo ye r - directed entry . Under the proposed option , the earl y entry notification would be expanded to include additional safety information such as the pesticide applied, the start and e nd times of the REI, and the permitted ty pes of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from earl y entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the particular importance of complying with the terms of the earl y- entry exception. NOTIFY
- 11 EPA considered requiring agricultural emplo ye rs to distribute written pesticide hazard information ( i.e. , crop sheets) to each worker upon e arl y entry in addition to the oral warnings, as suggested b y Farmworker Justice. The major benefit to workers would be the ability to refer to the information after the fact, in case, for example, of sy mptoms arising that may

be associated with pesticide exposure. Written communication can sometimes provide more clarity than spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpreted, especiall y if the employer or emplo yee 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. Finall y, 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 earl y entry. NOTIFY
- 09 would require retention for two years while NOTIFY
- 10 would require that records be kept for five ye ars. 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 s ymptoms. 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 decontaminat e 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 display s. C ontact41

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 display s. **Table 2.2 -**  **6 .**  **Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Require ments.**  **Current Requirement Proposed Requirement**  **Alternative Requirement** Pesticide Safety Information Basic pesticide s afety information display includes decontamination information and self
-protecti ve practices Additional basic pesticide s afety information display content to include:  State enforcement agency contact information  Medical facility contact information (NOTIFY
- 1 4 ) No change from current requirements

Basic pesticide s afety information displayed at a c entral l ocation Additional safety information display required with worker decontamination suppl ies

(NOTIFY
- 15 ) Additional display with all field warning signs

(NOTIFY
- 17 ) Additional s afety information display with handler decontamination suppl ies

(NOTIFY
- 1 6 ) 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 informati on 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 dec ontamination suppl ies 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 b y 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 display s 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 increases42

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 REI s 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 REI s, 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 (no t 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 emplo ye r of the application information prior to the pest icide 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 largel y clarifies and codifies existing guidance that provides flexibility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but that are currentl y 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)
. T hese provisions are intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides
. 

### 2.3.1 Minim

um Age Options Current ly , 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 s ys tems are still developing and are more sensitive to chemical dis ruption than are adult sy stems. 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 appl yi ng; and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances under which earl y entry i s allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3
- 1 summarizes the pote ntial 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 perso ns covered b y 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 Re**  **quirement 1**  **Alternative Requirement**  No age restriction on person performing early entry activities Employee must be 1 6 years of age to be directed to perform early entry activities

(AGE
- 01) Employee must be 1 8 years of

age to be directed to perform early entry activities

(AGE
- 02) No age restriction on person performing handling activities Employee must be 1 6 years of age to perform handler duties

(AGE
- 03) Employee must be 1 8 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 ent e ring fields during a REIand pesticide handlers are at least 1 6 ye ars of age. As e xplained in more detail in Chapter s 1 and 6 , studies have suggest ed that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children44

and young adults than for mature individuals because developing s ys tems 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 consequ ences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006))
. Thus, they may be less likel y 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 no t 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 earl y entry activities each year . There are likel y about 1,0 00 of these adolescent workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and it is extremely unlikel y that yo uths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs. AGE 02/04 Alternativel y, EPA considered a minimum age requirement of 1 8 ye ars . This alternative would provide greater benefits than would a minimum age of 1 6 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 ye ars of age employed as farm workers in addition to the 19,000 workers under the age of 16
. Around 1 8 , 3 00 adolescent workers might engage in earl y entry activities each year and 5,6 00 might act as handlers on occas ion , 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

con ditions under which a person may be in or near a treated area duri ng 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 curr ent 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, h andlers must cease application if a person enters the entry restricted area No change from current requirements45

**Current Requirement Proposed Requirement**  **Alternative Requirement** handler
. (ENTRY
- 02) Entry During REI Workers may enter a treated area during a REI , if label
required 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 cholinesterase
inhibiting 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, currentl y 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 . T he size of the restricted area is based on th e 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

Thi s “ entry

restricted area ” would protect workers , other employee s , 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, e ither directly or through drift, any

worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler.” The proposed re quirement 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, the se 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 analy sis 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 pe sticide residues
. Agricultural pesticide labels establish crop specific 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 surfac es 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 . Earl y entry into the treated area during the REI is generall y prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical for agricultural production. For each of the exceptions, details on the ty pes 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 earl y entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likel y to adhere. ENTRY
- 0447

An alternative would also restrict time allowed, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated area under an REI in an y 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 b y s ome 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, e xcept for the agricultural emergency

exception, the permitted activities generall y 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 enzy me that breaks down the chemical acetyl choline, which transmits signals across nerve s ynapses. 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 a pply 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 Iand 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
. C hE levels can be determined through a blood test, but there is no normal range for c holinesterase 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 b y the Washington program, is that it can identify farms and individ

ual 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 handl ed 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 California48

developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE
- inhibiting pesticides more than the limit. Most employers responded b y 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 properl y 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 r equirements regarding employees under the supervision of Certified Crop Advisor s Eliminate exemption for WPS employe r s (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

require s 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, and4 9

medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator. This revision incorporates OSHA requirements that appl y t o workers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This requirement will reduce the potential for exposures th at 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 an y health problems that might be exacerbated b y the use of a respirator, which will help handlers determine if they can safel y wear the device. For the emplo yer, the revision would als o 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 re quirements , 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 i s 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 s ys tem may be substituted for label
required PPE. A closed sy stem , under the current rule, is simply defined as “a properly functioning s ys tem 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 m ethods to control the hazards according to industrial hygi enists: engineering controls, administrative controls , and personal protective equipment. Engineering controls should be the f irst line of defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Closed sy stems are considered an engineering control method. They are designed to prevent human exposure and do not require human intervention to eliminate exposure
. Closed sy stems re duce the human de cision
- 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. A dditionally , PPE only protects the wearer; other persons in the area may still be exposed. However, th e substitution of a closed s ys tem for PPE is only desirable if the closed sy stem 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 s ys tem, which is currentl y lacking. The lack of clear standards means that some closed s ys tems are inadequate and provide less protection than use of PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI.B. Record keeping of sy stem maintenance would help to verify

compliance with standards. Ultimately , the beneficiaries of the changes are handlers, including self

- employed handlers (family farmers and commercial appl icators) who will be assured that the closed sy stem prov i de s protection to minimize exposure
.50

PPE
- 05 Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properl y. A proposed revision to the WPS would clarify

that contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearabl e 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. T his will prevent other emplo yees, 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 em ergency 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 o f 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 E PA has subsequentl y 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 exposure s to workers and handlers
. **Table 2.4 -**  **2. Current, Proposed, an**  **d 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 requirements51

**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 W orkers The current WPS regulations require that workers have access to water, soap, and single
- use towels for washing when a pesticide covered b y the regulation has been used or an REI has been in effect in the last 30 day s 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 p rovide 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 emplo ye rs and enforcement agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details. SUP PLY
- 02 The proposed revision would specify that employers must p rovide 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 availab le for earl y 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 wate r, 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 p rovide 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 fo r emplo yers 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, howeve r, 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 perman ent 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 stati ons 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 defi ne “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 determin e proper treatment. This is valuable because providing medical personnel with information about the pesticide s ymptoms and their treatment in a timely manner is critical in redu cing the adverse effects of exposures. EMERG
- 02/04 The alternative considered was to define “prompt” as 60 minutes. Interms of clarifying the regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would clearl y provide le ss 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 co sts 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 i s 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 infor m 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 necessaril y rel y 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 b y EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made regarding the average or ty pical, in pra ctice, EPA has tended to use values that are probabl y more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be ty pical 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 clearl y 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 do es not provide meaningful information on compliance rates. As a result of these assumptions , the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall regulatory

burden o f the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, because m an y 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 inc remental 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 u se the term “WPS farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that are subject to the WPS. Forestry operations are not anal yz ed quantitatively ; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use patterns in forestry

operations will not ty

picall y 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 analy sis, 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 v ary b y certain characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary ty pe 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 directl y with pesticides, e.g. , to mix, load, and/or apply pesticides, and may

be employed b y WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are ty picall y 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 activ ity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time. Federal requirements apply nationall y, 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 th e cost of the proposed rule as well as analyzes potential impacts on employ ment 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 regul atory 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 regu latory baseline is based on the current state, tribal and territory requirements rather than the federal requirements. To reduce the anal yt ical 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 anal ys is, 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 b y 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 b y Texas is based primaril y on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e. , extensive livestock production, rather than g eographical 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 the57

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 Riv er Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, and Og lala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes Subtropical Florida Hawaii Midwest Io wa 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 Il linois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and the Shoshon e - 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 analy sis because data on farms and pesticide use are not available. This implies some undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate o f 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 represent ative 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 anal ys is 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 id entified 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 cos t 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 anal ys es 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 communication s (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements (Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry restrictions (3.3.7), PPE requirem ents (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 emplo ye e. That is, there are some activities and/or materials that must be conducted or provided b y 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 cost

r,i, a B t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r , in region i , for an actor, a, in time t ; H

r,i, a ,j B t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; w a is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity ; Prob t ( j | i ) is the probability

of activity j in time t given the region; M r,i, a ,mP t is the quantity

of material m needed in time t under the requ irement; c m is the cost of material; and Prob t ( m | i ) is the probability of59

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 b y the establishment include posting signs and keeping rec ords. 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 weight ing indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake the activity in some year. For example, if training is required bienniall y, an y 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 H r ,i,, a ,j B ≤ H r, a ,j P and M r,i,, a ,mB ≤ M

r, a ,mP ; 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 aff

ected actors in a region and summing across actors.

, = , , a × a , a

, = , a × a ,

a where RC

r,i X denotes the cost of requirement r to region i of the regional baseline, B, and the potential new requirement, P; and N a, 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 es timated. This is explained in the section on general data (Section 3.3.2). We can also estimate the national level costs b y summing across regions.

= ,60

**Step 4.** Estimate the present value of the cost stream 1 . 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
- ye ar time horizon.

, = ,

( 1 + ) where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previousl y defined. The time horizon is not particularl y important as most of the per
- actor costs, especiall y baseline costs, will occur annually . However, a few potential requirements require some capital investments and ten ye ars was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might financiall y 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 C PHEs increasing; rates of change were calculated using three successive Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 2008b) spanning a ten
- ye ar period. This is explained more full y 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 b y 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 b y subtracting the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement.

, = , − , Where PV

( RIC r,i ) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i
. The PV of national incremental cost, PV ( NIC r), is calculated the same way. **Step 6.** Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized figure represents the co nstant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present value as a variable cost stream.

= ( ) × ∙ ( 1 + ) ( 1 + )
− 1 where AIC

r is the annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time hori zon, i.e. , ten years; and all other variables are as previousl y defined. Dividing the annualized incremental cost b y 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 analy sis. Data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction w ith the potential requirement. 

### 3.3.2 General Data For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the anal ys is 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 full y 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 analy sis 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. Fin ally , 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 increasingl y rel y 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 b y 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 man y livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not covered b y the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged onl y in livestock production. There are about 512,000 l ivestock operations that also have c rop production , however, that are included in this analy sis. 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 thi s analy sis. According to the tabulation, 304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hire d 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 la bor ( 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 co nventionally

grown fields and organic
- approved pesticides, while generall y considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements.62

There is likel y to be substantial overestimation of the number of affect ed 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 vegetable s 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 ty

pes of production so many other farms might produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highl y mechanized like the production of oilseeds and/or grains. Moreover, pesticide handlers may be emplo yed on any category of farm, so this analy sis 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 generall y 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 tre ated fields during a REI during an agricultural emergency . Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect all farms appl yi ng pesticides. **Table 3.3 -**  **1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms 1** 
**. 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 gro ss revenue greater than $750,000, and the small farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small63

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 rev enue 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 9 0 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**  **Small**  

** Small** **1 Medium**  ****

**Small 2**  **La rge**  ****

**Small 3**  **Large 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 (SI C) 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 cat egories, there were 1,231 firms that report ed 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 3,20064

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 emplo ye es, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at least one emplo yee. 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 largel y 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 19,8 73 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At the extreme, all these commercial applicator s 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 se lf

- 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**  **multi ple 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, W

age 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 (BL S, 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 handling65

establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for emplo yers and handler trainers (since emplo yers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series for the NAI CS
- 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 l oaded 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 mi llion 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 siz e 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 b y 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 Handlers66

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 wo rkers as in Table 3.3
- 4. Pesticide handlers represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct group. Itis unlikel y that an on
- farm handler would be occupied full time with pesticide handling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform other production
- rel ated tasks. Table 3.3
- 5 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, and the number of handlers emplo yed at CPHEs, given the same assumptions underlying Table 3.3
- 4. All WPS farms are likel y to use commercial applicators for some appl ications. **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
- em ployed 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 5**  **2,242 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 Employ ment and Wage Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers employed b y commercial pesticide handling establishments (BL S, 2007c). The number of handlers emplo yed b y commercial pesticide handling establishment s (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 for67

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, C onstruction, 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 t he available information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this anal ys is, 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, th e 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 (BL S, 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, particularl y for the baseline. However, the number of actors is chan ging as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, and as growers increasingl y rel y on commercial pest control services. Changes in the number of actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where g a 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 case s, 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 ye ar. Given a discount rate of three percent, the ten
ye ar 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 ten
ye ar sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3
- 6. Annual data on the number of farms and quart erl y 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 cos t and benefits of the options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered in a sensitivity

anal ys is for the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5. **Table 3.3 -**  **6 Multipliers for calculati ng NPV.**  **Actor g** **a 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 NAI CS 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 ye ar. 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 emplo yed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from employ ment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BL S) Occupational Employ ment Statistic’s National Industry
- Speci fic Occupational Employ ment and Wage Estimates from May69

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 ye ar, 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 ye ar, leading to a multiplier of 10.03 for a three percent discount rate. This growth rate applies to CPHEs with few emplo ye es and their handlers as well as to self
- employed commercial handlers. This completes the discus sion of the general data used in the anal ys is. 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 b y 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 , potentiall y hiring trai ners, and incur

ring 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 emplo yees, especiall y 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

anal ys is, EPA also estimates the incremental cost of potenti al training requirements if only those WPS farms using pesticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hy pothesizes that WPS farms find it cost
- effective to forego training under the current regulatory environment, but will not under potential regulati ons. 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 anal ys is 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 likel y leads to an overestimate of costs. Some employees, especiall y 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 W orkers 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 REIhad been in effect within the previo us 30 days. Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs Under current requirements, workers must be trained every five ye ars. 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 b y two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the workers, who take the training. We consider these actors separatel y, although the WPS farm incurs the training costs and implicitly pay s 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 require ments, although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is

, , = ∙ , , , ∙ Prob ( | )
where j , in this case, is the ty pe 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 gro ups 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 b y the Bureau of Labor Stati stics (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 NAI CS 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 employe rs who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarel y conduct a training. Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA assumes that a full training currentl y 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 y ear. 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 ye ar (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm masks considerable variability across farms with different production sy stems. 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 ye ar. Individual farms will dif fer , perhaps substantially
. In fact, EPA assumes that s mall farms with fewer than ten workers are likel y to hold 0.7 training sessions each ye ar on average, small farms with more than ten workers hold an average of 2.2 training session per year, large far ms 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 ty

pe 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 w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j annual** 

**frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Training b y handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2.6 6 Training b y Train
- the
Trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.100 $ 1. 90 Training b y certified applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 0.750 $10. 63 Training b y handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.010 $ 0.10 **cost r,i,**  **a B**  **$15.2 9**  Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. For a sensitivity

anal ys is, we assume that WPS farms forego training unless and until a pesticide application is needed. The probability of conducting a training is therefore w eighted b y 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 $1 1.7 9
. The per
- worker cost for an establishment is estimated in a sim ilar 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 ye ar. 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 this72

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 anal ys is. This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each ye ar. 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 ye ar. According to the NAWS (DoL , 2005), however, less than 25 percent of workers ha d 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 proo f of training. In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training even though they

are within the five
- ye ar period because they don’t remember when they last took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train worker s 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 nee d of training, which, along with the new hires at 16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training 2

. 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 no t 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 day s. EPA assumes that five perce nt 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, o r 48.9 percent of the total workforce. Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relativel y small, about 1.4 percent. However, this suggests that up to 3 5,000 farm workers each year do not receive pesticide safety training when they

are hired o r 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 onl y. We further assume that 25 percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediatel y attending a full training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six day s. Together, this suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each ye ar. 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 likel y 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 w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,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 **cost r,**  **a B**  **$ 3.40** Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources. For the sensitivity

anal ys is, 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 R equirement The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner. EPA assumes that trainings will be needed 1.5 times per ye ar, on average, over all farms, since workers may

be hired at different times during the year. This represents an i ncrease over the baseline, shown above, due to the loss of flexibility currentl y provided b y 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 es timation for establishments. **Table 3.3 -**  **9. Per -**  **Establishment Costs for TRAIN -**  **01, Immediate Training. Action/Material (j)**  **wage/price w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j annual** 

**frequency Prob(**  **j )**  **cost** Training b y handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98 Training b y Train
- the
Trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.150 $ 2.84 Training b y certified applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 1.125 $15.87 Training b y handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.015 $ 0.16 **cost r,**  **a P**  **$22.8 5**  Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. For the sensitivity

anal ys is, the probabilities would again be weighted b y 77.1 percent, the likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application. Expected compliance cost would be $1 7.62
.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 e xplained above. This percentage includes workers emplo ye d for less than six day s 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 w orkforce we calculated above as receiving onl y 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 w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j annual** 

**frequency Prob(**  **j )**  **cost** cost r, 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 analy ses, 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 m ake 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 establ ishments 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 ye ar and costs for worker time is approximately $ 7.9 million per year. Costs are for the first ye ar; 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 anal ys is, 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 RC**  **B i**  ($1,000) cost r,i,, a B $15.23 $ 3.40 **Region Number of**  **WPS Farms N**  **i frm Number of WPS** 

**Workers N**  **i wrk r**  South 58,804 274,068 $ 1, 8 30 California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,71 5 Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 46 1 Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 529 Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,32 7 Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,56 8 Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 2,5 93 Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,37 3 Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,52 5 **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 $1 6.9 million, an increase over baseline o f $ 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 abbreviat ed 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 re duce 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 b y the increased number of trainings, which drives the increase in per
establi shment 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 RC**  **P est**  ($1,000) cost r, a P $22.84 $ 3.41 **Region Number of WPS**  **Farms N**  **i est Number of WPS** 

**Workers N**  **i wrk r**  South 58,804 274,068 $ 2,27 8 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 $ 1,70 3 **US 394,658**  **2,322,610 $16,93**  **3** 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

anal ys is, EPA assumes training costs are incurred onl y b y those WPS farms making a pesticide application in a given ye ar. Under this scenario, the first
- ye ar cost is estimated to be $1 3.9 million. Step 4. Calculate the PV of Costs. EPA calculates the PV of costs over the ten
- ye ar 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 ye ars 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 ye ars, 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 ( NC r,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 b y 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, primaril y because it eliminates abbreviated trainings. The per
- estab lishment cost, however, increases because more full trainings will need to be conducted due to the elimination of the grace period between employ ment and training. **Table 3.3 -**  **13 Present Value of Costs, TRAIN -**  **01 Immediate Training. Region**  **PV(RC P**  **frm )**  **PV(RC P**  **wrkr )**  **PV(RC B**  **frm )**  **PV(RC B**  **wr kr** **) PV(RIC)**  ($1,000) ($1,000) South 11,5 71 7,349 7,7 46 7,471 3,7 04 California 4,81 5 10,588 3,2 23 10,763 1,4 17 Plains 2,485 2,118 1,6 64 2,153 7 87 Subtropical 1,941 2,990 1, 300 3,039 59 2 Midwest 16,8 51 8,034 11,2 81 8,167 5,4 38 Northeast 7,99 9 7,474 5,3 55 7,597 2,5 21 Ohio Valley 17,93 8 9,467 1 2 , 00 9 9,623 5, 774 Texas/Mountain West 9,55 2 4,983 6,3 94 5,065 3, 075 Northwest 4,50 4 9,280 3,0 15 9,433 1,3 36 **US 77,6**  **56 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 $ 6 7 ,000 per year in the Subtropical region to $ 6 57 ,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley.78

**Table 3.3 -**  **14. Present Value of Costs, TRAIN -**  **01 Immediate Training. Region**  **PV(RC P**  **) PV(RC**  **B )**  **PV(RIC) Annualized**  **RIC** $1000 $1000 South 18,9 20 15, 216 3,7 04 42 2 California 15,40 3 13,9 86 1,4 17 16 1 Plains 4,60 3 3,8 16 7 87 90 Subtropical 4,931 4,33 9 59 2 6 7 Midwest 24,88 6 19,4 48 5,4 38 6 19 Northeast 15,47 2 12,9 52 2,5 21 28 7 Ohio Valley 27,40 5 21, 632 5, 774 6 57 Texas/Mountain West 14,53 4 11,4 59 3, 075 35 0 Northwest 13,784 12,4 48 1,3 36 15 2 **US 139,9**  **39 115,**  **296 24,**  **643 2,8**  **05** 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 ye ar per WPS farm. The per
farm cost assumes that the employer ultimatel y bears the full cost because he or she pays the worker for the time spent in training. However, many temporary

workers employed to h arvest 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 onl y occurs if a pesticide application is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $ 2.2 million annually , or $5. 5 0 per ye ar per WPS farm, on average. At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may onl y 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 $1 2. 80 per WPS farm. Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate As a second sensitivity

analy sis, 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 b y using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of79

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 us ing 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 trai ning requirements EPA is considering. Details of these estimations can be found in Appendix A. In this section, we briefl y 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 ye ars (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. Relativel y low
- cost potential requirement s 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 ye ars. The cost is primarily

due to higher wages paid to more qualified trainers. Implementation of these requirements would be delayed two ye ars to allow sufficient trainers to acquire the necessary qualifications and this delay is factored into the analy sis. EPA also considered eliminating the training verification programs (TRAIN
- 17), which would save the over $ 560 ,000 annually
. Alternativel y, requiring verification be given to workers, but as a cop y of the training registry, could save almost $1 8 0,000 but accomplish essentially the same objective. **Table 3.3 -**  **15. Present Value of National Costs, Pote ntial Training Requirements**  **1**
**. Potential Requirement**  **PV(NC P**  **) PV(NC**  **B )**  **PV(NIC) Annualized**  **NIC** ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Immediate Training 139,9 39 115, 296 24, 643 2,8 05 02 Immediate Training with Exceptions 135, 225 115, 296 19,929 2,2 68 03 Annual Worker Training 192,1 27 115, 296 7 6,831 8,7 45 04 Biennial Worker Training 14 3,345 115, 296 2 8,049 3,1 92 05 Annual Worker Training, Small Farm Exception 18 1,320 115, 296 6 6,024 7, 515 06 Expand Worker Training Content 2 1 60,164 12 2,092 3 8,072 4,3 33 07 Expand Worker Training Content (crop sheet variant) 2 168, 813 12 2,092 46, 721 5,3 18 08 Increase Worker Trainer Standards 12 5,060 115, 296 9,7 64 1,1 11 09 Increase Worker Trainer Standards, Train
- the
- Trainer variant 12 5,060 115, 296 9,7 64 1,1 1180

**Potential Requirement PV(NC**  **P )**  **PV(NC B**  **) PV(NIC)**  **Annualized NIC**  ($1,000) ($1,000) 10 Keep Worker Training Records
- 2yr 14,2 69 0 14,2 69 1,6 24 11 Keep Worker Training Records
- 5yr 17, 144 0 17, 144 1,9 51 12 Annual Handler Training 3 56,579 26,045 30,534 3,475 13 Biennial Handler Training 3 39,385 24,979 14,406 1,640 14 Expand Handler Training Content 3 30,284 24,524 5,761 656 15 Expand Handler Training Content (crop sheet variant) 3 31,513 24,524 6,989 795 16 Keep Handler Training Records
- 2yr 4 1,550 123 1,427 162 17 Keep Handler Training Records
- 5yr 4 2,658 123 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
- 1 81 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 p otential requirement is a variant on the one discussed previousl y (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 day s 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 day s. Inaddition to providing workers wi th 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 req uirements, to be about $ 2.3 million per year or about $ 5.80 per farm per ye ar, on average. TRAIN
- 03, 04, and 05. Frequency of worker training. Under current requirements, all workers must be trained at least once every five ye ars if they

will be enterin g 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 with81

fewer than ten emplo ye es with an exception from annual training requirement under certain circumstances. Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provide s 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 ye ar to accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequen cy of trainings. The primary reason regulatory

cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training each ye ar. Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN
- 03) would result in incremental costs to the agricultural sector of abo ut $ 8. 7 million per year over the baseline, or about $2 2.20 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 cours e, 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 e xception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than ten workers that had no new emplo yees 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 th an $750,000, but based on data from the Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA estimates almost 9 5 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 $1 2.40 per ye ar, on average, for small farms. In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training is estimated to be $1 5. 40 per year, on average, for small farms. If ten percent of small farms met the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fal l to $1 0.20 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 h azard informati on 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 $1 1.00 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. 382

million per year or an average of $1 3. 50 per WPS farm. Both estimates assume a two - ye ar 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 s imilar to TRAIN
- 06. EPA also estimated the incremental cost if only WPS farms making a pesticide application in a given ye ar conduct training. An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN
- 06) would cost $ 3 .6 million annually , or $9 .0 0 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. TRA IN
- 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 delay s 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 $ 85 7 ,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 currentl y conduct w orker training onl y 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 $ 7.2 0 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. Co sts 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 ye ar 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 ye ars. 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 ye ar under TRAIN
- 12 or eve ry other year under requirement TRAIN
- 13 for handlers. Training83

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, s ome 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 handler s would receive training each ye ar. EPA estimate s that there are over 247 ,000 handlers employed b y 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 (BL S, 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 self
employed 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 probabl y meet WPS training requirements. Under TRAIN
- 12, the increase in annual handler training over current requirements runs about $ 3.5 mi llion 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 methodo logy , 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 requir ements would not lower costs to California establishments. It could be that pesticide handlers would onl y 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 $1 5.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are alway s 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 ye ar. 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 commerciall y available video materials. The expanded content under the potential requirements84

could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the training cover s 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 ye ar. Average hand ler training costs under TRAI N
- 14 and 15 are estimated to increase by $3. 20 or $ 3.90 per ye ar for larger WPS farms, respectivel y, and average CPHE costs are estimated to rise by

$14. 70 and $17. 90 per ye ar respectively . These requirements would not take ef fect for two ye ars 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 erroneousl y estimating a reduction in costs
. As a sensitivity

anal ys is, EPA estimated the incremental cost of these requirements under the assumption that handler training occurs onl y 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 $6 80 ,000 per ye ar ($3. 30 per WPS f arm). CPHE costs are not affected b y 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 ye ar, with WPS farms incurring costs around $0. 70 per year. Requiring records be kept for five ye ars 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. Unde r 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 emplo ye es to receive them; EPA also incurs costs to m anufacture the cards. About 22 states and territories currently participate in the program, based on 2010 requests for new cards. Of the representative states, Texas, I owa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions have requested verification cards. For this anal ys is, 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 c osts 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 fo r 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 ye ar, but savings would onl y occur in states currentl y 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 $0.0 4 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 s tates are currentl y providing cards or otherwise subsidizing them. Further, savings onl y arise in states currentl y participating in the voluntary program; establishments in other states would bear costs. If training currentl y occurs only if a pesticide a pplication is made on a WPS farm, the cost saving of eliminating the verification cards is estimated to be $ 4 98,000 per ye ar while the cost of requiring verification cards would be about $ 566 ,000 annually . Requiring verification through a copy of the trai ning 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 anal ys is. 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 cons idered 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), a re 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 describ e the way s in which a worker might be exposed to a p articular 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 comparativel y low cost at $ 1.1 million per year.86

**Table 3.3 -**  **16. Present Value of Costs, Hazard Communication Requirements 1** 
**. Potential Requirement**  **PV(RC P**  **) PV(RC**  **B )**  **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 2 3 18,330 293,020 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 analy sis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 1 5.4 pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given ye ar (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 applications per ye ar. Few crops would be treated so frequentl y, especiall y field crops, but the number is not unreasonable at th e farm level. The following examples show how EPA arrived at this number.  Field crops, corn and so ybean 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 an d soy

bean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soy bean. If fields are about 40 acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, wh ich is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn

– soy bean rotation with some fields in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn and soy bean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields in continuous corn (Duffy , 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a ty pical 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. T ypical spray

programs (Northwest Wholesale, Inc., 20 11a, 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 4087

applications per ye ar.  Vegetable crops in Florida. According t o 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 ye ar 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 simul taneous, which reduces the total number of applications. Florida vegetables are probably more intensel y m anaged 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 probabl y similar to fruit production in terms of the number of pesticide applications. Grain and so ybean 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 soy bean 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 mak e 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 day s when employees are present 3 . 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 pos t 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 w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 1 5.4 $ 3 6.26 In formation sheet $ 0.09/sheet 1 sheet 1 5.4 $ 1. 39 Post application information $28.21/hr 0.017 hr 1 5.4 $ 7. 25 cost r,i, a B $ 4 4.90 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 s ignificant overestimate. Thus, in lieu of posting the application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $1 0.88 per ye ar, making the total cost of the new requirement $48 .53 per farm per ye ar. 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 e stimated regional costs for the first ye ar 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**  **R C**  **B** cost r,i, a B $ 4 4.90 cost r,i, a P $48 .53 $1,000 South 58,804 2,640,541 2,853,784 California 1 24,469 1,187,480 1,187,480 Southwest 12,629 567,096 612,893 Subtropical 9,866 443,044 478,823 Midwest 85,641 3,845,620 4,156,181 Northeast 40,650 1,825,340 1,972,750 Ohio Valley 91,166 4,093,724 4,424,322 Texas/Mountain West 1 48,543 2,355,808 2,355,808 Northwest 22,890 1,027,861 1,110,869 **U.S. 394,658**  **$ 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 annuall y. In estimating the PV of costs over a 10
- ye ar time horizon, the only factor that changes through time is the number of89

establishments, which has been declining at a rate of 0.47% annuall y over the last decade. This trend is expected to continue as agriculture consolidates. EPA estimates the PV of the baseline cost is $1 55 million dollars over 10 ye ars at a 3% discount rate, considering requirements in California and Texas (Table 3.3
- 15). The potential requirement is expected to cost about $1 65 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, 0 3, 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
- 0 2) would require additional hazard information, consisting o f 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 ty pically 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 onl y that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM
- 03). The cost of this option would be just over $1. 6 million annually . A second alternative, HAZCOM
04, would be to require crop sheets for al l applications. This information would be crop
chemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given ty pical cropping practices, and emergency procedures in case of exposure. These sheets would likely be harder to obtain and, wh ile generall y briefer than the SDS, would be needed more frequentl y 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 $3 3.00 per WPS farm. HAZCO M
- 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 day s following the expiration of the REI . EPA cons idered 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
- ye ar period at the national level are shown in Table 3.3
- 14. EPA estimates annualized incremental costs are $2. 9 to 3.3 million respectivel y, 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 (HAZCO M
- 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 ex isting 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 allow90

registrants to include the new material as they reprint product labels. Itwould also increase printing costs over the entire time 10
- ye ar time period we anal yz e 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 ye ars, or an annualized cost of about $ 2.9 million per ye ar. 

### 3.3.5 Notification Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employer s 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 appl y 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 cost s 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 $ 2 61 million per ye ar in additional signs and labor. Other potentially costl y requirem ents include maintaining records of oral notification of REI s (NOTIFY
- 04 and 05). These two potential requirements would cost about $ 20 million per year in time and materials. Relativel y low cost requirements considered b y EPA include revisions to warnin g signs and safety posters (NOTIFY
- 06 and 14), which are expected to cost $ 9 9 ,000 and 108,000 per year respectivel y . EPA is also proposing to allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REI s 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(RC**  **P )**  **PV(RC B**  **) PV(RIC)**  **Annualized RIC**  $1,000 $1,000 01 REI > 48 hours Warning Sign 4 20,709 32 2,892 9 7,816 1 1,133 02 REI > 72 hours Warning Sign 3 92,487 32 2,892 6 9,594 7, 921 03 REI ≤ 4 hours Oral Notification (greenhouses) 980 1,065
- 84
- 10 04 Record Keeping for Oral Notification

– 2 years 17 7,198 0 17 7,198 20, 168 05 Record Keeping for Oral Notification

– 5 years 1 80,074 0 1 80,074 20, 49591

**Potential Requirement**  **PV(RC P**  **) PV(RC**  **B )**  **PV(RIC) Annualized**  **RIC** $1,000 $1,000 06 Revise Warning Sign (“Entry restricted Area”) 19, 535 18, 663 8 73 9 9 07 Revise Warning Sign (Skull and Cross Bones) 4 6,923 18, 663 2 8,260 3, 216 08 Posting Warning Signs w/in 100 ′ worker housing 9 9,064 9 9,064 0 0 09 Posting Warning Signs every 100 ′ 2,3 94,818 9 9,064 2,2 95,755 2 61,294 10 Oral Information for Entry restricted

– workers 10,29 5 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 2 5 , 33 6 7,777 1 7 , 55 8 1,998 16 Safety Poster,
- Handler Decontamination 14,669 7,777 6,891 784 17 Safety Poster with REI signs 4 9,872 7,7 77 4 2,094 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 phy sical posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY
- 01, would require posting if the REI exce eds 48 hours. An alternative, NOTIFY
- 02, would require posting if the REIexceeds 72 hours. Currentl y, emplo yers 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 of92

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 REIupon 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 orall y 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 doub le notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two signs are generall y 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 generall y last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted b y the proportion of non
- greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given ye ar, which is 77. 1 percent (NASS, 2008). The expecte d per
- farm cost is estimated to be between $ 35 and $1 10 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. Pe r**  **- Medium & Small**  **- Sm**  **all WPS Farm Baseline Costs for NOTIFY -**  **01, Post REI warning signs.**  **Action/Material (j) wage/price**  **w j**  **unit**

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 1 4.3 $ 2 0.14 Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0.3 07 $ 3. 47 Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 1. 2 3 $ 1 1. 54 Signs $ 5.66 per 3 0.01 8 $ 0. 30 Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.0 71 $ 1.00 cost r,i, a B $ 3 6. 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 verball y 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 $ 7 0 and $1 10 , 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**  **- Sm**  **all WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for NOTIFY**  **- 01, Post REI warning signs.**  **Action/Material (j) wage/price**  **w j**  **unit**

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 1 0.0 $ 1 4.09 Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0.3 07 $ 6.94 Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 4.91 $ 4 6.14 Signs $ 5.66 per 6 0.01 8 $ 0. 60 Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0. 284 $ 4.01 cost r,i, a B $ 7 1. 79 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. For NOT IFY
- 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 be tween $6 0 and $1 10 per year and per
worker 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 REI s over 72 hours and to be ab out $ 1 1.1 million annually if posting is required for REIs over 48 hours. The estimated incremental costs average $2 0.10 to $2 8.30 per ye ar per non - greenhouse W PS 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. Currentl y, greenhouses are required to post REIwarning signs for all pesticide applications; signs are also required to be removed shortly after the end o f 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 orall y notifying all their employees would be more time consuming. EPA estimates that this revision would save about $ 10 ,000 per year nationall y or about $1 .80 per ye ar per WPS greenhouse, on average. As note d 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 REI s. Under NOTIFY
- 04, these records would be kept for two ye ars; under NOTIFY
- 05 they would be kept for five years. As explained in NOTIFY
- 01 and 02, the s ize of the farm, particularl y 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 emplo ye es’ 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 is94

estimated to be $ 38.73 , slightly lower than fo r 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 ye ar for workers on small farms and $1. 19 per ye ar 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 $0.1 3 per ye ar. **Table 3.3 -**  **22. Per -**  **Sm all**  **WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs for NOTIFY**  **- 04, Keep Records of REI notifications.**  **Action/Material (j) wage/price**  **w j**  **unit**

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Prepare cop y of warning 28.21 0.033 1 5.0 1 4.12 In formation sheet 0.09 1 1 5.0 1. 35 Obtain acknowledgement 28.21 0.050 1 6.5 2 3.30 Store acknowledgement 28.21 0.017 1 5.0 7. 06 Folder 0.20 1 0. 75 0.1 5 cost r,i, a B $ 4 5.98 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 $5 1.20 per ye ar and is similar for small and large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $ 7.10 . NOTIFY
- 05, with a five
ye ar retention requirement, would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage container to hold the files. EP A estimates the cost to be about $ 20. 5 million per year with an average cost per WPS farm of $5 2.00 per ye ar 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 sy mbol 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 $ 9 9 ,000 per ye ar. Per
- farm cost wou ld 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 REIwarning signs. NOTIFY
- 08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently , when warning sign s 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, th ere 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

rathe r 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 establishm ents probably onl y 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 mer el y defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to engender an y 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, th ey were to cross a field without passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY
- 09). Size and shape of field are extremel y 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 $ 2 61 million annually . The annual incremental cost is estimated to average over $ 69 0 for WPS greenhouses and about $ 6 60 for other WPS farms. NOTIFY
- 10 and 11. Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. Occasionall y, 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 emplo yer 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 b y 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 , respectivel y. NOTIFY
- 12 and 13. Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. Under these potential me asures, EPA would require that emplo yers obtain acknowledgement from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record sheet for two or five ye ars (NOTIFY
- 12 and NOTIFY
- 13, respectivel y). Record keeping is expected to cost about $ 469 ,000 per ye ar for two
- ye ar retention and, for five years, $7 96 ,000 per ye ar, 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 co st of this action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety display s, which would be done b y the WPS farm. EPA estimates that this potential requirement would cost growers about $ 108 ,000 per year over ten years, using a three p ercent discount rate, and96

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 ye ar. Costs may be somewhat overstated because signs are available free through EPA. NOTIFY
- 15, 16, and 17. Safety display s at decontamination sites. These requirements would add additional pesticide safety display s where decontamination supplies are located. NOTIFY
15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY
- 16 addresses handler site s on WPS farms. NOTIFY
- 17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require display s 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 req uirements 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 p resents EPA’s estimates of the per
- establishment unit costs, assuming that the requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three ye ars, on average. Large farms incur much higher cost for posting safety displays with REIsigns because they likel y post more frequentl y than do small farms . See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY
- 01 and 02 . If safety display s are required with REIwarning signs, however, large farms could reduce the number of postings b y 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 $1 1. 49 S mall WPS Greenhouse $31.17 Large WPS Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15 $3 4.37 Large WPS Greenhouse $ 42.20 Source: EPA estimates. Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted b y 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 display s can be obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. Placing safety posters with REIwarning signs (NOTIFY
- 17) is estimated to cost $ 4. 8 million annually or $1 2.10 per WPS farm. NOTIFY
- 18. Notification of agricultural est ablishments 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 c hanges to the application, e.g. , delay in application, change of product (brand), the97

CPHE must immediately

inform the client . The latter requirement has raised concerns about the practicality of informing the agricultural emplo ye r of small changes in asp ects 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 en d 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 anal ys is. That is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide applications per ye ar 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 b y a fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications results in a c hange of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision. The savings generated b y allowing emplo ye rs 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 o f record keeping of oral notification (NOTIFY
- 04 and 05) also varies nearl y proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of providing more information upon earl y entry (NOTIFY
- 10 and 11) varies proportionall y 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 becaus e 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 (NOT IFY
- 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 REIwarning 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 display s with every REI warning sign. The revision s 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 b y necessit ating the emplo ym ent 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 sit

uations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the98

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**  **NC P**  **NC B**  **NIC Annualized**  **NIC** ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Minimum Age of 1 6 , Earl y Entry Workers 10,734 9, 366 1,36 7 1 5 6 02 Minimum Age of 1 8 , Earl y Entry Workers 1 5,97 4 9, 618 6, 35 6 7 23 03 Minimum Age of 1 6 , Handlers 2 42,290 38 , 19 2 4 ,098 466 04 Minimum Age of 1 8 , Handlers 2 65,019 38 , 192 2 6,827 3 ,0 53 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 famil y 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 analy sis, EPA has assumed that there will be one earl y 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 low er 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 represe nt 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 day s of employ ment with a given employer. The additional labor cost of the 1 6 year - old minimum age would be about $ 1 60 ,000 annually , or an expected cost of about $ 0.40 per WPS farm per year. A minimum age of 1 8 would impose99

costs of $ 7 2 0 ,000 annually , or about $ 1. 8 0 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 pesti cides classified as Category

Ior II toxicity . EPA evaluated the impacts of both a 16
- ye ar minimum (NOTIFY
- 0 3 ) and an 18
- ye ar minimum (NOTIFY
- 0 4 ). Table 3
- 3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling tasks, assum ing, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15
- ye ar olds are paid half the hourl y 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 BL S (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 b y 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
- ye ar olds, 1.87 percent were 16
- and 17
- ye ar olds and the rest were 18 ye ars and older. The survey further indicated that handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per ye ar 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 $1 2.43 per ye ar. To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY
- 03) , the time of 14 and 15 year old handlers is replaced b y adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $1 4.35
. 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 $2 1.35 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 ye ars of age. Itis likel y that the proportion is smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the ti me 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 ye ars 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 employ

ment. Labor costs assume that 16 and 17 ye ar - 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 10.4 1 50 0.004 1.92 16
- 17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.01 7 1 0.51 Total WPS farm 1 2.4 3 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 0.01 7 10.51 Adult 20.83 50 0.0 04 3.84 Total WPS farm 1 4.35 Minimum Age, 18 Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.02 1 2 1.35 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 emplo y 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, RL P . Incremental labor costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $ 2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effe ct and about $ 880 ,000 for CPHEs. **Table 3.3 -**  **26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE -**  **0 4**  **WP S Handler, 18 Year**  **Age Restriction, Year 1. Region**  **N WPS hndlr**  **B RL**  **P RL**  **B** ($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 ye ars, 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 la bor 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 employ ment 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

appl y to WPS farms when pesticide applications occur. Unlike the training and notification ex amples, which require farm operators, agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarel y require specific activities or materials. These potential requirements preclude certain work activities from occurring at certain times in certain places. The primary cos t 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 largel y unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced b y 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**  **NC P**  **NC B**  **NIC Annualized NIC**  ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 R estricted area of 25 to 100 ft during application for all agricultural establishments 0 0 0 0 02 Halt a pplication if non
handler enters treatment area 0 0 0 0 03 L imit entry

during emergencies to 4 hours 0 0 0 0 04 L imit entry

during emergencies to 8 hours 0 0 0 0 05 Eliminate earl y entry exceptions 2,173,318 0 2,173,318 247,358 06 Monitoring handlers for chlolinesterase inhibition 13 7,3 6 8 3,394 133,975 1 5,248 07 L imit 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 p ro posed 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 appl y to area under control of the employer . For a WPS farm, imposing the restrict ed area c ould affect th e scheduling of work activities in areas immediately adjacent to the area being treated, but onl y during the application. This may complicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely preclude activities or lead to quantif iable impacts on agricultural establishments. ENTRY
- 02. Entry

into a restricted area. Th e 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 potenti al 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 NOT IFY
- 02). Anoth er option (ENTRY
- 04) would limit the time to eight hours. Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout this analy sis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an earl y entry event is103

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 phy sical posting. Thu s, only a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a product in any given ye ar. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generall y be involved in an earl y 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 ne ed 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. Earl y entry

exceptions. Exceptions to the REIare allowed by the WPS or by admi nistrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for agricultural emergencies. As suggested b y 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 , b ut 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 t o 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 famil y farms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to pesticide labels under the WPS . In this case, EPA calculat es 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 earl y 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 becaus e 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 REIextends to family farms only

through the WPS. According to data from the 2 007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including government pay

ments) 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 n earl y 200 ,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $ 260 ,000 per ye ar 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 yi eld loss $1 3,024 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 w ould 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 $ 3,25 0, i.e. , the five percent loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extrapolating to the national le vel 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 pro gram 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 handl ers who appl y organophosphate and N
methyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural emplo yers 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 suc h pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The emplo ye e 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. In formation 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 b y CPHEs, are involved in the program. The 2,024 handlers in the p rogram 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 g o 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 pe sticide use of 30 hours in 30 day s 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 s how that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow
- up tests, which implies that they spend105

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**  **- WP**  **S Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY -**  **07, Cholinesterase monitoring in NW.**  **Action/Material (j) wage/price**  **w j**  **unit**

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,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 0.0 27 $ 1.16 **cost r,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 day s, which EPA estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; e xpected 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 4 5.8 percent of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be t ested, 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 w ith pesticides every y ear . 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 0.4 58 and of follow
- up blood tests of 0.08 7 , or 19.1 percent of the baseline participation. Expected cost per WPS handlers is $4 3.36 and is $4 7.51 for C PHE handlers. The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $1 5.2 million annually and would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $5 2.70 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 necessaril y 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, onl y about one percent of participating Washington handlers showed cholineste rase inhibition sufficient to warrant removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikel y.106

An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY
- 07). The p rimary 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 self
employed 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 day s, 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 4 5.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChIpesticides. Similarly , 51.0 percent of CPHE handlers work with ChIproducts . Given these assumptions, which may underestimate the extent of use of ChIproducts, EPA estimates the cost of tracking handlers’ time to be about $ 4.2 million annually . The cost to a WPS farm is a relativel y 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 altern ative jobs are not available. 

### 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Protective gear is often required b y 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 frequ ent 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 actuall y 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**  **NC P**  **NC B**  **NIC Annualized**  **NIC** ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640 02 Eliminate earl y entry exceptions for CCA employees, WPS 52,052 52,047 5 0. 5 03 Eliminate earl y entry exceptions for CCA employees, CCA 13,338 13,325 13 1 04 Revise closed
- sy stem standards 1 5 3,863 93,133 6 0,730 6,912 0 5 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 individu al 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 medicall y cleared for their use. The costs of this requirement would includ e 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 t o 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, impl yi ng about 60 percent of all handlers. This is probably an overestimate, but a number of widel y 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 (20 04) indicate that about 23 percent of those taking the medical screen will need a follow
- up examination, which implies about 1 3.7 percent of all handlers. The examination is expected to take about two hours, including travel and wait time. The cost of th e 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 materi al 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 is108

likely to be relativel y rare among WPS, however. The expected cost
- pe r WPS handler of the requirement is calculated to be $ 48.72 , as shown in Table 3.3
- 31. **Table 3.3 -**  **31. Per -**  **WP S Handler Costs for PPE**  **- 01, Respirator fit test.**  **Action/Material (j) wage/price**  **w j**  **unit**

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cos t**  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 0.1 37 $ 5.70 Follow
- up medical exam $101.00 1 0.1 37 $ 1 3.82 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 0.3 51 $ 0.9 9 Handler receives instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0.3 51 $ 0.7 3 **cost r,i,**  **a P**  **$ 48.7**  **4** Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. The c ost 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 comm ercial 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 ir rigation or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically damaging level s . 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 b y a firm that contracts advisory services (PPE
- 03). The requirement would onl y 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 t he 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 s ys tems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed s ys tem in which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application sy stem without its release. EPA is considering revising the standards that define a closed sy stem 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 s ys tems now. Others may have a sy stem that is already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those that are not in compliance, some establishments may

purchase a new, compliant s ystem while others will opt for use of PPE. In addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all sy stem maintenance, something that is not currentl y required under federal regulations, b ut is required b y 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 s ys tem. Instead, they utilize PPE and, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year. The other large and large
small WPS and large family farms employ

a closed sy stem and on ly replace one pair of personal filters each ye ar. This probably overestimates the number of famil y farms using a closed s ys tem as family farms may

be less likely

to self
- appl y pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also assumes that about 20 percent of sy stems 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 ye ar, 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 -**  **WP S Farm Baseline Costs for PPE**  **- 04, Revise standards for closed**  **systems. Action/Material (j)**  **wage/price w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.2 2 $ 2 0.19 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0. 67 $ 12. 11 Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.1 3 $ 1 1.66 cost r,i, a B $ 4 3.96 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 s ys tems 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, respectivel y. Note that California s ys tems are all in compliance with the potential definition of a closed s ys tem. 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 sy stem, EPA assumes another 25 percent of large and large
- small WPS farms already have a s ys tem that110

would meet the po tential 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 s ys tem , 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 sy stem. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed sy stem, all probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large
- small WPS farms that use pesticides in a given ye ar. **Table 3.3 -**  **3 3. Per**  **- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE**  **- 04, Revise standards for**  **closed systems, Year 1. Action/Material (j)**  **wage/price w**  **j unit** 

**time/quantity H**  **r,i,j /M**  **r,i,j annual**  **frequency Prob(**  **j |**  **i )**  **cost** Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.2 2 $ 2 0.19 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.2 2 $ 4. 04 Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89 New Closed Sy stem $480.00 1 0.25 $ 121.23 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.2 2 $ 4. 04 Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.2 2 $ 2 0.19 File Maintenance Record $ 28.21 3 min 0.09 $ 0.0 4 Record and Folder $ 0.29 1 0.09 $ 0.03 **cost PPE,**  **a P**  **$ 1 77.52**  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 sy stems) will have a maintenance event to report. All establishments with closed sy stems 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 $1 7 8 in the first year for large and large
- small WPS farms. In subsequ ent years, these farms will not need to purchase new s ys tems and the annual cost will fall to $5 6.29 , 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 $ 2 21 to $ 44 2 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple handler enterprises, respectively . The difference s in cost aris e because of different assumptions about the use of clos ed sy stems on these establishments. For example, we ass ume that all CPHEs have closed s ys tems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed sy stems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed s ys tems. In all cases, o ne third are assumed to have s ys tems already in compliance, one
- thi rd would obtain a new s ys tem, and one - third would rel y on PPE.111

EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $3 2.5 million for the first year, assuming that all new closed sy stems are purchased immediately . Over te n 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 $110,00 0, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 million. This implies an average ye arl y 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 s tandards. 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 fol low 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 anal ys is of these potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3
- 34. **Table 3.3 -**  **34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1** 
**.** Potential Requirement **NC P**  **NC B**  **NIC Annualized**  **NIC** ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0 02 Decontamination requirements, earl y 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 wate r 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 the112

incremental cost will be zero. Water would likely be supplied from existing wells or delivery sy stems; 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 earl y event occurs to be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers emplo yed on the farm would engage in the activity . Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky , the most e xpensive 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. Qu antity of water available for handler decontamination. Current ly , the WPS require s that “enough” water be available for handler s to use for routine and emergency washing, including emergency

eye - flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplement ed 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 show ers 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 $1 2,000 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 w ould 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 employ

ment categories, possibl y at some loss of wages. Others would likely find employ ment 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 onl y 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 potentiall y 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 f

or 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. S UPPLY
- 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 e stablishments 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 thi s 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 t o 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, howeve r; they

do not provide employers with clear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is considering potential requirements that would more precisel y define standards for emergency response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurab le 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 o f a precise cost of this requirement is not possible as field conditions are highl y variable. However, as this merel y clarifies existing requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones suggests that a rapid re sponse 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 earl y entry situation, the problem may be assumed t o be the most recent application. However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, especiall y if workers are exposed to pesticide drift from an application performed on a different farm. EMERG
- 03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Simi larly , 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 subse t of the options discussed in this section. Chapter 4 describes the cost
- benefit anal ys is 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 employ

ment 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: Train ing, 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 In crease 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 REIGreater 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 Earl y 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 1 6 for Earl y Entry AGE
- 03 Minimum Age of 1 6 for Handlers ENTRY
- 01 Expand Restricted Area ENTRY
- 02 Halt Application in case of Entry into Restricted Area ENTRY
- 03 Limit Earl y 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
- Sy stem Standards PPE
- 0 5 Render Contaminated PPE Unus able116

**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 qualitativel y 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 analy sis 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 agri culture, and small businesses in particular. In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered the full range of information brought b y various stakeholder groups involved in th e 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 anal ys is. 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 l ynchpin 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 specif y 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 ente r a treated area would e nsure that workers understand how to protect themselv es when working in pesticide
- treated fields. This is an especiall y critical issue for many temporary workers who may

not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than five day s on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 w orkers may fall into this category
. These temporary

workers may

work on multiple farms, especiall y for harvest, and never receive117

complete training. Ensuring workers are properl y trained means a substantial improvement in pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this proposal will e nsure 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 info rmed 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 year s after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infect ion s 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
. In creasing the frequency

of worker training from every five ye ars to every

y ear would cost WPS farms an additional $2 2.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is e stimated to be about $ 8.10 per year. For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17. 00 per ye ar 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 ye ar for WP S farms and CPHEs, respectivel y . 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 b y workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide exposure and illness in workers and handlers. Moreover, training reinforce s 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 (TRAI

N
- 05) would require annual retraining but o ffer 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 $750,0 00 in annual sales) from $15. 40 per ye ar under TRAIN
- 03 to118

$1 2.40 per ye ar. 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 wo rker 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 communic ation 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 pe sticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN
- 06) and handlers (TRAIN
- 14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed requirements for earl y entry notification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard communication mat erials , especiall y the SDS
. The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training b y about 15 minutes . The longer training sessions would cost an additional $1 1.00 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 (TRAI N
- 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 cost s of development, distribution, and training. Crop sheets may confuse workers with complex pes ticide information, possibly before an y 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 EP A is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS
- trained handlers (TRAIN
- 0 8 ), 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 onl y to those who have completed a Train
- the
- Trainers program (TRAI N
- 09). As discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers119

may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to train. T he unique characteristics and demographics of the farmworker population, especiall y language and literacy

issues, implies that there are substantial benefits to having trainers that have been speciall y 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 , th e 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 b y workers. This improvement would increase the likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the pri nciples outlined in the pesticide safety training and reduce the potential for exposure to themselves and their famil y 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 bo th provision s is estimate d 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 prov ision will be delayed for two years. 

### 4.1. 5 TRAIN
- 10 vs 11 / TRAIN
- 1 6 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, th ese proposal s may benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies b y establishing a clear method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. Keeping records for two ye ars 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 i s about $3.00 per ye ar. Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of training and abo ut $ 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 b y the employer , especiall y if training is t o be conducted annually . Therefore EPA concludes that , if training occurs more frequently than is currentl y required, the longer, five
- ye ar retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the two - ye ar period. 

### 4.1. 6 TRAIN
- 20 vs 18 and 19 : Training verification There is currentl y 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 ad equate verification. These problems reduce emplo yers’ ability to rely on the cards and, therefore, the ability of emplo ye es to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the voluntary program to justify

the expenditure. Eliminatin g the program (TRAI N
- 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 s ys tem that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification (TRAIN
- 20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program. However, a s ys tem 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 p roposed record keeping requirements discussed in Sect ion 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 typicall y paid b y 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 currentl y used in the voluntary program have the advantage of being eas y for workers to carry. Th ey 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. I f subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain all the information, they

are unlikel y to be willing to accept the card s 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 area s , 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 day s). Posting is required for 30 day s following the expiration of the REI
. EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to w orkers 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 establis hments, or those where growing areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where workers or handlers are working. Emplo ye rs have informed the Agency that it can be difficult to make changes to the information p rior 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
- 0 1 : Availability of application
- specific information121

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 applicati on 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 ye ar 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 ro utinely pass the central posting area because their workplace is at a different part of the establishment. Thus, central posting is not necessaril y an effective means to communicate with emplo yees. 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
- 0 2 vs 03 and 04 : Pesticide
- specific Hazard Communication Materials EPA is proposing that the agricultural employer compile the SDS and the pro duct 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 ye ar 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 particularl y 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 sy mptoms, t o aid proper diagnosis, and on treatment
. 

### 4.2. 3 HAZCOM
- 05 vs 06 : Recordkeeping and Retention122

As discussed above in TRAI N
- 1 0 and
- 11 , recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five ye ars (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 communi cation under HAZCOM
- 04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training under TRAIN
- 06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectivel y, so that employees would know how to interpret and use the crop sheets . As noted in the discussion s above , howev er, 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 estimate s this requirement would cost $ 25.3 million over three years , equivalent to $2.9 million annually for ten years. This cost does not in clude 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 O utdoor P roduction 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. NOT IFY
- 01 would require posting if the REI is lon ger than 48 hours, at an estimated cost of $1 1.1 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 $2 8.30 per year for NOTIF Y
- 01 and about $ 20.10 per ye ar 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 likel y to be high, including the marginal benefits of posting when REI s 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 (greenhouse s and enclosed nurseries ). EPA proposes to re lax this requirement and allow emp loyers the option s o f 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 NOT IFY
- 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 b y 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 i n 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 tur n 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 asso ciated with these alternative s . Posting for long RE I (NOT IFY
- 01) and training (TRAIN
- 06) are likel y 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 s ymbol 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 pe r WPS farm per year . EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones sy mbol , 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 REIwarning 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
. Itwill largel y reduce the uncertainty around compl yi ng with the regulations
. EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry an d every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOT IFY
- 09)
. EPA estimates that this provision would cost about $6 60 per ye ar per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that su ch extensive posting would substantially

reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertentl y enter a field under REI. Posting in cases of relativel y long REI s (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

activit ies” as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112). The WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform earl y entry t asks 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 nearb y for when the worker exits the field. EPA is propos ing 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 ty pe 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 ye ar. Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary so urces of pesticide
- related illness in workers (Calvert et al. , 2008 )
. P roviding 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 earl y 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 the125

signature of each earl y entry worker to verify

that they received the additional required information and keep this record on file for 2 ye ars (NOTIFY
- 1 2) . The estimated national cost for this requirement is $ 469 ,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average . Extendi ng the retention period to five ye ars (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
- 1 4 , 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 readil y availa ble because workers and handlers are unlikel y to retain emergency

contact information if it is only presented orally
. The incremental cost of NOTIFY
- 1 4 would be the time required to include this information on existing safety

programs, which would be do ne b y 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 : Num ber and location of safety display s 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
- 1 5 governs sites for field wo rkers and NOTIFY
- 1 6 addresses handler sites. The value of displaying the information in a main area through which workers will frequentl y pass is to reinforce pesticide training. However, it is also important that the information be displayed at sites wh ere 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 display s and the labor to post them. On an annual basis, the cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY
- 1 5 ) is estimated to be $ 2.0 million or $ 5.10 per WPS farm. EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary b y the size of the operation. The smallest WPS farms, for example, with two or three workers may need onl y one safety display , and will incur costs below the average. The cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY
- 1 6 ) is estimated to be $ 784 ,000 or $2.00 for WPS farms that employ s handlers
. An alternative (NOTIFY
- 1 7 ) would be to require safety information to be post ed 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 to126

associating the display s with REIwarnings as ac cidental 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 $ 1 2.10 per WPS farm, on average, or nearl y double the cost of NOTIFY
- 1 5 and 16 combined
. 

### 4.3. 10 NOTIFY
- 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 immediatel y upon any chan ge, 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, m inor changes in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not affect the REIwo uld not have to be reported. No costs are anticipated; benefits are mainl y the resolution of regulatory uncertainty
. 

### 4.4 **Age Requirement Options** The WPS does not currently establish age restrictions on workers or handlers covered b y the regulation. Thi s is problematic for two reasons . First, young people may be more susceptible to pesticides because their systems are still developing. Second, adolescents generall y take more risks than do adults; they may not accuratel y 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 REIand 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 Earl y 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 s ys tems 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 exp osure to pesticides. EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for workers to engage in earl y entry activities (AGE
- 01) , which is estimated to cost about $ 1 56 ,000 per year, or $0. 40 per year per WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of emplo yi ng a dults 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 1 9,000 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 $ 7 23 ,000 per year, or $ 1. 80 per year per WPS127

farm. This option would cover about 86,9 00 workers under the age of 18 at a cost of $ 8. 30 per adolescent. T hus , the cost
- effectiveness of the two options is very similar. Children less than 1 6 ye ars old working on family farms that qualify

under the immediate famil y exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in earl y entry activities und er 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, AGE
03, a prohibition on persons younger than 1 6 ye ars of age from handling pesticides and AGE
- 04, which limits WPS handling activities to individuals 1 8 ye ars of age and older. The benefits of an age restriction for handlers are similar to those for workers engaged in early entry activities. Moreove r, since handlers work directly with pesticides, there is greater potential for risks to themselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit persons yo unger than 1 6 from handling pesticides (AGE
- 03). EPA estimates that this restriction would protect more than 1,000 adolescents currentl y handling pesticides. The alternative, a minimum age of 1 8 (AGE
- 04), would prote ct about 4, 8 00 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 onl y 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 $4 60 per adolescent. The estimated cost of limiting handling to person s 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 annuall y , although the latter estimate in particular is likel y to be highl y conservative because of th e number of hours adolescents are assumed to work . Considering that nearl y 4, 8 00 adolescents may

be engaged in handling activities, the cost is about $6 30 per adolescent. The cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adolescent protected, is somewhat bett er for the proposed option. However, the estimate for the minimum age of 18 is heavil y influenced b y the assumptions about the number of hours worked b y adolescents in CPHEs
. Children less than 1 6 ye ars old working on family farms that qualify

under the immediate famil y 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 ai med 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 during128

applications on farms and forests. Currentl y, a worker on a farm may be assigned to wo rk 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, eithe r 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 properl y 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
- c overed workers is a simple way

to improve worker safety
. A second revision, ENTRY
- 02 , specif ies that handlers must “cease application” if a non - handler enter s the treated and entry
- restricted area s. 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 s uccessful 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 e xisting 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 effectivel y reduces the dose a worker may receive. EPA considered two options. ENTRY
- 0 3 woul d impose a four
- hour time limit in a 24
- hour timeframe for an individual earl y entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while ENTRY
- 0 4 would impose an eight
- hour time limit for the agricultural emergency exception if a product requiring doub le 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
- 0 3 , which would provide some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY
- 0 4 , 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 and129

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
- 0 6 vs 0 7 : 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 le vels 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 han dler involved in the program, or $ 15.2 million annually
. T he Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarel y drop below the threshold of concern ; only one percent of participating handlers had cholinesterase depression at the trigger l evel 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 b y handlers showing some cholinesterase inhibi tion, 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 b y 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
. Howeve r, the benefits of the approach are highl y uncertain. D ata to establish a specific limit of this ty pe 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 i n the WPS support the label directions by

setting criteria to e nsure that PPE is of good quality and is used appropriatel y . 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 PPE130

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 fit
testing. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assume that respirators fit. Respirators that do not fit properl y may result in preventable handler expos ure 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 pesticid e 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 . Th ere 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 $8 2 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 currentl y, given the nature of the business
. Ensuring that respirators fit properl y will increase their effectiveness , ultimately leading to a reduction in occupational pesticide
- related illnesses. 

### 4.6.2 PPE
- 02 and PPE
- 03: Eliminate exception s from PPE for em ployees acting under CCAs T he current PPE exemptions for emplo yees 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 emplo ye e 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 e mployees would be required to use the label specified PPE and hav e 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, especiall y for uncertified employees (Jones and Smith, 2006)
. 

### 4.6.3 PPE
- 04: Standards for closed system exceptions The existing WPS per

mits exceptions to the label
- specified PPE when using a closed s ys tem for mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, h owever, does not provide specific criteria for131

an acceptable closed s ys tem. State enforcement agencies have expressed concern th at the existing language is vague, impractical, and unenforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs may have inadequate s ys tems resulting in inadvertent exposure of handlers and others in the area. The proposed revision, PPE
- 04, would establish specific criteria for closed sy stems that are enforceable ensure and ensure that a s ys tem is protective of handlers. The proposed standards are based on California criteria. P roperl y de signed and employed closed sy stems afford superior protection for handlers, o ther 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 ye ar for large famil y farms (those making more than $750,000 in annual sales), and about $ 48 per ye ar for CPHEs. The costs include the purchase of new s ys tems by

some firms or farms and some increase in costs for the more frequent utilizat ion of the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their s ys tems. In terms of cost
effectiveness, considering the number of handlers , including self
- employed commercial handlers and handlers on family

farms, the cost per handler of improved prot ection is about $20 per ye ar . 

### 4.6. 4 PPE
- 0 5: Render contaminated PPE unwearable The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properl y . 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 properl y cleaned, be rend ered unusable before disposal. This clarification is in response to concerns raised by State agencies that contaminated PPE m ay be reused if not destroyed. This would protect workers, handlers and other s 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 emplo ye r to render the PPE unusable
. 

### 4.7 **Decontamination Supply Options** On
- site dec ontamination 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 workers132

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 qu antity 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 thi s 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. InChapter 3, EPA estimates the cost for the additional water would be less than $ 0.01 per WPS farm. W ater is generall y 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 thi s 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 highl y 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 i t 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 the m. 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 emplo ye rs 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 opti on 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 emplo ye rs 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 b y an employee than a more complete facility
.133

The additional training content for handlers that is proposed in TRAIN
- 1 4 , including take
- h ome 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 effectivel y 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 whe n 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 pestici de mixing sites. As discussed in Section 3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no cost since these sites would ty pically 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, especiall y 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 ye ar nationall y, o r 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 the ir 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 specifici ty 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 wor ker 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 phy sical differences between a WPS esta blishment and ty

pical industrial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow134

agricultural emplo ye rs and handler emplo ye rs 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. T he employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable information, to the treating m edical personnel (see HAZCOM
- 02) . EPA also considered requiring agricultural and handler emplo ye rs 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 clearl y preferable. Neither time frame is expected to impose measurable costs , particularl y as cell phones become more readil y 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 $ 6 2.1 and $ 7 2. 9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates for farms and farm labo r 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 $6 3. 0 to $7 3.8 million per year. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 6 1.2 and $ 7 3. 6 million per ye ar. 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 estab lishments that are covered by the WPS , nearl y 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 disco unt rate, the cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of $750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $ 3 40 and $ 40 0 per ye ar. The incremental cost to small WPS farms is estimated to be between $ 1 30 and $ 1 50 per ye ar. 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 lab or and use pesticides. The impact on famil y farms is limited to changes in the standard for closed sy stems 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. Co mmercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected b y the WPS , with an annual incremental cost between $ 170 and $ 190 , although self
- employed commercial applicators will face costs of onl y about $ 80 per year. Forestry operations are also covered b y 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

separate d 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 an d on famil y 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 n ot need to provide safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largel y 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, man y workers are emplo yed temporaril y for certain peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Emplo yers will only need to notify

those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications to specific fiel ds) and can do at the time of employ ment. Second, the costs are estimated assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crops and all employees of136

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 p roduce crops likel y grow forage crops or field crops like corn and so yb ean that are highl y mechanized. Since they are not engaged in hand labor activities, employers and employees would not be covered b y 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 display s and decontamination supplies;  C omply

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 pestic ide safety display s;  Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor  Provide notification of REI s, 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 assum e that onl y the latter represent the farms with hand labor activities, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $5 1.2 to $5 9.2 million per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relativel y conse rvative 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 predominantl y livestock operations. Production of these crops is highly mechanized and such farms may have pesticide handlers, but not fieldworkers of the kind covered b y 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 $3 9
. 1 and $4 3.7 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 ve getable 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 nearl y 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 onl y’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $18 0 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 $3 7 5 to $4 4 0 per year, on average, which is slightl y higher than the range presented in this chapter. The estimated incremental cost to small crop farms is $14 0 to $160 per year, very close to that a ssociated 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 cost s, 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 req uirements , discussed in Chapter 4, are largel y, 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 ho w 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 merel y making the specific information more tangible will not make two
- ye ar 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 an y other combination for the two components. Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, th at 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 employ ment and Se ction 5.4 presents the anal ys is 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 largel y independe nt of each other, the cost of a suite of regulations is not necessaril y 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 emplo yers are required to have the information available for emplo yees 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 mo re 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 $6 5.1 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 es timating the cost per actor of the suite of requirements b y summing over the regulations included in the regulatory option and adjusting for an y common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this is done for the propo sed 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 b y s umming 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 cost

R, 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 way s, 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 b y 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 indivi dual requirements, we use a ten
- year time horizon.

, = ,

( 1 + ) **Step 4**  **.** Calculate regional level incremental costs.

, = , − , National incremental cost, PV ( NIC R ), is calculated th e same way . **Step 5 .**  Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

= ( ) × ∙ ( 1 + )

( 1 + )
− 1 where AIC

R is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as previously

defi ned. **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 EC

R,e X is entity cost, N a , 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 an d the workers, b y 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 ef fect of spreading the cost of any required investments across the time horizon as a business would in making a capital investment. **Step 8 .**  In cremental 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 anal ys is, EPA requested a special tabulation from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obtained inf ormation on the average number of workers employed by

various ty

pes 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. Thi s 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 anal ys is. **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 2 0.0 2 Small < $750,000 3.6 0.4 1 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 rev enue less than $50,000. Large WPS farms employ a substantiall y 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 likel y temporary workers employed at harvest or for certain seasons. Te mporary workers also likel y explain how small
- small farms, with annual sales of less than $10,000, still employ between two and three workers, on average. Certain141

provisions, especiall y the notification requirements, only appl y if the worker is on the est ablishment during application, REI , or within 30 day s of expiration of the REI
. EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pesticides, but assume that large farms emplo y two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Throu ghout this analy sis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on average, 20 pesticide applications per ye ar. Most, but not all, would occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that applications are made slightl y 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 likel y 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 anal ys is. We begin with a fairl y detailed presentation of the estimation of the training component. The results of other compone nts 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
- 0 2 , Elimination of the grace period before training with exceptions ; TRAIN
- 0 3 , Annual worker training; TRAIN
- 0 6 , Expanded worker training content (increased duration of 15 minutes); TRAIN
- 08 , Stricter requirements f or worker trainers; and TRAIN
- 10 , Record keeping for two years . It also includes several options pertainin g to handler training: TRAIN
- 12 , Annual handler training; TRAIN
- 1 4 , Expanded handler training cont ent (increased duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN
- 16 , Record keeping for two ye ars . EPA is also proposing to require emplo ye rs to provide verification of training , i.e. , a copy of the training register, to their employees , TRAIN
- 20
. **Step 1.** Calculate th e cost per actor b y 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 impacts142

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 merel y extend current practices in different way s, e.g. , in the content, which determines the duration of the training, and in the frequency with which workers are trained. TRAIN
- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , and 0 8 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, T RAIN
- 12 and 1 4 represent the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide h andlers 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 Farm**  **s), Year 1 Re**  **quirement Large WPS**  **Farm Large**  **- Sm**  **all**

**WPS Farm Other Small** 

**WPS Farms CPHE**  TRAIN
- 02 15.2 9 15.2 9 15.2 9 0.00 TRAIN
- 03 3 6.15 1 1.97 1 1.97 0.00 TRAIN
- 06 15.2 9 15.2 9 15.2 9 0.00 TRAIN
- 08 15.2 9 15.2 9 15.2 9 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 10 6.06 6 9.10 5 7.84 48.18 Duplicate Costs TRAIN
- 0 2 , 0 6 , 0 8 duplicate TRAIN
- 0 3 45. 87 45. 87 45. 87 0.00 TRAIN
- 1 4 duplicate of TRAIN
- 12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09 **cost TRAIN,a**  **B 48.17**  **1 7.60**  **1 1.97**  **24.09 cost**  **TRAIN,a B**  **Cal 81.1**  **4 3**  **5.71 1**  **7.95 44.**  **70** Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. The last row of Table 5.2
- 1 present s 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 t o be kept for handler training. S ee 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

**Re quirement**  **WPS Worker WPS Handler**  **CPHE Handler** South, Southwest TRAIN
- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 3.40 0.00 0.00 TRAIN
- 12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94 TRAIN
- 20 0.53 0.35 0.37 **cost TRAIN,a**  **B 3.92**  **5.48 5.32**  California TRAIN
- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 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 **cost TRAIN,a**  **B 5.56**  **22.46 21.80**  Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest TRAIN
- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 3.40 0.00 0.00 TRAIN
- 12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94 TRAIN
- 20 0.26 0.26 0.28 **cost TRAIN,a**  **B 3.66**  **5.39 5.22**  Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West TRAIN
- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 3.40 0.00 0.00 TRAIN
- 12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94 TRAIN
- 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 **cost TRAIN,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 work er training, covered by TRAIN
- 02 , 0 3 , 0 6, and 08 , and for handler training covered b y TRAI N
- 12 and 1 4 . T he proposed worker training requirements include immediate training with limite d exceptions , annual training, increase d training content (duration), and heightened standard for train ers . Because of the requirement for annual training and reduced flexibility to delay the training of newl y hired employees , EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct an average of 3. 3 trainings per ye ar , in lieu of 2.4 session s in the baseline , and a small WPS farm will conduct an average of 1. 2 1 trai nings per year, up from 0. 8 sessions in the baseline
. As for TRAIN
- 08 individually , EPA assumes th at 8 5 percent of worker trainings will be conducted b y a trainer of handlers and 1 5 percent b y 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 per
farm cost for the revised worker training is estimate d to be about $9 5 per year for large farms and $3 4 per ye ar for small farms (Table 5 .2
- 3 ). Record keeping costs, TRAIN
- 10, are similarl y adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm sizes.144

**Table 5**  **.2 -**  **3 . Per**  **- WP**  **S farm**  **Costs for proposed worker training requirements**  **. Action/Material**  **wage/price unit**  **time/quantity probability**  **cost** Large WPS Farm Training b y handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 2. 827 $ 80.31 Training b y Train
- the
Trainer $ 37.87 /hr 45 min 0. 4 99 $ 1 4.17 **cost TRAIN**  **,a P**  **$ 94.48**  Small WPS Farm Training b y handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 1.028 $ 2 9.19 Training b y Train
- the
Trainer $ 37.87 /hr 45 min 0.1 81 $ 5.15 **cost TRAIN**  **,a P**  **$ 3 4.34**  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. C onsidering the expanded content and annual training requirement , workers will spend 45 minutes of time in training every year. EP A estimates that 90.3 percent of workers will be trained each ye ar, accounting for returning handlers and those who fall under the exception to immediate training and leave employ ment after two day s 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 day s. Those not immediately trained will receive written and oral safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis. **Tab le**  **5 .2**  **- 4**  **. Per -** **worker Costs for proposed worker training**  **requirements .**  **Action/Material wage/price**  **unit time/quantity**  **probability cost**  Full Training Session $ 1 3. 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 $28.21/hr 10 min 0.048 0.23 Written Information 0.09/page 1 page 0.048 0.00 **cost TRAIN**  **,a P**  **$ 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 emplo yed. 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 -**  **Esta blishment Costs for proposed handler training.**  **Action/Material wage/price**  **unit time/quantity**  **probability cost**  Large W PS Establishments Training b y handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.112 $ 4.24 Training b y Train
- the
Trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.080 $ 3.03 Training b y Certified Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.6 08 $17.15 **cost r,a**  **P $24.43**  Large

-small Establishments Training b y handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.07 0 $ 2.65 Training b y Train
- the
Trainer $ 37.87 /hr 1 hour 0.050 $ 1.89 Training b y Certified Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.380 $ 10.72 **cost r,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 ye ar, 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**  **- Sm**  **all**

**WPS Farm Other Small** 

**WPS Farms CPHE**  T RAIN
- 02 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 94.48 3 4.34 3 4.34 0.00 T RAIN
- 10 1 1.45 4. 29 4. 29 0.00 T RAIN
- 12 , 1 4 24.43 15.27 0.00 41.75 T RAIN
- 16 2. 49 2. 49 0.00 2.65 T RAIN
- 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **cost TRAIN,a**  **P 1**  **32.84 5**  **6.38 3**  **8.63 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 T RAIN
- 0 3 for workers and T RAIN
- 1 0 for handlers.146

**T able 5**  **.2 -**  **7. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor (Employees)**  **Regulation WPS Worker**  **WPS Handler CPHE Handler**  T RAIN
- 02 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 9.43 0.00 0.00 T RAIN
- 10 0.13 0.00 0.00 T RAIN
- 12 , 1 4 0.00 20.83 20.10 T RAIN
- 16 0.00 0.56 0.57 T RAIN
- 20 0.37 0.34 0.36 **cost TRAIN,a**  **P 9.93**  **21.73 21.03**  Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Th e s e estimate s 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 imme diate 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 o r 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 analy sis, 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 ye ar. This invo lves 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 , especiall y 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 bas eline 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 b y 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 $1 8. 3 million annually
. If training is provided onl y i f 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**  **Large**  

** Small** **WPS Farm**  **Other**

**Small WPS**  **Farms CPHE**  **WPS**

**Worker WPS** 

**Handler CPHE** 

**Handler RC**  **Ri B**  **1**

**($1,000)** South, Southwest **cost TRAIN,a** 

**B $**  **48.17 $**  **1 7.60**  **$ 1**  **1.97 $24.09**  **$ 3.92 $ 5.48**  **$ 5.32** N a,South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 2 74,068 36,924 2,545 $2, 414 N a,Southwest 1, 737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 5 97 California **cost TRAIN,a** 

**B $**  **81.1 4**  **$ 3**  **5.71 $**  **1 7.95**  **$44. 70**  **$ 5.56 $22.46**  **$21.80** N a,California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 3 94,844 15,365 1,059 $3,3 78 Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest **cost TRAIN,a** 

**B $**  **48.17 $**  **1 7.60**  **$ 1**  **1.97 $24.09**  **$ 3.66 $ 5.39**  **$ 5.22** N a,Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 6 32 N a,Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 2 78,713 25,525 1,759 $1,9 43 N a,Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1,7 86 Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West **cost TRAIN,a** 

**B $**  **48.17 $**  **1 7.60**  **$ 1**  **1.97 $24.09**  **$ 3.40 $ 5.12**  **$ 4.94** N a,Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 2 99,617 53,776 3,706 $2, 947 N a,Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3, 253 N a,Texas 6,678 1 7,126 24,739 344 1 85,809 30,481 2,101 $1, 725 U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $ 1 8, 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 $ 5 0.9 million dollars for the first ye ar, 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 Large**  ****

**Small WPS**  **Farm Other** 

**Small WPS**  **Farms CPHE**  **WPS**

**Worker WPS** 

**Handler CPHE** 

**Handler**
**UC o**  **P a**  **$ 1**  **32.84 $**  **5 6.38**  **$ 3**  **8.63 $44.40**  **$9.9 3**  **$21. 7**  **3 $2**  **1.03 RC**  **oi P**  **t=1 ($1,000)**  **Region N**  **i a t**  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 $ 1,8 24 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 $5 1,761 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 implement ed immediatel y and the lower bound assumes all requirements are delayed two ye ars. 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 baseline s 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 $15 3 million and the estimate for the proposed requirements is $4 25 million
.149

**Table 5 .2**  **- 10. PV of**  **Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN only)**  **Region PV(** **RC o**  **P i** **) PV(** **RC o**  **B i** **) PV(** **RIC o 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 4**  **32,652 15**  **5,675 27**  **6,976 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. Regio nal costs range from a low of $9. 2 million over 10 years for the Southwest, whic h consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne Riv er Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, and Og lala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes, to a high of $ 5 8.0 million in the Ohio Valley , consisting of I llinois, 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 relativel y low incremental costs because its training standards are higher than current federal requirements
. **Step 5.** Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the p roposed requirements.

= ( ) × ∙ ( 1 + )

( 1 + )
− 1 where AIC

R is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as previously

defined. T he 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 $2 4.1 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 ye ars. If WPS farms are currentl y able to wait until a pesticide application is needed but will not risk delay s under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $2 6. 7 and $3 4.1 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 Initiall y, 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 closel y. **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 emplo ye es 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 emplo y one and other small farms employ none. In cremental 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.

= , − ,15 1

Table 5 .2
- 11 presents the annual ized 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 i s 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 woul d be about $ 200 per ye ar for large farms and $ 55 for small farms. The annualized c ost to CHPEs would be around $84
. **Table 5**  **.2 -**  **11. Annual Per -**  **Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs -**  **All Sectors. (TRAIN only)**  **Farm size/ Region**  **EC o**  **P i**  **EC o**  **B i**  **EIC o i**  **($) LARGE**  **WP S**  **FARMS** California 3 7 5 2 37 1 3 7 All Other Regions 3 7 5 13 2 2 4 3 **SMALL WPS**  **FARMS** California 91 5 5 3 6 All Other Regions 91 30 6 1 **CPHE** 17 3 6 3 1 1 0 Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate
. 

### 5. 2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Component s 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 requi rements 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 requirem ents are: NOTIFY
- 01, Post field warning signs if the REIis greater than 48 hours , NOTIFY
- 03, Allow oral notification of greenhouse workers if the REIis four hours or less, NOTIFY
- 06 , Revise the content on warning signs (phase d
- in over two years to allo w 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
- 1 0, Provide additional inf ormation about the pesticide orally , and NOTIFY
- 1 2 , Keep records of information provided for two years. EPA is proposing to revise the content of safety posters , NOTIFY
- 1 4 , which will be phased in over two ye ars. EPA is also proposing to require addition al safety posters: NOTIFY
- 1 5 , additional safety poster at worker decontamination location and, in NOTIFY
- 1 6 , at handler decontamination locations. Finally , EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm employer w ith 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. O verlap only occurs152

between elements within the component s, consisting, for example, of the same signs or posters adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements
. W e 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 ab out $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 c ompliance. 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 Co**  **sts, Incremental Costs. (**  **HAZCOM only)**  **Region RC**  **o P**  **i RC**  **o B**  **i RIC**  **o 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 l ess 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 co mmunication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products used on a WPS farm, not the number of emplo ye es or revenue. However, small farms are less likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any ye ar 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**  **EC o**  **P i**  **EC o**  **B i**  **EIC o i**  **($) LARGE**  **WP S**  **FARMS** CA, Subtropics, Midwest, TX/Mountain West 108 102 5 All Other Regions 108 6 9 3 8 **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 $1 5.1 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**  **- 1**  **4 . PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY**  **only) Region**  **RC o**  **P i**  **RC o**  **B i**  **RIC o 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 1 32,460 1 5,076 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. The final two columns of Table 3.5
- 1 4 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
- enti ty

anal ys is are shown in T able 5 .2
- 1 5 . Larg e WPS farms are relativel y less impacted b y the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to154

save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs b y posting because it is more efficient than orall y informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relativel y higher due to the increased posting requirements for REI s and for worker and handler safety displays. Costs may be overstated, however, because small farms may rely more on tempo rary 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**  **- 1**  **5 . Annual Per**  **- Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs**  **- All Sectors.**  **(NOTIFY only) Farm size**  **EC o**  **P i**  **EC o**  **B i**  **EIC o i**  **($) LARGE**  **WP S**  **FARMS** 272 2 54 18 **SMALL WPS**  **FARMS** 12 0 7 8 42 Source: EPA estimates. Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirement s 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 1 6 for workers entering fields during the REI , and AGE
- 03, Minimum age of 1 6 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 REI s. 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 s ys tems , 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 an y 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
- 1 6 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 co sts, not compliance costs
.155

**Table 5 .2**  **- 1**  **6 . PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only)**  **Region RC**  **o P**  **i RC**  **o B**  **i RIC**  **o 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 earl y entry events is estimated to be $ 620 ,000 . Annual per
- entity costs are provided in Table 5 .2
- 1 7
. CPHEs are not expected to be impacted because few commercial establishments would employ adolescents under 16 years of age to handl e pesticides. **Table 5 .2**  **- 1**  **7 . Annual Per**  **- Entity Baseline and**  **Proposed Labor**  **Costs, Incremental Costs. (AGE only)**  **Region EC**  **o P**  **i EC**  **o B**  **i EIC**  **o 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 largel y 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
- 1 8 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten
- ye ar time horizon, at the regional and national level s . Annually , the new PPE regulations are expected to cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million
.156

**T able 5**  **.2 -**  **1 8**  **. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) Region**  **RC o**  **P i**  **RC o**  **B i**  **RIC o 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 3 52,013 1 96,955 155,0 58 17,64 8 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Table 5 .2
- 1 9 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 far ms that would generally

not empl o y 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, prim arily to upgrade closed mixing and loading s ys tems, with self
- employed commercial applicators facing a smaller incremental cost than enterprises with multiple employees. **Table 5 .2**  **- 1**  **9 .**  **Annual Per -**  **Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) Region**  **EC o**  **P i**  **EC o**  **B i**  **EIC o 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 Suppl ies and Emergency Assistance157

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 recentl y treated field: SUPPLY
- 01, Water requirements for routine decontamination , and SUPPLY
- 02, Water requirements for decontamination during earl y entry ( i.e. , if th e 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 ass istance to be 30 minutes for worker emergencies, EMERG
- 01, and handler emergencies, EMERG
- 0 3
. 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 largel y codify

existing guidance . However, one provision, SUPPLY
- 02, will increase the amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers whe n 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**  **RC o**  **P i**  **RC o**  **B i**  **RIC o 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
- 2 1 presents the estimated baseline and proposed costs per year. Costs are largely proportional to the number of emplo ye es. The per
- handler costs for the water flow requirement are negligible, as can be seen b y the estimated incremental cost to a CPHE , because running water is typicall y available at mixing and loading sites so that concentrated forms of pesticides can be diluted
. **Table 5 .2**  **- 2**  **1. Annual Per -**  **Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only)**  **Region EC**  **o P**  **i EC**  **o B**  **i EIC**  **o i ($)** 158

**LARGE FARMS** All Regions 2. 25 2. 20 0.0 2 **SMALL FARMS** All Regions 0.4 6 0.4 5 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
- 2 2 presents the NPV of the baseline and proposed regulatory costs , assuming all elements are implemented immediately . Nationally , the proposed rule is es timated to increase the cost of complying with the worker protection standard b y $ 6 36 million over a ten ye ar 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 $ 7 2. 4 million. If implementation of all the training and notific ation requirements is delayed for 2 years , the 10 year cost is estimated to be $ 5 44 million and the annual incremental cos t is estimated to be about $6 1.9 million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed regulations is estimated to be between $ 6 0 .1 and $ 7 3 .1 million. **Table 5**  **.2 -**  **2 2**  **. PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total) Region**  **RC o**  **P i**  **RC o**  **B i**  **RIC o i**  **Annual IC ($1,000)**  South 2 29,461 1 30,594 98, 867 11, 253 California 13 6,051 10 7,908 2 8,143 3, 203 Southwest 5 4,559 3 2,171 22, 389 2,5 48 Subtropical 4 7,403 30,174 17, 229 1,9 61 Midwest 3 58,643 2 29,144 12 9,499 14, 739 Northeast 1 85,163 1 10,527 74, 636 8,4 95 Ohio Valley 3 53,557 200,596 15 2,962 17, 409 Texas/Mountain West 1 83,883 11 8,093 65, 791 7,4 88 Northwest 13 6,588 8 5,853 50, 735 5,7 74 **U.S. 1,6**  **85,308 1,045,058**  **6 40,250**  **7 2,**  **871** S ource: 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, and159

notification requirements, make up almost three
- fourths of the total incremental costs. The protective regulation s (minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of the remaining cost , with the PPE requirements accounting for nearl y one - fourth of the total incremental cost. The requirements focused on mitigation are largel y definitional in nature and contribute less than one percent of the cost. **Figure 5 .2**  **- 1.**  **Contribution of components of the proposed W**  **orker P**  **rotection S**  **tandard to total**  **annualized incremental cost**  **, $7 2.**  **9 million**  **.**

Average per
- entity

costs are presented in Table 5 .2
- 2 3 . As explained above, these costs are calculated b y 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 ty pe and size of the operation. Each regional ba seline varies according to existing state regulations , but often only slightly . We present California and the Texas/Mountain West regions, where the per
- entity cost s are below the national average, and the regions where per
- entity cost is highest. The co st estimates assume that all requirements become effective immediatel y 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 $ 4 00 per ye ar, ranging from an additional $ 200 per year in California to about $ 4 30 per ye ar in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley . Small farms are likel y to face impacts of under $ 1 50 per year, on aver age, ranging from $ 9 0 per ye ar in California to $ 1 70 per ye ar in the Ohio Valley . If implementation of all training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $ 3 45 for large farms and $ 13 0 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% 

## Dis **tribution of T** 

**otal Incr emental**  **Cost**

$24.1

- 31.5 million
$11.7

- 15.1 million

$620,000 $17.6 million $2,500 $8.0 million160

**Table 5 .2**  **- 23**  **. Annual Per -**  **Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total)**  **Region EC**  **o P**  **i EC**  **o B**  **i EIC**  **o i ($)**  **LARGE FARMS** California 1,080 880 2 10 Ohio Valley 1,080 650 4 30 Texas/Mountain West 1,080 680 400 **National 1,080**  **670 4**  **10 SMALL FARMS**  California 3 5 0 2 6 0 9 0 Ohio Valley 3 60 190 1 70 Texas/Mountain West 3 60 2 2 0 1 40 **National 3**  **60 2**  **10 1**  **50 CPHE**  **, multiple handlers**  1, 3 10 1, 120 190 **CPHE (‘self**

**- employed’)**  2 5 0 17 5 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 indic ate that ty pical farms in the Ohio Valley will be less impacted than is suggested b y Table 5.2
- 23 because farms there have relativel y fewer workers than do states like Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest. **Table 5 .2**  **- 24**  **. A ve**  **rage Worker Per**  **- Farm**  **and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total) Region**  **Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm** 

**workers/farm EIC**  **o i workers/farm**  **EIC o i**  South 15.8 3 90 2.9 160 California 54.8 3 60 10.0 9 0 Southwest 21.2 420 3.9 160 Subtropical 38.3 5 10 7.0 150 Midwest 11.9 3 50 2.2 1 40 Northeast 23.3 440 4.2 1 70 Ohio Valley 13.1 3 80 2.4 160 Texas/Mountain West 13.0 3 40 2.4 12 0 Northwest 51.3 6 30 9.3 180 **U.S. 20.0**  **390 3.6**  **1 50** 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 emplo ye e covered b y the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 17,000 CPHE handlers covered b y the WPS, simple division of the total annual c osts implies the average cost to be between $2 6
. 5 0 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 b y EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they appl y 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 ty pical farm or CPHE , in practice EPA has tended to use values that are probabl y 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 calculate s the per
- employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal incremental cost per WPS farm wo r ker (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 employ ment decisions . The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training requirement s, 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 ye ar as greater emphasis is placed on posting REI information. Age restrictions will, on average, add l ess than $0. 10 per ye ar to the cost of employ ment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0. 01 per ye ar. Table 5 .3
- 1 presents this information. **Table 5 .3**  **- 1**  **. Annualized Per -**  **Em ployee Cost of Proposed Requirements**  **Category Worker**  **Handler CPHE**  **Handler** Training 5. 48 1 5.11 1 5.03 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 i s still relatively minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $1 5. 1 0 per year to employ ment costs, but the main driver is the PPE category at $ 42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed162

requirement for fit testing respirators. The age restriction may add about $ 2.00 per year to employ ment 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 $ 6 0 per ye ar, 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 day s of emplo yment, a handler would cost about $25,000 per year. An increase in cost of $ 6 0 per ye ar 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 es timated to be about $ 1 5 per ye ar , 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 bus inesses 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 analy sis presented here takes into account comments received from the pan el 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 th e current analy sis, 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 exam ine 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 sal es 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 likel y to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA considers both the number of affec ted firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if a s ubstantial number of firms will be impacted. Consistent with a previous analy sis on the farm sector (W yatt, 2008) , we use the following thresholds at which the number of impacted entitie s 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 farm s; 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
- compan y 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 ty pe of small entities in the agricultural sector. We focus on WPS farms because famil y 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 ye ar, is only 0.1 0 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 - ye ar delayed implementatio n 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 b y the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, greenhouse s, 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 ty pe, 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 Farms 1**  **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 2 394,658 86.2% 20.0 3.6 WPS Farms 2 using 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 manage ment 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 b y 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 ty pology 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 -**  **Sm all**  **1 Medium**  **- Sm**  **all 1**  **Small -**  **Sm all**  **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 per165

year; medium
- small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small

small 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 sale s 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 le ss than $10,000 in annual sales, also emplo y 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 relativel y high labor input over a short period of time. Itmay also be that these e mployees are engaged in other revenue - generating activities not directly related to the farm's own production
. 

### 5.4 .2 Im pacts of Incremental Complianc e 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 in cremental cost of the rule b y 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 relativel y 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 per cent 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, 5 00 per ye ar, 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 4 0,000 , given the number of small
- small establishments. However, this is likely

an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as includes the nearl y 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, WP**  **S Fa**  **rm s**  **making pesticide applications**

**All Small WPS Farms**  **making pesticide**  **applications Large**  **- Sm**  **all**

**WPS Farms making**  **pesticide applications**  **Medium -**  **Sm all** 

**WPS Farms making**  **pesticide applications**  **Small -**  **Sm all** 

**WPS Farms making**  **pesticide applications**  Number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880 Average Sales $1 81,742 $3 37,326 $ 4 5,587 $ 4,445 Immediate Implementation In cremental Cost $ 1 4 8 $ 2 3 2 $ 1 1 1 $ 8 2 Percent of Sales 0.1 % 0.1% 0. 2 % 1.8 % Two

- Year Delayed Implementation 1 In cremental Cost $ 1 2 6 $ 2 0 2 $ 90 $ 6 7 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 likel y 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
- ye ar time period, whic h is an underl yi ng assumption of the analy sis presented in Table 5.4
- 3. L ess 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 worke rs have received safety training if an application has been made
. Under this scenario , the incremental cost to small
small WPS farms would average under $6 0 per ye ar. 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 wor

kers are hired. For small
- small farms, the hazard communication and notification requirements comprise a large share of the cost at $ 40 per ye ar, 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 onl y five applications per ye ar for which hazard communication and notification are required ( e.g. , in the 30 day s prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the proposed rule is also less than $ 60 per ye ar. If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been made and onl y five app lications 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 likel y overestimated, EPA concludes that, even for the smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the proposed rule will generall y be less than one percent of the value of annual sales of agricultural products
.167



## Chapter 6. Benefits o **f Proposed Rule** Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in both acute health e ffects 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 protection s 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 agri cultural 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 red uce 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.  Reduc ing 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 nearb y. These and other provisions should directly reduc e exposure to the agricultural workforce.  Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur

– Accidental exposures are inevitable, and the proposed rule increases safety b y 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 b y the Agency in developing this rule. The preamble to the proposed r ule 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 agric ultural 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 them selves. 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 e t 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 b y 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 resul ting 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 onl y represent a portion of the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Lat ent or delayed health effects, such as developmental effects resulti ng from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikel y to appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing th e 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 poisonin g 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 unlikel y to be recorded. If they are reported, they

may enter the database with uncertain causes, with little con fidence 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 ef fects that may

result from chronic pesticide exposure which, b y their very nature , are unlikel y to be reported to surveillance databases, but are potentiall y very important to human health, and may be reduced169

by the proposed rule. The final section of the chapter presents a break
- even anal ys is 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 ty

pe 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 potentiall y exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from pesticide exposure (NASS , 2008 b ). 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 nearl y 250,000 pesticide handlers , included in the farm work er population, that handle pesticides directly ; another 7 2 ,000 handlers are employed at commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2010 , See Section 3.3.2 ). T he agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pestic ide 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 expose d to a wide range of pesticides with different toxicities and risks and are exposed for widel y 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 l iterature 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 ch ildren. 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 c ertain worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are particularl y important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn children are particularl y 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 s ys tems are still developing, and they hav e relativel y 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 expo sure. 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 developm ent of humans may have greater or170

lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic sy stems are not full y developed at birth, continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across developmental stages, children metabolize pes ticides 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 Califor

nia, 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 significantl y higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (whi ch onl y 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 clothi ng 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 th at take home exposure is an important source of exposure for children. The s tudies cited above consistently found higher levels of pesticides in the agricultural households compared to non
- agricultural households , and that levels of O rganophosphate (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 betwe en 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 expo sure in farm families (Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005 ; Bradman 2007 ; Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007). Research has shown that agricultural workers are generall y 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 spray s and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickl y, and , as the article states “previous research has [shown] that farmworkers often report delaying showerin g 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 onl y dangerous for their intended target, and that acute171

(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 b y 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 examp le, 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), “youn g 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 sy mptoms related to farm work that included in juries (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 onl y four times out of the last ten occasions when its use was required. Acco rding to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequentl y 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

fi t female teens, leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006). The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularl y 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) report ed an association between cognitive deficits, neurological s ymptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide applicators. This study

cohort is from Egy

pt, 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 they172

appear ed 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 issu es (Salazar et al ., 2004). According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working yo uths 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 likel y 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 adol escents, 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 way s 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 adolesc ents 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, specificall y 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 dis cussion 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 u se of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky . S ome pesticides are narrowl y 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 way s, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al ., 2010). E xposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute s ymptoms. The acute sy mptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary , and can range from mild skin irritation to more severe effects. Severity

of sy mpto ms depends largel y 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 consciousness173

( Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the wide range of sy mptoms that can be caused b y acute pesticide exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different s ymptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure ( Reigart and Roberts, 19 99). 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 anal yz ed 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 report ing by

phy sicians. Das et al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California surveillance s ys tem were agricultural (the rest were in other industries) . Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, lo ading or appl yi ng pesticides. The most common sy mptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed b y inhalation and eye contact. Reports t o 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 sev erity, with one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study , i t is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases can reflect significant morbidity , with the expo sure result ing in health care treatment and the loss of work day s. To be included in the SENSOR
- Pesticides database used for the Calvert study , at least two post
- exposure sy mptoms must have been reported b y a health
- care professional. Sy mptoms categoriz ed as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and fever. Sy

mptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss up to three day s of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severi ty” cases 4

. 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.pdf174

discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers i s 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 Reproduc tive 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 s ys tem 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 b irth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, preconception exposure was associated with earl y first
- trimester abortions and post
- conception exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most effects, half o r more of the studies evaluated b y Sanborn show an association between pesticide exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the sy stematic 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

important175

effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) studies have found an associati on 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, exencephal y (brain tissue outside the skull), hydrocephal y (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 d eleterious effect on these developing phy siological sy stems than on the sy stems in adults
. Although adolescents’ s ys tems are more fully developed than those of yo unger 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 sy naptic pruning and m yelination , an important phy siological process that reduce s excess neuron connections in the brain and enclos es individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase s the efficiency

of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous sy stem can be particularl y harmful (Gol ub, 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 co horts 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 chlorpy rifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpy

rifos 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 chlorp yri fos.  Mount Si nai 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 c ohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpy rifos. However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase
- out of residential uses of c hlorp yrifos 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 pathway s such as occupational176

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 b y research ers 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 studi es have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during pregnancy

on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathway s (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 d uring 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 expo sure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic organophosphate dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarbox yl ic acid, MDA), chlorpy rifos (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 pathway s 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 dev elopment 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 (Eng el 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, L ovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Several recent studies have shown an ass ociation between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hy peractivity

disorder (ADHD), such as hy peractivity, 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 ye ar old children (Marks et al ., 2010). Similar associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophos phate pesticide,177

chlorpy rifos and attention problems, attention
- deficit/hy peractivity

disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 ye ars of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, L evasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sampl e 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 od ds 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 th an children with lower exposures. 

### 6.4. **Non -**  **Quantified Benefit s**  **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 onl y on the valu e 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 easil y 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 i llness, 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, neurol ogical, and behavioral effects in children, and it is impossible to quantify the benefit s 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 be nefits 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 pro posed changes to the WPS to result in benefits b y 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 quantif

ies 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 incident s 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 est imated 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 Sy stem 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 Sy stem for Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered b y 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
- ye ar period, 2003 to 2005, during which time nine states (Arizona, Florida, L ouisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Data from California were submitted in 2003 and 2004. SENSOR reports generall y 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 proporti on 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. Il lness 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 b y the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPC C) to track acute illness and injury

related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information sy stem with geographicall y specific and near real
- time reporting. The s ys tem 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 of179

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
. In formation on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a famil y of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal
- State
- Industry partnership and sponsored b y 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 patient
level 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 sy stem used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by phy sicians and other health c are 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 pesticide
related illness can be recorded b y an y counting s ystem: (1) workers must perceive that they have treatable s ymptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the phy sician must diagnose the sy mptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the phys ician or the injured person must report the incident to the correct recordkeeping s ys tem, 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 s ymptoms of an illnes s. Sy mptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately , usuall y 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 sy mptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, dizzines s, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper
- respiratory problems that mimic hay fever s ymptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused b y exposure to poison ivy . Many farmworkers may not perceive that their s ymptoms are related to pesticide exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directl y 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 enz yme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, causes s ome of the more common acute s ys temic poisoning sy mptoms. In many

cases, this inhibition will gradually

(depending on the family of pesticide, severity , and repetition of180

exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic eff ects will graduall y disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many agricultural workers with treatable s ymptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance s ys tem 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 onl y 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 non

disabled 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 medi cal care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their medical bills would be covered b y 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 ph ys ician must diagnose the s ymptoms as being pesticide related. When medical treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specificall y diagnose the illne ss or181

injury as being caused b y an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and sy mptoms of such poisoning may

be treated s ymptomaticall y or an occupational connection may not be drawn. Like their patients, phy sicians and other healthcare provider s often have difficulty in ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the sy mptoms mimic those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often phy sicians mistake pesticide poisonings for other causes, but phy sic ians may not associate vague sy

mptoms 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 p hy sicians may be more concerned with treating s ymptoms rather than confirming the causes. (4) The ph ys ician must report the incident to a recordkeeping s ys tem, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under
reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of Washington say s: "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 b y ph ys icians include a lack of awareness of reporting requirements and oppo rtunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on phy sicians that may prevent them from completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For example, a report b y 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 i n which they

might have to defend an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this statement" (Arizona, 1990). If an y 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, especiall y exposures to poisons, are underreported, although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likel y in the agricultural sector, due to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute sy mptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic s ymptoms which may occur many years after exposure, as discu ssed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate sy mptoms are unlikel y 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 (Chafee
Bahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a poison information center by hospital staff over a two
-ye ar 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 Inj uries and Illnesses (US House of Representatives, 2008) Ident ifying issues involving the inclusiveness of reported workplace injuries and illnesses 69%

2008 Examining Evidence on

Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and Il lnesses (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 atte mpting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirel y. 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 Labo r 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 likel y to be inspected b y 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 phy sicians ( 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 b y an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 470 exposures that were observed b y the emergency department, onl y 26% were ev er 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 likel y 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, onl y about one
- third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center could be directl y 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;  Sy mptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes;  Phy sicians may

misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects;  In cidents may

not be investigated adequatel y to identify the pesticide that caused the effect s;  Difficulty

in identifying and tracking chronic effects;  Reluctance or inability to report by

phy sicians;  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

yo unger, less educated, more likely to be foreign
- born, and less likel y to be citizens or authorized to work in the United States.” These attributes point toward a relativel y disadvantaged workforce that may

be less likely

or able to seek medical care or report pesticide incidents to their employers or an yone 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 count ed in poisoning databases. USDA research based on NAWS data also reports that farmworkers have difficulty entering the health care s ys tem to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for two - thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed langu age barriers as an impediment to receiving care. The problem is more severe among unauthorized workers (NASS, 2008 a). Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a population that does not have a lot of reso urces 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 av ailable data for pesticide poisonings of farmworkers are consistent with the conclusion that only

a small fraction of the s ymptoms of pesticide poisoning are likel y to lead to medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of a cute 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, o f all occupational pesticide incidents found in NPDS , EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 in cidents occur on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses annuall y. 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 av oided. 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 annuall y 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 o f 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 “likel y”, “possible” or “not likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following guidelines:185

 Likel y: 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 b y 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 cause d 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 appl yi ng 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 “likel y” and “possible” to be avoid ed 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 anal ys is.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 w ere 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 sess ions. 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. I n using the ground sprayer, he felt the spray on his rubber suit and co uld see the mist through his full face respirator. W hile his supervisor had instructed him to change the filter every 3 days, he indicated changing the filter whenever he smelled pesticides. W e 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. H e was provided gloves and goggles, but chose not to wear them. W e assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed cha nges 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. T he 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. A lso, he or she did not check the label for PPE requirements. W e 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 appl icator suffered an occupational exposure as the pesticide he was mixing, Enviro Micro Sulf Micronized Wettable Sulfur, splashed into his right eye. T he report indicates the individual was wearing safety goggles. W e 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. W hile the exposed individual was wearing PPE, the report indicates no further actions were taken once the boot was soaked. W e 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 parti cularly when around pesticides. W e 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. W ithout 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. I n 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 b y the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding onl y 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 c hanges. 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)** Likel y 63 24% 14% Possible 84 32% 18% Both Possible and L ikely 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 possibl y avoided b y 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 onl y 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 explaine d 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 onl y 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 b y 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 pestici de incidents given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by188 = [ ] + where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] is the expected medical cost for the case, and VPL i 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 i s the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self
treatments. The value of lost productivity is VPL i= (ω w ∙work + ω H ∙housekeeping + ω L ∙leisure)∙DUR i 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. T he 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. VSLestimates are derived from aggregated estimates of individual valu es 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 hy pothetical case. This analy sis 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 , 2010 a). 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 Sy

mptoms 1 309 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 exposure 5

.  Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or sy mptoms as a result of the exposure, but they were minimally

bothersome and generally resolved rapidl y 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 tach ycardia without hypotension, and transient cough are all examples of minor effects).  Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the expo sure that were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more sy stemic in nature than minor sy mptoms. Usually , some form of treatment is indicated. Sy mptoms were not life
threatening, and the patient had no residual disability or disfigurement (corneal abrasion, acid
- base disturbance, high fever, disorientation, hy potension that is rapidly

responsive to treatment, and isolated brief seizures that respond readil y to treatment are all examples of moderate effects).  Major effect: The patient exhibited signs or sy mpt oms 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 tach ycardia 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, an d 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 Sy mptoms 1 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 w hole 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 annuall y, which is likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed Section 6.5. 2
. Second, the estimates are based solel y on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those affected b y 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 , 2010 a) . 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 wh ether 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 popu lation. In general, agricultural workers do not receive paid sick leave, so they

only get paid for day s 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 c ategorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient phy sician visits and inpatient hospitalizations, lost productivity , and premature mortality . For each severity level excep t “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 ac tivities, and leisure. Direct Medical Costs As explained above, the expected medical cost is given b y

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 whe ther 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 ye ars, 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 Sy mptoms 1 107 309 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), specificall y the cost for hospital stay s from the HCUP 3

– Hospital Inpatient Statistics, 2007. For Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning b y non - medical substances) the average charges reported b y Clinical Classifications Software was $23,101 in 2007.192

Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from phy sician visit benchmark fees for evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification s ys tem used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished b y ph ysicians 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 c harge 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, pay ments that reflect the care that low income patients receive. Th is may be an underestimate, especiall y 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 Sy mptoms 2 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. 1 Calculated 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 ty picall y engaged over the course of the day, but wh ich 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.

6 The average facility charge for all providers in 2007 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp193

BL S data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and leisure for a ty

pical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey ( BL S , 2007b), an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a seven day 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 anal ys is. Time spent in housekeeping activities varies considerabl y b y gender. According to the American Time of Use Survey

( BLS, 2007 c ), employed males aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 hours per day

in household activities 7 and 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 ( BL S , 2007 a). Thus, the weighted ave rage 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 hourl y value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic anal ysis), or $ 10.0 1 per hour. This analy sis 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 ( BL S , 2007 a). This labor category was chosen as most closel y representative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analy sis, 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 w ork 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. 9 3 per hour. Table 6.5
- 7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a full y 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 $13 5
. 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 $ 10.0 1 c $ 56. 07 Housekeeping 2.94 a $9.50 d $27.93 Leisure 7.46 b $6. 9 3 e $51. 69 **Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $13**  **5 .**  **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 c EPA 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. e Calculat ed 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 l ess than or equal to 24 hours.” For the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basicall y 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 g iven ( e.g. , > 24 hours, <= 3 day s; 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 anal ys is, one month was assumed to be 30 day s; 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 anal ys is. 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%) w ere assumed to experience reduced productivity

for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low
- end duration of one hour (about .04 day s) and the high
- end duration is 2 hours (about 0.08 day s). Because only 34.6% of cases with “no effect” visited a h ealth care facility , the average duration for no effect is 34.6% of .04 day s for the low end (0.014 day s) and 34.6% of .08 day s for the high end (0.029 day s). 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 in195

day s, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity

($13 5
. 69 ) to yi eld 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[VPL**  **i ]**  **c** No Clinically

Observable Sy mptoms 1 Low
- End 0.014 b $1.9 6 High
- end 0.029 b $3. 92 Minor Low
- End 0.52 $ 70. 39 High
- end 1.78 $ 242. 07 Moderate Low
- End 1.05 $ 14 1
. 9 9 High
- end 3.39 $ 46 0 .2 3 Major Low
- End 3.95 $ 53 5
. 72 High
- end 14.41 $1, 9 5 4
. 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 ($13 5
. 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 VSLis an aggregated estimate of the value of a small reduction in the risk of d eath over a large group of people. Onl y the VSL is used for poisonings resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed b y the value of life itself, and lost productivity

is included in the VSL
. Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of I ncidents The estimates of the total cost avoided b y 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 cas es, 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 Sy mptoms 1 42 $19.08 $1.9 6 $0 $900 Minor 193 $32.14 $ 70. 39 $0 $19, 9 00 Moderate 59 $46.11 $14 1
. 9 9 $0 $11, 1 00 Major 2 $21,612 $ 53 5
. 72 $0 $45,500 Death 0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $1,082,000 **Total** 296 $1,159, 4 00 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 Sy mptoms 1 99 $19.08 $3. 92 $0 $2,300 Minor 453 $32.14 $ 242. 07 $0 $12 4 , 2 00 Moderate 137 $46.11 $ 46 0 .2 3 $0 $6 9 , 4 00 Major 5 $21,612 $1, 95 4
. 97 $0 $117, 8 00 Death 0.32 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $2,524,600 **Total** 693 $2,83 8 , 3 00 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 .” T he annual estimate d benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 to 2.8 million. O ver 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. A s 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 f

or 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 analy sis. 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 estimate d 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 s how 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 rul e 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 reportin g 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 correspondingl y lower. For example, if deaths were never under
- reported, but all other severity leve ls 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 dramaticall y with ch anges 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 o n 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**

**E stimate of**  **Benefits High**  **- End** 

**Estimate of Prevented Cases**  **High -**  **End**

**estimate of Benefits**  100% 296 $1,159,400 693 $2,83 8 , 4 00 50% 592 $2,318,800 1,386 $5,67 7 , 8 00 25% 1,184 $4,637,600 2,772 $11,3 53 , 6 00 20% 1,480 $5,797,000 3,465 $14,1 92 , 0 00 10% 2,960 $11,594,000 6,930 $28,3 84 ,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 attempt198

to measure the willingness to pay to avoid s ymptoms, which is likely to be substantial; we calculate onl y 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 employ ment time is a relativel y larger share of their overall working ye ar. 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 ye ar, and average family

income is $15,000

- $17,499 per ye ar, which means that medical expenses can consume a substantial part of thei r annual income ( DoL, 2005). Some of the proposed requirements will be implemented later than others. Most requirements have an effective date 90 day s after the rule is signed; some proposals will be effective two years after signature. The delayed requ irements 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 quantif ied 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 unlikel y 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, onl y six would possibly

have been prevented by

the individual items that are required two years after signature of the rule. In al l 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 cla ssified 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 ben efit estimates are reduced between $12,000 and $30,000 per ye ar, 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, o r 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 pes ticide 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 wi ll describe the potential chronic health effects to farmworkers, pesticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this199

section, EPA presents a semi
- quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break
- even anal ys is ”) 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. Itwould be premature at this stage to suggest a c ausal 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. Ty picall y several epidemiology

studie s 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 determinatio n. 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 exposure chronic disease associations have been test ed 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 issu e of chronic, long
- term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) currentl y lists dioxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite carcinogens, and several other pesticides are listed as p robable c arcinogens . R esearch 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 yield s few causal relationships to specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded b y federal governments in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest several plausible hyp otheses 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 b y EPA, among other collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 particip ants 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 di seases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, Nordb y et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between200

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 recentl y initiated a collaborative effort, AGRI COH , 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 b y man y factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals , not just pesticides ; exposure for differing durations with differing periodi city , 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 coh orts reflect exposure profiles that largel y 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, o ver 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. Additionall y, 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 ty picall y 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 earl y childhood, may be linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These earl y 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 ty pe of exposure should be reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including children. These studie s 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 designe d to protect against agricultural worker201

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 hy peractivity

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 hy pothesized 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 sci entific 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 o nl y a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens b y various peer
- review bodies , there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with b iological 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 p robable human carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999) . However, many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. Sy nthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles and meta
- analy

tic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure and ly

mphohematopoetic cancers (non
- Hodgkin’s l ymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specificall y); 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 ., 2010 a ; 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) p rovides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations. They report that meta
- analy ses of mortality survey s of farmers find excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and can cers 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
- anal ys es of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying s pecific 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 specificall y, 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 l ymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997). In cidence 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 b lood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general population, Koutros, et al . (2010 a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and ly mphoma. 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 gl yphosate (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 b y 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 ty pes 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 sy stematic 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 associ ation. 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 pesticide s , elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where pesticides were used most day s 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 c lasses 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 direct203

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 sign ificant 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, mort ality , 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 rou ghl y 20% increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 a ). Case
- control anal ys is 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 follow
up 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 famil y history

of prostate c ancer, 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 recentl y released indicate that a genetic variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 b )
. A lthough these genetic variations do not fully explain the cancer relationships within a family , so other shared environm ental 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 fo und
. 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 anal ys is 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 stag e (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 o f four pesticides over their working lifetime. This work supports previous analy ses 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 pathway s . H owever 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 po pulation 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 we ll. Neurological Function The possible connection between pesticide use and sy mptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al ., (2007), investigated the hy pothesis that PD is associated with pest icide 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 rep orted ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those who personall y applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a dose
response 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 recentl y been updated with physician
- diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant self
reporting 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 Parki nson’s s ymptoms and pesticide exposure, and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude that these studies “provide remarkabl y 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 outc omes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in205

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 s ymptoms and lifetime pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nonagricultural Hispanic workers, Ro thlein 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 corre lation found between environmental contamination and levels of urinary metabolites further demonstrates the take
home pathway

of pesticide exposure and the need for better home h ygi ene 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 chlorp yri fos 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 sy mptoms. T he authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data at thi s 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 s ymptoms of asthma last for minutes or day s, 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 gen eralized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworker s , 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 asthm a. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with earl y onset asthma. An i nternational study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship b etween exposure and respiratory s ymptoms. 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 s ymptoms 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 eleve n pesticides and206

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 hy

potheses, taken together, suggest th at 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 Benefit s**  **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 sugges t 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 anal ys is. 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 b y 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 i ll, 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 b y 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 l ymphoma is a cancer that starts in the immune sy stem, with symptoms of s wollen ly mph n odes, 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 sy mptoms (National Cancer Institute, 2007). In addition to the sy mptoms 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 NHLin 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 b y 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 cost s 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 ye ars of the study

was over $42,500 (Wilson et al. ). These costs are very high, especiall y 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 illn ess. The next section details the break
- even anal ys is 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 Avoid**  **ing Potential Chronic Risks** In this section, EPA presents a “break
- even” analy sis. This anal ys is 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 onl y a few pesticide
- related illnesses annually , less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate enou gh 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 effec ts which persist over a long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we consider non
Hodgkin’s l ymphoma, 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 anal ys is 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 b y 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 analy ses have been used b y EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all ben efits could not be estimated. The anal ys es 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 , 2010 b ; EPA , 20 0 6 c ; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break
- even anal y ses 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 known208

causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g. , gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial contamination of water. The break
- even anal ys is 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 o r 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. Id eall y, 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 1 993). The break
- even anal ys is is meant for illustrative purposes. The anal ys is 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 assum ptions 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 earl y 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 sy stematically evaluating this209

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 s cientific 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 b y recent Scientific Advisory

Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform haz ard 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 h azard 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 h ealth 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 cas es prevented was found b y evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break
- even anal ys is 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 onl y a few illnesses associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non
- Hodgkin’s ly mphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkins on’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 s uggestive of an association. For illustrative purposes, these health outcomes are identified for the break
- even anal ys is. 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 largel y 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, whic h describes how many cases of disease can be expected to be diagnosed each ye ar.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 experienc ing 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 easil y measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety , pain, and suffering. WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or gro up 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 h ere, as well. This does ignore that people may also value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especiall y when they are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in the WTP estimates presented here. Ty pically WTP estimates will vary by the typ e 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 fr om 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 currentl y recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 mill ion (in 2008 dollars) to value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a distribution fitted to 26 published VSLestimates (US Environmental Protection Agency , 2010). The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simpl y 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 ω i can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the break
even analy sis, 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, Chronic BE . A simplifying assumption is that PrevShare i is equal for al l 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 inc rease the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have little effect on cancer caused b y smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShare Lung 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 anal ys is 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 publicl y available. E stimates o f WTP are from the Economic Analy sis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By

products 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 anal ys is 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 annuall y of non - Hodgkin’s ly

mphoma, a cancer of the l ymphatic sy stem. 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 ly mphoma of $4.6 m illion was derived in the Economic Anal ys is for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By products Rule (EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al . (199 6), from which it was determined that the median risk
- risk trade
- off for contracting a curable case of l ymphoma was equivalent to a 58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non
- fatal ly mphoma 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 l ymphoma 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 behi nd 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 20 07. 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 analy sis, we use the relativel y conservative figures of 223,000 non
- fatal cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study , although212

overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the incidence of prostate cancer is consistentl y higher than the general population (Alavanja et al ., 2003; Koutros et al
. , 2010 a). 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 ly mphoma. Prostate cancer, however, is both a more common and less severe cancer than ly mphoma, so a lower value for WTP is appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid pros tate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable ly mphoma 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 ly mphoma are just under $46,000 per ye ar, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non
Hodgkin’s l ymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid ly

mphoma yi elds 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 c ancers, particularl y 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 severel y restricting mobility and quality

of life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). Chronic bro nchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a ye ar (Centers for Disease Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per ye ar (639 from the same source). These figures are misleading, because the CDC criteri on for a diagnosis is that a patient has been identif ied within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a phy sician. 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 anal ys is, 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 anal ys is has provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic Analy sis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By products 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 14 th leading cause of213

death in the United States 8 , 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 conse rvative approach in this break
- even anal ys is, 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 Parki nson’s disease, because in some way s 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. Th ere 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 ly mphoma 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 l ymphoma. That same study also included a non
cancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. P eripheral neuropath y is damage to the peripheral nervous s ys tem 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 l ymphoma, w ould 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 anal ys is. 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 case s 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 ye ars, 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 analy sis, which roughl y 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 b y the primary risk factor, which is smoking. There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer
reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the anal ys is for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Wa ter 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 e t al ., 2008)). Asthma is very

common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed b y 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 i t is a chronic disease. CDC estimates that number of asthma cases grew b y 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analy sis will assume new cases of asthma are 478,000 annually , which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001

– 2009 divided by nine ye ars. 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 ye ar for this anal ys is. 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 yi elds a WTP to prevent as thma of about $73,000 per case 10

.

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. Becaus e 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, ω i**  **($1000) Annual Cases**  Curable Non
- Hodgkin’s Ly mphoma 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 $ 6 2
. 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 anal ys is, we will report a reduction in illness that generates benefits of at least the di fference between the high value of the estimated costs ($ 7 2
. 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 b y 0.0 0 6 % (and the rate of lung cancer b y 0.000 6 %) 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

– 1 1 ). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% (0.000 7% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $7 5.3 million in benefits is more than the total high
- end costs estimate of $ 72.9 m illion. . The reduction to break
- even with only $2.8 millio n in acute benefits is about 0.006 5 %, and about 0.00 59% to break even with a gap of $ 61.5 million. Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.00 6 % would reduce the number of non
- Hodgkin’s ly mphoma 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

0.0 4 per year , and the number of cases of asthma by 2 8.8 cases , and fatal asthma cases b y 0. 20 per year . Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the216

reduction in other diseases, or 0.0 00 6 % , reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average of 0. 22 non - fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per ye ar . Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases nationally , and the WPS changes will primaril y effec t 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. 7 5%, based on the 2,32 3 , 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 % (0.0 8 % 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 annuall y 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
. Indollar terms the $64.8 million per year to break even represents an annual WTP per farmworker of less than $2 8. **Table 6.8 -**  **2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break -**  **Even” Analysis**
**Disease Annual**  **Cases Incidence** 

**(per 100,000)**  **1 Annual Cases** 

**Farmworkers 2**  **“Break -**  **Even”**

**Avoided Cases** Curable Non
- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.9 5 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 1.7 5 Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 451 3.61 Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 2 71 0. 2 2 3 Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1, 430 1
. 14 3 Fatal Bronchitis 640 3,207.0 5 0.0 4 Asthma 480,000 5,507.0 3 , 611 28
. 89 Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 2 6 0. 2 1 Source: EPA calculations. 1 C alculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census Bureau, 2011). 2 B ased 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 diseases217

It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break
- even anal ys is 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 discusse d here and pesticide exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likel y 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 r educed 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 likel y to be exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than appl yi ng 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 1.24 11 . Using the 1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more like ly 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 b y the U.S. pop u lation; for prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a ye ar that are treatable, and 29,000 that result i n death. Because onl y 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 hi gher rate, we should expect about 1, 913 cases annually in the farmworker po p ulation , 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 amon g farmworkers is 13.42 annually . To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the risk only slightl y. To reach the reduction of 13.42 cases annually would require a reduction in the incidence rate from 164.70 to 16 3
. 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 mo re 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 p er 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 reduction s 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. (201 0 a) 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 annuall y would change the incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.4 4 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.9 0 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. (201 1 ) 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 t o 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 abo ve 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 bron chitis, 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 analy sis. 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 AH S cohort, less than half the rate219

of the general population (Alavanja et al. , 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are generall y healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.0 8 % ( onl y 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 27.0 3 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 obviousl y many uncertainties, which is why the break
- even analy sis 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 relativel y 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 late ncy

periods of 5
- 15 ye ars, i.e. , a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSLfor 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
- ev en point would reach 1. 20 %. 

### 6.8.5. Break
- Even Conclusions The break
- even anal ys is does show that preventing onl y a very small number of chronic illnesses can have very

substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analy sis demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 53 pesticide
- related chronic illnesses per ye ar 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 pap erwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new In formation Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and Notifi cation (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 Analy sis. See Appendix B. The total estimated annual respondent burden for this I CR renewal for respondents is 8,3 16,99 3 hours. This is an increase of 6,5 4 1 ,86 2 from the 1,776,13 1 total burden hours in the I CR approved b y OMB under OMB Control No. 2070
- 0148
. The increase in burden is due to both program changes and adjustments made in as sumptions 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 earl y entry activities. Adjustm ents from the previous I CR 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 b y 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

– 1 4 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 analy sis of the reduced effects of chronic pesticide exposure  Annual chronic benefits necessary to break
- even $6 1
. 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 $2 8. 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 none222

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 entit i es that are contracted to appl y 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 neg ligible effect on jobs and employ ment.

 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 b y $ 60 , but this is about 0. 25 percent of the cost of a part
- ti me employee. EA Chapter 5.3223



## References
Akinbami , LJ , JE Moorman , C Bailey , HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X L iu
. 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 Lu bin, CF Lyn ch, 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 Pes ticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, Volume 15, I ssue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220
. Alavanj a, 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, und ated. NPDS Annual Report Terminology , http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/NewsMediaResources/NPDSAnnualReportTe rminology .aspx , Andreotti G, L Bean e - 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 Grzy

wacz , 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 Grzy

wacz, 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 . 20 09. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Jour nal 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 pesticide
induced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123
- 5. Bassil KL, C Vakil , M Sanborn , DC Cole , JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr
. 2007. Cancer health effects of pesticides: sy stematic review. Can Fam Phy sician 53(10): 1704
- 11. Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J L eckie. 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 Lu bin, 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 Lu bin, 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 o f 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 s ymptoms: Values for children and adults of all ages, Resource and Energy Economics, Volume 33, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages 410
- 425 BL S. 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
. BL S. 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 BL S. 2007a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

- December 2007 . Bureau of Labor Statistic s, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03122008.pdf BL S. 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 BL S. 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 BL S. 2007d. Occupational Employment Statistics NAICS 999200

- State Government, excluding schools and hos pitals (OES Designation). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm
.225

BL S. 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
. Attention
deficit/hy peractivity

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, Johnso n 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 Harnl y, 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, LQuirós, R Castorina, B Claus Henn, M N ishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M Harnly , JA Brisbin, L S 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 Environmenta l Epidemiology 17.4 (2009): 331
- 49. Bradman A, D Whitaker , L Quirós , R Castorina , BC Henn , M Nishioka , J Morgan , DB Barr , M Harnl y , 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, n o. 2 (1997): 217
- 234. Bronstein J, P Carvey , H Chen , D Cory
- Slechta , D DiMonte , J Du da , P English , S Goldman , S Grate , J Hansen , J Hoppin , S Jewell , F Kamel , W Koroshetz , JW Langston , G Lo groscino, 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
. Lo ng - 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 Co rreia, 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, LMehler, J Beckman, B Morriss ey , 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, T A, JR DeShazo, and EH Johnon. 2009. Wi llingness to Pay for Health Risk Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness , working paper, June 2009. http://pages.uoregon.e du/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 . Acc essed September 20, 2012. CDC. 2012b. Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self
- Management Education

– United States, 2001
- 2009, Morbidity and Mortality W eekly 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: NAI CS 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/text
idx?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 B lair
. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non
- Hodgkin's ly mphoma. 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 Lyn ch, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos e xposure 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 M S Vela Acosta
. 2005. Nontraditional Wor k 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 II slas
. 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/ProgramsandActi vities/OccupationalHealth/OccupationalHealth Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx . Accessed May 16, 2011. CPARD. 2007. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained b y 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 agricu ltural workers and their children. Environ Health Perspect 110:A787
- 792. Curwin BD, MJ Hein , WT Sanderson , MG Nishioka , SJ Rey nolds , 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 Rey nolds, 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 R ey nolds , and MC Alavanja . 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non
farmers, Environmental Research , Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307
- 315 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, I ssue 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 W orkers Survey (NAWS) 2001

- 2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm W orkers 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 . I owa 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 b y Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/ Engel SM, GS Berkowitz , DB Barr , SLTeitelbaum , J Siskind , SJ Meisel , JG Wetmur , and MS Wolff
. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral A ssessment 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 c hildhood, 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 Analy sis 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. 2010 a . 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 Analy sis 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. WP

S Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report 2008. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. EPA. 2008. Small Business A dvocacy 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 Protec tion 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 Standard s . 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 W orker 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 Analy sis 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_economicanal ys is.pdf EPA, 2005. Economic Analy sis for the Fin al Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Office of Water (4606
- M) EPA 815
- R
- 06
- 001 December 2005, http://water.epa.g ov/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 W ater 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
. 2 008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non - Hodgkin ly

mphoma including histopathological subgroup anal ys is. Int J Cancer
. 123(7):1657
- 63 Oct 1
. Eskenazi B, K H arley , 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 Jewe ll. 2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in yo ung Mexican
- American children. Health Perspect . 115:792

–798. Furman, J. 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2007 Final Report
. Washi ngton State Department of Labor and Industries: Division of Occupatio nal 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.gempl ers.com . Accessed 2008.230

Goldman, L , B Eskenazi, A Bradman, and NP Jewell. 2004. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide Exposure among Pregnant Women L iving in Farmworker Households in Salinas, California.” Am J Ind Med . 45, no. 6 (2004): 491
- 499. Golub, MS . 200 0. 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
- Shower
4HRJ8?Pid=search . Accessed August, 2013. Hammitt JK, and J
- T Liu . 2004. “Effects of Disease Ty pe and Latency

on the Value of Mortality Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 73
- 95
. Hancock DB, ER Martin , GM May hew , 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
- Hod gkin 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 L ondon , PK Henneberge r , 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 He nneberger , 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 L enhart
. 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 F acts, 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/rf f/Documents/RFF
- DP
- 07
- 07
- REV.pdf
. Jones, A , and L Smith. 2006. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification &W orker Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue231

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 Comy ns, S Goldman, M Korell, J Lan gston, 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 Re search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June
. Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lu bin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lyn ch, C Knott, A Blair, LE Beane
- Freeman. 2010 a . An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study
. Journal of Occupational an d Environmental Medicine , 52(11):1098
- 105. Koutros S, LE Beane
- Freeman, SIBerndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K Yu, Q L i, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010 b . 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 Lu bin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry , CT Dellavalle, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lyn ch, 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/pubme d/23171882
. Kristensen P, A Andersen , LMIrgens , P Laake , and AS Bye. 1996. In cidence 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 L ong, M Arning , and W H. Crown . 2006. Medical costs associated with non
- Hodgkin's l ymphoma 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 chlorpy rifos 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 L ebailly , KC Nordb y , M Schenker , J Schüz , SC Waring , MC Alavanja , I Annesi
- Maesano , I Baldi , MA Dalvie , G Ferro , B Fervers , H Langseth , L London , CF Ly nch , J McLaughlin , JA Merchant , P Pahwa , T Sigsgaard , L Stay ner , C Wesseling , KY Yoo , SH Zahm , K Straif , and A Blair
. 2011
. Int AGRI COH: 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, Wh yatt R, Rundle A., Chlorpy

rifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as determinants of earl y 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 Pathway s.” 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 . A ccessed April 29, 2008
. Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lyn ch, 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, Ly nch 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. Up dated 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/ A ccessed 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 Au gust 4, 2011. National Cancer Institute . 2007. Wh at you need to know about non

-Hodgkin lymphoma , NIH publ ication 07
- 1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wy ntk/non
hodgkin
- ly

mphoma.pdf

. Nordb y KC, A Andersen , LMIrgens , and P Kristensen
. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure in relation to thy

roid 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) P ear 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 hy brid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics , Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 667
- 683, Dec ember. 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 Anal ys is under Executive Orde r 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.go v/Reduction_Act/1218
- 0099.html#text9 . Accessed May 9, 2008). Parkinson’s Disease Foundation . 2011. Sy mptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/s ymptoms 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 Chlorpy rifos 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.,Wh yatt, R., Seven
- Year Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpy rifos, a Common Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196

– 1201. Reed, D B , 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. Man agement 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
- Health
Insurance
- Coverage
- and
- Access
- to - Care
- Report.pdf Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Las arev, 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, PLSample, and K Sweitzer . 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards and Personal Safety

Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
. Special I ssue (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 L angholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and Children's Health Study , Earl y- 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 sy mptoms in children and exposure to pesti cides. 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' perception s associated with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res
. 26(2):146

– 166.235

Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Camacho, J Ló pez, G Kavanagh
- Baird, M Minkler, and B Eskenazi . 2009. A Community
- Based Participatory Worksite Intervention to Reduce Pesticid e 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 , KLBassil , and C Vakil
. 2007. Non
- cancer health effects of pesticides: s ys tematic review and implications for famil y 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 Cooperati ve Extension EC97
- 2505
- A
. Smith, R, K Klonsky , and R DeMoura. (2009) Sam ple 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 ethnograph y 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 Pesticid e 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 pestici de 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, Comy ns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Bl air A, Sandler DP, L angston 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 anal ys is of 13 cohorts and 22 cancer registry

studies." PL oS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008). Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a sy stematic review and meta
- analy sis. 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 W orkplace Injuries and Illnesses
. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington : Government Printing Office
. U.S. National L ibrary

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 L ondon, M C Alavanja, D P Sandler, and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchitis among non
- smoking farm women in the agricultural h ealth 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 L antin , P Hoet , and D Lison
. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides and childhood leukae mia: a sy stematic review and meta
- anal ys is. Environment International . 37(1):280
- 91 , Jan
. Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and M C Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology : 38 9
- 97. Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathway s 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/fo cus_group_summary_030922final. pdf Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta
- anal ys is 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, L S, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky , JM Broering, DM Latini, J D uChane, RR Mody , and PR Carroll . 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer Treatments, CANCER ; Publ ished Online: December 21
. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Eval uation 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.pdf237

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking Carbofuran Tolerances . Biological and Economic Analy sis 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 expos ure 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 Feasibi lity 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 , DLNordstrom , 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
- 5 01 , Nov
. Zahm, S H , 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.