1

1

2

3

4

5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

6 PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER 

7 PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

8 RIN 2070-AJ22

9 Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Prepared by

26

27 BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

28 OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

29

30

31

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

33 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

34 Washington, DC 20460

35

36

37
2

38
3

39 Table of Contents

40

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

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

43 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................7

44 1.2 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................................8

45 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure.........................................................................................9

46 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure....................................................................................12

47 1.2.3 Market Failure.....................................................................................................................13

48 1.3 Affected Communities................................................................................................................15

49 1.3.1 Agricultural Employees.......................................................................................................15

50 1.3.2 Regulated Entities..............................................................................................................16

51 1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation ..............................................................................................17

52 1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation...............................................................................................18

53 1.4.2 Statutory Authority .............................................................................................................19

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

55 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety .........................................................21

56 2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches................................................................................................21

57 2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches.......................................................................................................22

58 2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers ...............................................23

59 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options .......................................................................................23

60 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options.........................................................................................32

61 2.2.3 Notification Options............................................................................................................35

62 2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers..................................................................43

63 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options........................................................................................................43

64 2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions.............................................................................................44

65 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment.......................................................................48

66 2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure ...............................................................50

67 2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options.......................................................................................50

68 2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response.......................................................................................52

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

70 3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................................55
4

71 3.2. Regional Groupings.....................................................................................................................56

72 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements..................................................................................................58

73 3.3.1 General Methodology.........................................................................................................58

74 3.3.2 General Data .......................................................................................................................61

75 3.3.3 Training ...............................................................................................................................69

76 3.3.4 Hazard Communication.......................................................................................................85

77 3.3.5 Notification .........................................................................................................................90

78 3.3.5 Age ......................................................................................................................................97

79 3.3.6 Entry..................................................................................................................................101

80 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)...............................................................................106

81 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies................................................................................................111

82 3.3.9 Emergency Response ........................................................................................................113

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

84 4.1 Training Options........................................................................................................................116

85 4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training.........................................................116

86 4.1.2 TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and handler training ....117

87 4.1.3 TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training .118

88 4.1.4 TRAIN-08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards....................................118

89 4.1.5 TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17: Record keeping ..........................................................119

90 4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification...................................................................119

91 4.2 Hazard Communication Options...............................................................................................120

92 4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information ..........................................120

93 4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication Materials............121

94 4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention ..........................................................121

95 4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets................................................................122

96 4.3 Notification Options..................................................................................................................122

97 4.3.1 NOTIFY-01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production ...........................122

98 4.3.2 NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production.............................123

99 4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification .......................................123

100 4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs.......................................................................123

101 4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign ....................................................................124

102 4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry tasks.............124
5

103 4.3.7 NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks....................................................124

104 4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display .....................................................................................125

105 4.3.9 NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays ..................................125

106 4.3.10 NOTIFY-18: Notification by commercial applicators........................................................126

107 4.4 Age Requirement Options.........................................................................................................126

108 4.4.1 AGE-01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities.....................................................126

109 4.4.2 AGE-03 vs AGE-04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides ..............................127

110 4.5 Entry Restriction Options..........................................................................................................127

111 4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas.........................................................................127

112 4.5.2 ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities..............................................128

113 4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition ......................................................................129

114 4.6 PPE Options...............................................................................................................................129

115 4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator PPE ...............129

116 4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting under CCAs .130

117 4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions.............................................................130

118 4.6.4 PPE-05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable..............................................................131

119 4.7 Decontamination Supply Options.............................................................................................131

120 4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: Decontamination supplies for workers...............................131

121 4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers ..............................................132

122 4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing.......................................................................133

123 4.8 Emergency Assistance Options.................................................................................................133

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

125 5.1 General Methodology...............................................................................................................137

126 5.2 Cost Estimation .........................................................................................................................141

127 5.2.1 Training Component .........................................................................................................141

128 5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components....................................................151

129 5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE ........................................................................154

130 5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance................156

131 5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule..............................................................................................158

132 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment..............................................................................................161

133 5.4 Small Business Impacts.............................................................................................................162

134 5.4.1 Industry Profile..................................................................................................................163
6

135 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost.........................................................................165

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

137 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified............................................................................................168

138 6.2. Who is at Risk? ..........................................................................................................................169

139 6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture...................................................................................169

140 6.2.2. Children and families ........................................................................................................169

141 6.3. What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families.................................172

142 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects.............................................................................................172

143 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families................................173

144 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents ..................................177

145 6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents............................................177

146 6.5.1. Methodology and Data .....................................................................................................178

147 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents...................................................................179

148 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided ..............................................................................................184

149 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided ...............................................................................................187

150 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers and Handlers.............198

151 6.6.1. Cancer Risks ......................................................................................................................201

152 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects................................................................................................204

153 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks..........................................................................206

154 6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks..................................................206

155 6.8. Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks.............................................207

156 6.8.1. Background .......................................................................................................................207

157 6.8.2. Method..............................................................................................................................209

158 6.8.3. Data...................................................................................................................................211

159 6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation......................................................................................................215

160 6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions....................................................................................................219

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

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

163 References ................................................................................................................................................223

164

165
1

166 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 

167 WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

168

169

170 Executive Summary

171

172

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

174 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. This 

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

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

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

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

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

180 development of the proposal.

181

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

196

197 Market Failure

198

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

207 hazards of excess pesticide exposure.

208

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

218 at minimum cost.

219

220 Costs and Benefits

221

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

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

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

225 $59.6 to $70.4 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

234 associated with occupational pesticide exposure.

235

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

245 $59.2 million per year.

246

247 Costs

248

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

261 $170 to $190 per year.

262

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

Farms Hiring Labor Family Farms Commercial Pesticide 

Handling Establishments

Number Impacted 395,000 3,200 2,800

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

Per-Establishment Large farms $350-410

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

Small Business 

Impacts

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

• The rule will affect over 300,000 small farms, nurseries, and 

greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are 

contracted to apply pesticides.

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

average small entity.

Impact on Jobs

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

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

$5/year.

• The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to 

increase by $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 percent of the cost 

of a part-time employee.

264

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

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

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

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

269 be expected to have an impact on job availability.

270

271 Benefits

272

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

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

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

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

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

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

279 exposures.

280

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

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

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

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

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

286 health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 

287

288 Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents

289

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

303

304 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.

305

306 Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure

307

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

315 improved quality of life can be quantified at this time. 

316

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

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

319 epidemiological researchers have observed links between pesticide exposure and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

331

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

340 of benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS revisions. Including only six diseases in the break341 even analysis, EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of just those chronic diseases 

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

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

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

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

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

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

348 to the WPS. 

349

350

351

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

Category Description Comment

Qualitative benefits 

from reduced effects of 

chronic pesticide 

exposure to workers, 

handlers, and 

farmworker families

• A range of illnesses are associated with 

chronic pesticide exposure, including

• Non-Hodgkins lymphoma

• Prostate Cancer

• Parkinson’s Disease

• Lung Cancer

• Chronic Bronchitis

• Asthma 

Break-even analysis for 

only these illnesses 

shows that, if the 

proposed rule changes 

prevent a relatively small 

number of cases, then the 

total benefits of the rule

would outweigh the 

costs. 

353

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

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

356 expected to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. The benefits of reduced exposure to 
6

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

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

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

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

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

362

363
7

364 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 

365 WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

366

367 Chapter 1. Introduction

368

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

370 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The 

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

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

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

374 was first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992.

375

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

388

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

396

397 1.1 Background

398

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

417 children. This economic analysis focuses on the WPS rule.

418

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

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

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

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

423 exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and non424 target organisms. In principle, at least, pesticide handlers also know with which chemicals they 

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

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

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

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

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

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

431

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

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

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

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

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

437

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

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

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

441 exposures.

442

443 1.2 Problem Statement

444

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

452 2009, the number of cases reported by this source ranged from 2,827 in 2000 to 2,040 in 2009, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

468

469 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

470

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

484

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

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

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

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

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

490 agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non491 agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 

492 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance 

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

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

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

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

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

498 by inhalation and eye contact. 

499
10

500 Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees

501

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

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

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

505 working on farms.

506

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

524

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

532 pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non533 farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

549

550 Adolescent workers and handlers 

551

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

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

554

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

566 et al., 2010). 567

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

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

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

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

572

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

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

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

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

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

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

579

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

589 2000). In addition, the earlier occupational exposure gives more time for any delayed health 

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

591
12

592 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

593

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

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

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

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

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

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

600

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

609

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

617 cancer. 

618

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

626

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

636
13

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

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

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

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

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

642

643 1.2.3 Market Failure

644

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

654 pesticide exposure.

655

656 Asymmetric Information

657

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

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

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

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

662 Asymmetric information arises in two ways.

663

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

673 required to take appropriate action.

674

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

682 safety. 

683

684 Externalities

685

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

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

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

689 the social and private costs of using a pesticide.

690

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

699

700 Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections

701

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

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

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

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

706 knowledge.

707

708 Environmental Justice Issues

709

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

711 the agricultural employees covered by the WPS. 

712

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

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

715 pesticides over the course of their working life. 

716

717 • Language barriers and challenges for this workforce make it difficult for workers and 

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

719 jobs. 

720

721 • Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than non722 agricultural workers. Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide 

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

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

725
15

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

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

728 are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6.

729

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

743 workers had family incomes below the poverty level. 

744

745 1.3 Affected Communities

746

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

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

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

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

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

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

753 minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations. 

754

755 1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

756

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

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

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

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

761 to pesticide use patterns in forestry.

762

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

772 exposure is quite low. 

773

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

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

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

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

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

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

780 and handlers. 

781

782 1.3.2 Regulated Entities

783

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

792 pesticides.

793

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

801

802 Agricultural Establishments

803

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

815 personal protective equipment (PPE).
17

816

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

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

819 2008b). However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by conventional growers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

828

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

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

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

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

833 forestry operations.

834

835 Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments

836

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

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

839 2008) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farms. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

849 Association (NAAA, 2008).

850

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

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

853 to the agricultural sector (CPARD, 2007).

854

855 1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation

856

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

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

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

860 EPA organizes the proposed requirements into eight categories.
18

861

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

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

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

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

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

867 These proposed requirements would mean that agricultural workers receive the information they 

868 need when they need it.

869

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

877

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

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

880 for decontamination supplies and emergency assistance clarify existing requirements.

881

882 1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation

883

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

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

886 be revised.

887

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

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

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

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

892 individually examine toxicological and exposure data and revise protection standards.

893

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

903 ways, would be particularly confusing.

904
19

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

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

907 entities.

908

909 1.4.2 Statutory Authority

910

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

919 pesticides.

920
20

921 Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS

922

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

930 exposure. 

931

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

941

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

953 contact with pesticides including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response 

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

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

956 selection of the final proposed options.

957
21

958 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

959

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

961 • protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural worker protection regulation 

962 and support activities; 

963 • the establishment of federal competency standards for the certification of pesticide 

964 applicators; and 

965 • the national health care providers’ pesticide initiative. 

966

967 2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches

968

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

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

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

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

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

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

975 community. 

976

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

989

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

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

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

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

994 rule proposals, as discussed in Chapter 6. 

995

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

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

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

999 appropriate languages and complexity.

1000

1001 EPA supports state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulates the competency of 

1002 pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement 
22

1003 with USDA to support the training of applicators using RUPs through the cooperative extension 

1004 services in each state.

1005

1006 A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national health care providers 

1007 pesticide initiative, aimed at improving the training of health care providers in the recognition, 

1008 diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pesticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the 

1009 development of a manual for health care providers called “Recognition and Management of 

1010 Pesticide Poisoning.” This resource outlines the health effects associated with different classes 

1011 of pesticides and suggests treatments based on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, 

1012 EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clinicians Network, which operates a project to 

1013 improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and 

1014 treat pesticide-related conditions. This project includes the development of relevant resources 

1015 and tools that health care providers need to deal effectively with pesticide-related health 

1016 conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and 

1017 continuing education opportunities.

1018

1019 The regulatory changes proposed for the WPS are designed to complement EPA’s pesticide 

1020 worker safety program activities to improve protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and 

1021 their families. In many cases, the regulatory changes that EPA is considering came out of the 

1022 process of consulting with stakeholders and industry participants on how to improve pesticide 

1023 worker safety.

1024

1025 2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

1026

1027 Approval of a new or amended pesticide registration for sale and use implies EPA approval of 

1028 the pesticide label. By law, use of a pesticide must not result in unreasonable risks to human 

1029 health or the environment. It is illegal to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent 

1030 with its labeling. EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for how 

1031 the pesticide must be used in order to protect people and the environment from pesticide 

1032 exposure. The label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific 

1033 pesticide, where these measures are determined according to the results of the Agency’s risk 

1034 assessments, including occupational risk assessments.

1035

1036 The label, however, is not available to the typical farmworker, because they are not involved in 

1037 the use of the pesticide; as noted previously, they are potentially exposed via contact with treated 

1038 surfaces after the application has been completed. The WPS complements the label by providing 

1039 protections from this post-application exposure. It established requirements on the employer to 

1040 notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training information that enables 

1041 workers and handlers to protect themselves and their families, to provide supplies to be used to 

1042 mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or 

1043 handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are generic, crossing all 

1044 agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, efficiently, and 

1045 consistently covered in regulation.

1046
23

1047 2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

1048

1049 EPA is considering changes to requirements for pesticide safety training, hazard communication,

1050 and notification of agricultural workers and handlers to better inform them of potential dangers

1051 related to pesticide exposure. These measures work together to provide workers with important 

1052 information about their working conditions and how they should act in those conditions. 

1053 Changes to the pesticide safety training requirements will increase worker and handler

1054 understanding of their potential exposure and knowledge of appropriate measures to take to 

1055 protect themselves and their families. Hazard communication requirements make application1056 specific and pesticide-specific information available when needed. Notification includes 

1057 measures to ensure that workers know about pesticide-treated areas and that reinforce pesticide 

1058 safety training. Better hazard communication and notification imparts more appropriate 

1059 information to workers so they can avoid unnecessary exposure to pesticides and take proper 

1060 protective measures when necessary.

1061

1062 For each of these potential modifications to the WPS, a summary table of the current, proposed, 

1063 and alternative requirements is presented. Note that one alternative is to leave the current 

1064 requirements in place. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a qualitative 

1065 discussion of expected benefits as well as any disadvantages. For each of the possible 

1066 modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAIN-04). These indicators are also used in 

1067 Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented. For complete details on the 

1068 regulatory changes, see the proposed regulatory text and the NPRM.

1069

1070 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options

1071

1072 Current pesticide safety training provides information on pesticides, how workers and handlers 

1073 may come into contact with them, how to prevent exposure to pesticides, and what to do if 

1074 exposed to pesticides. EPA is considering changes to worker and handler training requirements, 

1075 such as the frequency and content, and changes to supporting regulations that include 

1076 recordkeeping, training verification, and trainer qualifications. 

1077

1078 Worker Training

1079

1080 Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area 

1081 that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. If full training cannot 

1082 be provided before the first entry into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training 

1083 consisting of basic safety information; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry. 

1084 Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. WPS also specifies training 

1085 content and trainer qualifications. Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of the current requirements 

1086 and the potential changes EPA has considered.

1087
24

1088 Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Worker Training Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Worker Training Grace Period

Untrained workers must 

receive, at a minimum, 

abbreviated training before 

they enter a treated area. Full 

safety training is required 

before the sixth day of entry 

into the treated area.

Untrained workers must receive 

full training prior to entry into a 

treated area. An exception is 

available for a 2-day grace period 

with provision of essential Rightto-Know information prior to 

field entry. The full pesticide 

safety training would be required 

before the third day of field 

entry.

(TRAIN-02)

Require full training prior to 

entry into a treated area.

(TRAIN-01)

Worker Training Frequency

Training required every five 

years

Annual training required:

(TRAIN-03)

Biennial training required:

(TRAIN-04)

or

Annual training with exception 

for WPS farms with < 10 

employees, no worker turnover, 

and no change in application 

information

(TRAIN-05)

Training Content for Workers 

11 basic pesticide safety training 

points covered

1. Possible exposures. 

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which 

pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning. 

5. Emergency first aid for 

poisonings.

6. Obtaining medical care. 

7. Decontamination procedures.

8. Hazards from chemigation and 

drift. 

9. Hazards from residues on 

clothing. 

10.Warnings about taking 

pesticides or pesticide 

containers home.

11.WPS requirements.

Expand 11 basic safety training 

requirements to include:

• Take home exposure

• Early entry notification

• Understanding hazard 

information – SDS

(TRAIN-06)

Further expand 11 basic safety 

training requirements to include:

• Take home exposure

• Early entry notification 

• Understanding hazard 

information – crop sheets and 

product-specific training

(TRAIN-07)
25

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Criteria for Trainers of Workers

Training for workers can be 

performed by certified 

applicators, trainers of 

certified applicators, people 

who have completed “Trainthe-trainer” programs, and

handlers

Limit worker trainers to those 

who:

• Have completed an EPA 

approved Train-the-Trainer 

program or

• Are trainers of certified 

applicators

(TRAIN-08)

Limit worker trainers to those 

who:

• Have completed an EPA 

approved Train-the-Trainer 

program

(TRAIN-09)

1089

1090

1091 Pesticide Safety Training Grace Period for Workers (TRAIN-01 and 02)

1092

1093 The WPS currently permits a five-day grace period for pesticide safety training of workers

1094 during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated areas without receipt of 

1095 the full pesticide safety training. Employers are required to provide workers with abbreviated 

1096 safety training in lieu of the full pesticide safety training. After five days of entry into a treated 

1097 area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must 

1098 receive full pesticide safety training. This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for 

1099 agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers 

1100 was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992.

1101

1102 Options for revision are discussed in detail in Unit XVII.C of the NPRM.

1103

1104 TRAIN-01

1105 A potential option is to eliminate the grace period and require training of all employees prior to 

1106 their entry into a treated area. The advantage of this option is that all workers would receive the 

1107 full safety training prior to entering treated areas, providing workers with the full information 

1108 they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. It would also prevent the possibility

1109 that a worker never receives full training because he or she changes employers without working 

1110 more than five days at a time, which may happen, for example, during harvest season. 

1111 Disadvantages of this option are that it reduces the flexibility of growers who hire workers at 

1112 different times and that a worker may receive duplicative training if he or she changes 

1113 employers.

1114

1115 TRAIN-02

1116 The proposed requirement would require training prior to entry into a treated area, but allow an 

1117 exception with a two-day grace period. It would also expand the information provided to 

1118 employees during this period. The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN-01 in 

1119 that workers may still be entering treated areas without full training and some workers may never 

1120 receive full training. However, the disadvantages are also less because this option retains some 

1121 flexibility for growers who may hire workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and 

1122 it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings.

1123
26

1124 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

1125

1126 Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 

1127 provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative 

1128 options. 

1129

1130 TRAIN-03/04

1131 The proposed option (TRAIN-03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual 

1132 pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement. 

1133 One alternative considered (TRAIN-04) would be to require pesticide safety training every two 

1134 years. Periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al. (2000) showed 

1135 that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in 

1136 following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. Thus, retention of 

1137 pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both 

1138 of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are 

1139 improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure, which in turn 

1140 leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. Annual training is common practice in 

1141 other industries and not only for safety. For example, the federal government requires annual 

1142 training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cybersecurity. OSHA requires annual training in 

1143 workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals are present. Many agricultural employers are 

1144 already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in 

1145 pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements.

1146

1147 TRAIN-05

1148 A second alternative, suggested by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (EPA, 

1149 2008), would be to provide an exception from annual worker training for WPS farms with fewer 

1150 than ten employees if there had been no turnover in the work force and no changes in the 

1151 application information (e.g., pesticides used, application rates) since the last worker safety 

1152 training. This alternative would reduce the burden on small farms (discussed in Chapter 3). The 

1153 exception would only apply to WPS farms that do not change pesticide use patterns, implying 

1154 that workers would have, at some point, learned appropriate safety practices. As noted above, 

1155 however, people tend to forget safety lessons over time even when the work environment does 

1156 not change.

1157

1158 Pesticide Safety Training Content 

1159

1160 Current pesticide safety training for field workers covers 11 points: 

1161 (1) possible ways exposure to pesticide occurs, 

1162 (2) hazards associated with exposure, 

1163 (3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 

1164 (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 

1165 (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 

1166 (6) obtaining medical care, 

1167 (7) decontamination procedures, 

1168 (8) hazards associated with chemigation and spray drift, 

1169 (9) hazards from residues on clothing,
27

1170 (10) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, and 

1171 (11) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency 

1172 assistance, etc.). 

1173 EPA considered several options for expanding the content of the required worker pesticide safety 

1174 training. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

1175

1176 TRAIN-06/07

1177 Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce 

1178 take-home pesticide exposure, worker rights (e.g., to hazard information) and protections (e.g., 

1179 from retaliation), and new WPS requirements. This information addresses problem areas that 

1180 have been identified by EPA, state enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups since the last 

1181 revisions to WPS in 1992. See Chapter 1. For example, many recent studies have shown the 

1182 potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home. Training in new WPS 

1183 requirements, including information to be provided in case of entry into a field under a REI and 

1184 the availability of hazard communication materials, will help to insure safety measures are 

1185 followed and that workers understand their employer’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to 

1186 pesticides. The alternative is identical except for the information on hazard communication. The 

1187 proposed option would explain the information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see 

1188 HAZCOM-02); the alternative would explain how to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04).

1189

1190 Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications 

1191

1192 Currently, pesticide safety training for workers can be conducted by certified pesticide 

1193 applicators, handlers, trainers of certified applicators, and people who have completed an 

1194 approved pesticide safety “train-the-trainer” program. Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for 

1195 complete details.

1196

1197 TRAIN-08

1198 The proposed option would eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and handlers. 

1199 The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a 

1200 train-the-trainers program would have better and more relevant skills to provide higher quality 

1201 training programs, which result in better worker protection. The experience of certified 

1202 applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less 

1203 relevance for workers where the primary concern is post-application exposure via contact with 

1204 treated plants and other surfaces. Further, without additional preparation, certified applicators 

1205 and handlers may not have the adult education skills needed to successfully convey the 

1206 information to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally-distinct 

1207 backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properly qualified 

1208 trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereby ensuring that workers receive and 

1209 understand the critical pesticide safety information they need to protect themselves and their 

1210 families.

1211

1212 TRAIN-09

1213 An alternative option EPA considered was to restrict qualified trainers to only those who have 

1214 completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program. In comparison to the proposed option, 

1215 this would put a greater emphasis on education skills tailored to the farmworker community.
28

1216

1217 Handler Training

1218

1219 WPS provisions for handler safety training are similar to those for workers. Handlers must take 

1220 the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five years. The WPS specifies trainer 

1221 qualifications. Table 2.2-2 provides a summary of the current requirements for handler training 

1222 and the potential changes EPA has considered.

1223

1224 Handler training must be provided prior to the employee performing any handling task. No 

1225 grace period is permitted.

1226

1227 Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Handler Training Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Training Frequency

Training required every five 

years

Annual training required:

(TRAIN-12)

Biennial training required:

(TRAIN-13)

Training Content for Handlers

13 topics are covered

1. Product label, including 

safety information

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which 

pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of 

poisoning.

5. Emergency first aid.

6. Emergency medical care

7. Decontamination procedures

8. Personal Protective 

Equipment (PPE)

9. Heat-related illness issues

10.Safety requirements for 

handling, transporting, 

storing, and disposing of 

pesticides

11.Environmental concerns 

12.Warnings about taking 

pesticides or their containers 

home

13.Regulatory requirements of 

handling.

Expand 13 topics covered to 

include:

•Take home exposure

•Early entry notification and age 

limit

•Entry restricted area 

requirements

•Requirements for respirator fit 

test, training and medical 

evaluation

•Hazard information – SDS

(TRAIN-14)

Expand 13 topics covered to 

include:

•Take home exposure

•Early entry notification and age 

limit

•Entry restricted area 

requirements

•Requirements for proper 

respirator fit test, training, and 

medical evaluation

• Hazard information -crop 

specific hazard materials 

product specific training

(TRAIN-15)

1228

1229

1230 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency

1231

1232 Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 

1233 provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements.

1234
29

1235 TRAIN-12/13

1236 As for agricultural workers, EPA is proposing that handlers receive annual pesticide safety 

1237 training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement (TRAIN-12). The 

1238 alternative (TRAIN-13) would require handler training every two years. Similar to training 

1239 frequency for workers, periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et 

1240 al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than 

1241 untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their patients. 

1242 Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with 

1243 biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The 

1244 expected benefits are improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide 

1245 exposure, which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. 

1246

1247 Pesticide Safety Training Content

1248

1249 Handler training currently covers 14 topics:

1250 (1) product label information, 

1251 (2) hazards, 

1252 (3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 

1253 (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 

1254 (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 

1255 (6) obtaining medical care,

1256 (7) decontamination procedures, 

1257 (8) personal protective equipment, 

1258 (9) heat-related illness issues, 

1259 (10) safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

1260 (11) environmental concerns, 

1261 (12) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, 

1262 (13) regulatory requirements of pesticide handling, and

1263 (14) WPS requirements that employers must meet (e.g., notifications, emergency 

1264 assistance, etc.).

1265 EPA considered expanding the content of the required handler pesticide safety training to include 

1266 several additional topics. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details.

1267

1268 TRAIN-14/15

1269 Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, 

1270 handler rights, and new WPS requirements. Benefits would be similar to those of worker 

1271 training. For handler training, the additional components not relevant to workers would be 

1272 defining the restricted area during an application and proper procedures if another person enters 

1273 the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on 

1274 respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. This 

1275 information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA. As with workers, the proposed 

1276 option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the 

1277 alternative would explain the information found in crop sheets.
30

1278

1279 Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification

1280

1281 Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and 

1282 handlers receive the required pesticide safety training. This makes it difficult for both employers 

1283 and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training 

1284 requirements. There is, however, an optional program for states to distribute training verification 

1285 cards supplied by EPA to trainers. Agricultural employers in participating states can hire 

1286 workers and handlers with valid training verification cards, which can reduce their pesticide 

1287 safety training burden when a potential employee has a valid card. However, there is no 

1288 requirement for a centralized repository or record of the training. Table 2.2-3 presents the 

1289 potential requirements. Unit VII.B of the NPRM discusses the current and proposed 

1290 requirements in detail.

1291

1292 Table 2.2-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Training Records Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Recordkeeping

No Records Required.

Employer to keep records of 

worker training for 2 years:

• Names of workers trained, 

trainer and employer

• Date of birth of worker 

• Date of training

• Training materials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker

• Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-10)

Employer to keep worker 

training records for 5 years:

• Names of workers trained, 

trainer and employer

• Date of birth of worker

• Date of training

• Training materials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

worker

• Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-11)

Employer to keep handler 

training records for 2 years:

• Names of handlers trained, 

trainer and employer

• Date of training

• Date of birth of handler

• Date of training

• Training materials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

handler

• Documentation of trainer’s 

qualification

(TRAIN-16)

Employer to keep handler 

training records for 5 years:

• Names of handlers trained, 

trainer and employer

• Date of birth of handler 

• Date of training

• Training materials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt 

of training by signature of 

handler 

(TRAIN-17)
31

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Verification

Voluntary Program Allows for 

Training Verification Cards

Provide verification in the form 

of a copy of the training record to 

handler or worker

(TRAIN-20)

Eliminate federal option for 

worker and handler training 

verification card programs.

(TRAIN-18)

or

Require worker and handler 

training verification cards

(TRAIN-19)

1293

1294 Recordkeeping

1295

1296 TRAIN-10/16

1297 Under one set of options, for worker and for handlers, employers would be required to document 

1298 pesticide safety trainings and maintain the records for two years. Documentation would include 

1299 the name of the workers trained, the name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of 

1300 training, the worker’s or handler’s date of birth, the training materials used, and the employee’s

1301 signature acknowledging training.

1302

1303 TRAIN-11/17

1304 The second set of options is identical except that records would be maintained for five years.

1305

1306 These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear 

1307 method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. A clear advantage of the five1308 year option over the two-year retention option is that it matches the current five-year training 

1309 cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN-03 and 04), a five-year retention period 

1310 provides greater benefits than a two-year retention period as enforcement actions may not be 

1311 brought immediately. On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed 

1312 EPA that a two-year retention period is adequate.

1313

1314 Verification

1315

1316 TRAIN-17

1317 This potential requirement would eliminate EPA’s optional verification card system. States 

1318 would retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the proposed 

1319 recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. However, state agencies report that verification 

1320 cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering 

1321 and falsification has become common practice. Further, worker and handler training does not 

1322 currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in practice, be verified. 

1323 Finally, with the current five-year training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that 

1324 employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer. Thus, under the current 

1325 system, verification cards provide little benefit to either the employer or the employee. In fact, 

1326 many states do not participate in the system.

1327
32

1328 TRAIN-18

1329 An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when 

1330 they are trained. Card distribution would be conducted by the trainers. EPA would issue cards 

1331 with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards. 

1332 As noted above, this would have little benefit under the current WPS. Falsified cards and the 

1333 lack of a record keeping would continue to limit the ability of growers to trust the validity and 

1334 for enforcement to determine compliance. However, in conjunction with other potential 

1335 requirements, there may be advantages. For example, if the existing grace period for full 

1336 pesticide safety training is eliminated or shortened (TRAIN-01 and 02), a training verification 

1337 system may be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are 

1338 in compliance with training requirements. Similarly, with annual or biennial training (TRAIN1339 03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or 

1340 falsified and will be more reliable, potentially reducing the need for employees to take multiple 

1341 trainings and for employers to provide multiple trainings. A major drawback to the card is that a 

1342 driver’s license-sized card will be too small to contain all the required information, and would 

1343 therefore require additional effort on the part of the employer to have a complete record.

1344

1345 TRAIN-19

1346 The proposed option is similar to TRAIN-18 but does not require the use of the verification cards 

1347 and would simply require the employer to provide a copy of the training record to the trained 

1348 employee. In comparison to TRAIN-18, this requirement would be more convenient for original 

1349 employer, who would not have to provide individualized cards to every trained worker. It also 

1350 insures that the subsequent employer has all the information for his or her own records. It may 

1351 be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to 

1352 another establishment than to carry a wallet-sized card. In addition, the potential for fraud, as 

1353 with TRAIN-18, remains.

1354

1355 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options

1356

1357 Under current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer must provide employees with 

1358 application-specific information, including the name of the pesticide used. The information is 

1359 posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 days after the REI 

1360 expires. EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide-specific information be made available 

1361 and is also proposing to adjust how application and pesticide-specific information is presented. 

1362 Table 2.2-4 presents the current, proposed, and alternative requirements for hazard 

1363 communication.

1364
33

1365 Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Hazard Communication Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Application Specific Information and Availability

Display at a central location, for 

each application, 

• location and description of 

treated area; 

• active ingredient, product 

name, registration number;

• time and date of application;

• duration of REI

Make a copy available on 

request, for each application,

• location and description of 

treated area; 

• crop or site treated

• active ingredient, product 

name, registration number;

• time and date application

started and ended;

• duration and end date of REI

(HAZCOM-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

No requirements for pesticidespecific hazard information

Pesticide label and SDS must be 

available

(HAZCOM-02)

Pesticide label must be available

(HAZCOM-03)

or

Distribute crop sheet to workers

and/or handlers upon entry into 

a treated area

(HAZCOM-04)

Retention and Recordkeeping

Application-specific 

information must be displayed 

prior to application and for 30 

days after the REI

Application and pesticidespecific information must be 

available no later than the day of 

application. Retain records for 2

years

(HAZCOM-05)

Application and pesticidespecific information must be 

available no later than the day of 

application. Retain records for 5

years

(HAZCOM-06)

Hazard Information Material

No requirements for use or 

production of crop-specific 

hazard materials

No change from current 

requirements

Registrant to develop crop 

sheets for each WPS product

and use pattern

(HAZCOM-07)

1366

1367 Application Specific Information and Availability

1368

1369 HAZCOM-01

1370 Agricultural employers are currently required to post, at a central location, application-specific 

1371 information including the location of the treated area, the pesticide used, the time and date of the 

1372 application, and the duration of the REI. The information must be posted before the application 

1373 is made and must be displayed for 30 days after the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM1374 01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application-specific information as 

1375 currently required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI. The 

1376 addition of the site treated information will help employees and inspectors identify the precise 

1377 treated area. Addition of the start and end times for the application, in conjunction with the date, 

1378 would assist in determining the date and time the REI ends. This gives employees more precise 

1379 information than just the duration. Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting 
34

1380 requirement for the pesticide application information and instead make the application 

1381 information available upon request by workers, handlers, or their authorized representative. This 

1382 approach to hazard communication has certain advantages over centralized posting. Detailed 

1383 information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis. Multiple postings at 

1384 a central location may even lead to confusion about specific products used on particular fields 

1385 without providing actionable information. The WPS also requires agricultural employers to 

1386 notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur. Finally, many 

1387 central posting areas are exterior gathering locations and postings are subject to loss or damage 

1388 by wind and weather. A clear disadvantage is that employees may feel uncomfortable or unable 

1389 to request the information from their employer. Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more 

1390 complete discussion of this requirement.

1391

1392 Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

1393

1394 HAZCOM-02

1395 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the 

1396 SDS. The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical 

1397 or product, symptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide label informs 

1398 on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product. OSHA requires 

1399 employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are 

1400 already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than 

1401 pesticides. EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, 

1402 although there may be cases where an employee might seek information about a specific product.

1403

1404 In practice, the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness. 

1405 Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 

1406 treatment for workers and handlers without the relevant information from the label and, 

1407 especially, the SDS. Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical 

1408 and speed the diagnosis of an illness. The SDS also provides treatment information.

1409

1410 HAZCOM-03

1411 An alternative would be to require only the pesticide label, but not the SDS. This would at least 

1412 ensure quick identification of the chemical in case an incident occurred and may help to speed a 

1413 proper diagnosis by confirming that symptoms match that of the pesticide. The label, however, 

1414 may not indicate treatment.

1415

1416 HAZCOM-04

1417 Under a second alternative, EPA would retain the central posting requirement and would further 

1418 require that crop-pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and 

1419 handlers upon entry into a pesticide-treated area. The advantage of this approach is that it 

1420 provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, 

1421 reducing the potential for confusion from multiple postings at the central location. However, the 

1422 benefits of this detailed information are uncertain. Such detailed information could potentially 

1423 confuse workers with complex pesticide application information where the level of hazard is 

1424 different for every situation. That could even prove to be counterproductive to providing 

1425 workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it 
35

1426 is one day or one week. Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non-English speakers

1427 and literacy rates are low (NAWS, 2005). Thus, providing crop sheets that effectively present 

1428 complex information to this diverse community would be challenging.

1429

1430 Retention and Record Keeping

1431

1432 HAZCOM-05/06

1433 These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard 

1434 communication for two or five years (HAZCOM-05 and 06, respectively). See Unit IX.D of the 

1435 NPRM. As discussed in the training section above (TRAIN-06), the advantage of retaining 

1436 records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both 

1437 the WPS farm and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may 

1438 not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful.

1439

1440 Hazard Information Material

1441

1442 Currently, most available hazard information is chemical or product specific, e.g., the SDS. EPA 

1443 considered requiring registrants to develop crop and chemical-specific hazard sheets for all 

1444 agricultural products, HAZCOM-07. This requirement would support the option discussed 

1445 above, HAZCOM-04. This information could be valuable, but it is very complex because there 

1446 may be different use patterns on different crops (e.g., application rates) and different potential for 

1447 exposure on different crops (e.g., leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and 

1448 in different activities (e.g., weeding versus harvesting). As discussed in HAZCOM-04, it is not 

1449 clear that this additional information provides substantial benefits. Pesticide safety educators 

1450 have informed EPA that providing very specific and complex information for the agricultural 

1451 worker community is counterproductive to instilling, through training, the clear and simple 

1452 pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions. 

1453

1454 2.2.3 Notification Options

1455

1456 The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application 

1457 occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when 

1458 precautions covered in the safety training should be implemented. Current notification 

1459 requirements include displaying pesticide application and pesticide safety information in a 

1460 central location on the establishment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry 

1461 Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally informing workers, and informing workers enter 

1462 areas under a REI about the pesticides used. The WPS also requires certain information 

1463 exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide 

1464 appropriate notification to their respective employees. EPA is considering revising the 

1465 notification requirements in three areas: (1) information pertaining to fields under a restricted 

1466 entry interval (REI), (2) information on decontamination procedures, and (3) information 

1467 transmitted from commercial applicators’ employers to the agricultural employer.

1468
36

1469 Restricted Entry Interval Notification 

1470

1471 Currently, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a 

1472 REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Warnings need not be given to a 

1473 particular employee if, from the start of the application to the end of the re-entry interval, the 

1474 employee would not be within one-fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the 

1475 handler who applied the pesticide. Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform

1476 workers who are directed into areas under a REI about the hazards related to the pesticides used

1477 unless the worker will have no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces. There are currently no 

1478 requirements for documenting compliance with these notification requirements. 

1479

1480 EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REIs in more 

1481 situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provided in the warning to 

1482 workers entering treated areas under an REI and that these warnings be documented to insure 

1483 compliance. Table 2.2-5 compares the current, proposed, and alternative requirements.

1484

1485 Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative REI Notification Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI Notification

Outdoor production: Either oral 

notification or post warning 

signs unless double notification 

required by label

Post field with warning signs if 

REI is greater than 48 hours; 

either oral notification or signs 

for REIs of 48 hours or less 

(unless double notification 

required)

(NOTIFY-01)

Post field with warning signs if 

REI is greater than 72 hours; 

either oral notification or signs 

for REIs of 72 hours or less 

(unless double notification 

required)

(NOTIFY-02)

Indoor production (WPS 

Greenhouses): Warning signs 

must be posted; additional oral 

notification for double 

notification products

Oral notification allowed if REI 

is 4 hours or less

(NOTIFY-03)

No change from current 

requirements

No requirements for record 

keeping

No change from current 

requirements

Signed acknowledgement of oral 

notification retained for 2 years

(NOTIFY-04)

or

Signed acknowledgement of oral 

notification retained for 5 years

(NOTIFY-05)
37

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI warning signs

Sign depicts a stern face in a 

circle as a warning, with 

message : “Keep Out”

Stern face in an octagon (stop 

sign) shape as warning, with 

message: “Entry Restricted”

(NOTIFY-06)

Revise field warning sign to 

include:

• Skull and crossbones

• Application information on 

the sign (date of application, 

REI, product)

(NOTIFY-07)

Post so signs are visible from 

usual points of entry into treated 

area (or in corners of field or 

other location allowing 

maximum visibility) and near 

worker housing

Define ‘near’ worker housing as 

within 100 feet

(NOTIFY-08)

Field warning sign placement: 

every 100 feet as well as the 

usual points of entry

(NOTIFY-09)

Notification to workers entering treated area during REI

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

Agricultural employer must 

ensure that employee has either 

read or been informed of all 

labeling requirements related to 

human hazards and precautions, 

uses PPE as required by the 

label, and follows any other 

label requirements regarding 

early entry.

Oral notification to workers 

prior to entry into treated area 

during REI:

• Date of entry

•Location of early-entry area

• Pesticides applied

•Labeling related to human 

hazards and precautions

• Dates and times REI begins 

and ends

•Exception that allows early 

entry

•Type of contact permitted with 

treated surfaces

• Amount of time worker is 

allowed in area

•Required PPE

•Location of safety poster

display

•Location of decontamination 

supplies

(NOTIFY-10)

Oral and written notification to 

workers prior to entry into 

treated area during REI:

• Date of entry

• Location of early-entry area

• Pesticides applied

• Labeling related to hazard 

and precautions

• Dates and times REI begins 

and ends

• Exception that allows early 

entry

• Type of contact permitted 

with treated surfaces

• Amount of time worker is 

allowed in area

• Required PPE

• Location of safety poster

display

• Location of decontamination 

supplies

(NOTIFY-11)

No requirements for record 

keeping

Require recordkeeping:

•Notification (see above), 

except labeling hazard and 

precaution information

•Acknowledgement of 

notification by printed name 

and signature of workers

•Retain for 2 years

(NOTIFY-12)

Require recordkeeping:

• Notification, except labeling 

hazard and precaution 

information

• Acknowledgement of 

notification by printed name 

and signature of workers

•Retain for 5 years

(NOTIFY-13)

1486
38

1487 REI Notification

1488

1489 Under the current rule, notification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers 

1490 by the agricultural employer either orally or by posting warning signs at the treated area, except 

1491 where the product label requires both. Greenhouses are required to post signs for all 

1492 applications.

1493

1494 NOTIFY-01

1495 The proposed option would require that warning signs be posted if for pesticides applications 

1496 where the REI is greater than 48 hours. See Unit VII.A of the NPRM. The purpose of this 

1497 proposed requirement is to provide employees with a visual notification because human memory 

1498 can be poor. Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second-leading cause of pesticide 

1499 incidents, following drift from adjacent fields, according to a NIOSH review of available 

1500 information (Calvert et al., 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from 

1501 inadvertent entry as opposed to employer-directed entry, but it seems likely that many, including 

1502 unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall. On farms producing a variety of crops, there 

1503 could be several fields treated with different products and remembering which fields should be 

1504 avoided could become difficult. Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered 

1505 planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. 

1506 Different fields of the same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, especially for 

1507 long REIs. Recall may be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers 

1508 at the time of the application, but must also remember to notify workers who are not present at 

1509 the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers 

1510 receive the appropriate notification. 

1511

1512 NOTIFY-02

1513 An alternative option considered would require posted warning signs if the pesticide applied has 

1514 a REI greater than 72 hours. This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY-06, but is clearly 

1515 less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to 

1516 remember REI information for three days rather than two.

1517

1518 NOTIFY-03

1519 EPA is proposing to allow greenhouse operations to notify employees orally if the REI is four 

1520 hours or less. In many situations, this will be far simpler than posting signs only to take them 

1521 down in a few hours and employees can be expected to remember when and where applications 

1522 occur over such a short time interval.

1523

1524 NOTIFY-04/05

1525 Oral notification is inherently difficult to enforce. A potential mechanism to address this issue is 

1526 to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification. This 

1527 record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY-09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement 

1528 purposes. As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or 

1529 greenhouse.

1530
39

1531 REI Warning Signs

1532

1533 The WPS specifies when signs must be posted, the sign content, and the locations required for

1534 posting signs.

1535

1536 NOTIFY-06

1537 Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words 

1538 “Keep Out.” The proposed option would make replace the red circle with a red octagon, a 

1539 widely-recognized symbol for stop. It would also change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry 

1540 Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that 

1541 workers and handlers should generally remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter 

1542 under certain conditions to perform early-entry tasks as permitted under the WPS. Unit VIII.C 

1543 of the NPRM provides a complete discussion of the reasons for the revisions.

1544

1545 NOTIFY-07

1546 An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic, as well as 

1547 require posting field-specific information the sign including the date of application, the length of 

1548 the REI, and the pesticide product. While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones 

1549 symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation 

1550 of certain highly hazardous pesticides including fumigants. Widespread use of the graphic for all 

1551 pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases. The field1552 specific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to 

1553 keep people from entering except under specific circumstances (see ENTRY-03 to 06, below) 

1554 and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be 

1555 available (see NOTIFY-10 and 11).

1556

1557 NOTIFY-08

1558 REI warning signs are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points 

1559 of entry to the treated area or, if there are no clear points of entry, the corners of the treated area 

1560 or an area affording maximum visibility. Signs are also required to be placed on each border 

1561 with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area. The proposed revision clarifies that the 

1562 warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of the treated 

1563 area. The purpose of the refinement is to provide clarity for employers and state officials.

1564

1565 NOTIFY-09

1566 An alternate potential requirement would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet 

1567 along the field as well as at the usual points of entry. The advantage of this requirement is that it 

1568 would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without 

1569 following established routes. It is not clear how large the benefits of increased posting would be 

1570 since good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage 

1571 the plants.

1572

1573 Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks

1574

1575 Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the current regulation under certain 

1576 narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact”, “no contact”, “short-term”, 
40

1577 “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Except for entry under the “no contact” 

1578 exception, employers must make sure that workers performing early entry tasks wear all PPE 

1579 required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information 

1580 on the pesticide label prior to entry. See the NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details. EPA is also 

1581 considering certain revisions to these exceptions; see ENTRY-03 to 06, below.

1582

1583 NOTIFY-10

1584 As noted above (NOTIFY-01), entry into treated areas during the REI is the second most 

1585 common factor leading to pesticide incidents (Calvert et al., 2008). Sufficient information is 

1586 lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred 

1587 during employer-directed entry. Under the proposed option, the early entry notification would 

1588 be expanded to include additional safety information such as the pesticide applied, the start and 

1589 end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy 

1590 organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early 

1591 entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the 

1592 particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry exception.

1593

1594 NOTIFY-11

1595 EPA considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute written pesticide hazard 

1596 information (i.e., crop sheets) to each worker upon early entry in addition to the oral warnings, as 

1597 suggested by Farmworker Justice. The major benefit to workers would be the ability to refer to 

1598 the information after the fact, in case, for example, of symptoms arising that may be associated 

1599 with pesticide exposure. Written communication can sometimes provide more clarity than 

1600 spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpreted, especially if the employer or employee 

1601 is using a second language. On the other hand, given language differences and the literacy rate 

1602 in the farmworker population, it is not clear that written communication is substantially more 

1603 effective than oral communication. Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously 

1604 can often be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms. Finally, farmworkers may not 

1605 have a place to save written documentation; according to regulatory staff in Texas and Florida, 

1606 such documents often end up scattered in the field.

1607

1608 NOTIFY-12/13

1609 These potential provisions would require the agricultural employer to retain a worker-signed 

1610 record that notification was provided prior to early entry. NOTIFY-09 would require retention 

1611 for two years while NOTIFY-10 would require that records be kept for five years. As above, 

1612 records help to verify the WPS farms are in compliance. These records can also help in 

1613 diagnosis and treatment by identifying workers that entered a treated area under REI if they later 

1614 exhibit pesticide poisoning symptoms.

1615

1616 Pesticide Safety Information Display

1617

1618 The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide 

1619 safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect themselves from 

1620 exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Currently, safety posters are 

1621 required to be displayed only at one central location on the WPS farm. Table 2.2-6 presents 

1622 current requirements, proposals and alternatives for additional information and displays. Contact 
41

1623 information for emergency medical care is to be included on the poster, among other things. See 

1624 Unit XII.B of the NPRM for more detail on the required information. See the NPRM, Unit 

1625 XII.A, for more on additional displays.

1626

1627 Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Pesticide Safety Information 

Basic pesticide safety 

information display includes 

decontamination information 

and self-protective practices

Additional basic pesticide safety 

information display content to 

include:

•State enforcement agency

contact information 

•Medical facility contact 

information

(NOTIFY-14)

No change from current 

requirements

Basic pesticide safety 

information displayed at a 

central location

Additional safety information 

display required with worker

decontamination supplies

(NOTIFY-15) Additional display with all field 

warning signs

(NOTIFY-17) Additional safety information 

display with handler 

decontamination supplies

(NOTIFY-16)

1628

1629 NOTIFY-14

1630 This proposed requirement would add contact information for the state enforcement agency and 

1631 the appropriate medical facility to the display. Information about how to contact enforcement 

1632 personnel would enable employees to report violations. Contact information for the medical 

1633 facility insures that employees have the ability to call for assistance in case of an accident.

1634

1635 NOTIFY-15

1636 Under the proposed option, at least one additional safety information display would be required, 

1637 located when and where worker decontamination supplies are made available. The display 

1638 would provide essential decontamination information at the time and place it is most needed. 

1639 Decontamination procedures are covered in safety training, but they not reinforced by routine 

1640 practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropriate steps to take in case of exposure will 

1641 reinforce the training message.

1642

1643 NOTIFY-16

1644 This option would also require at least one additional safety information display for handlers and 

1645 would be located at the decontamination site(s) typically used for mixing and loading of 

1646 pesticides. The potential benefits are similar to those described in NOTIFY-15 above.

1647

1648 NOTIFY-17

1649 Farmworker organizations suggested two alternate options: requiring additional pesticide safety 

1650 displays with all posted field warning (REI) signs or at worker changing sites. They noted that 

1651 having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are likely to see it increases 
42

1652 the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to contact emergency 

1653 personnel.

1654

1655 Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms

1656

1657 The WPS requires commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural 

1658 employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. The agricultural employer is 

1659 required to provide the CPHE with information about treated areas under REIs on the 

1660 establishment so that applicators do not inadvertently enter a treated field. The CPHE is required 

1661 to notify the agricultural employer prior to making an application so that information, e.g., about 

1662 REIs, can be communicated to the farm’s employees. If there are changes in a scheduled 

1663 application, the agricultural employer must be notified. EPA is proposing to revise the 

1664 requirement for CPHEs to notify the WPS employer of changes in a pesticide application to 

1665 reflect and clarify existing guidance. See Table 2.2-7.

1666

1667 Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative CPHE Notification Requirements.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Notification to agricultural employer by commercial handler

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer prior to 

application of:

• the location and description 

of the area to be treated; 

• date and time of application; 

• the product name, active 

ingredient and EPA 

registration number for the 

product, 

• the REI, 

• whether posting and oral 

notification are required 

(double notification), 

• any other product-specific 

protections for humans from 

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify the 

agricultural employer prior to 

any changes in the application

Subsequent guidance allows 

some flexibility in notification 

of changes

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer prior to 

application of:

• the location and description 

of the area to be treated; 

• date and time of application;

• estimated time application 

ends;

• the product name, active 

ingredient and EPA 

registration number for the 

product, 

• the REI, 

• whether posting and oral 

notification are required 

(double notification), 

• any other product-specific 

protections for humans from 

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify 

agricultural employer of any 

changes within 2 hours of end of 

application (not required if time

of application changes < 1 hour)

(NOTIFY-18)

No change from current 

requirements

1668

1669 NOTIFY-18

1670 Under the proposed option, the CPHE would still be required to notify the agricultural employer 

1671 of the application information prior to the pesticide application. Notification of a change to the 

1672 estimated application end time would be required within two hours of the end of the application, 
43

1673 and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification. See Unit X of the 

1674 NPRM for details. This revision largely clarifies and codifies existing guidance that provides 

1675 flexibility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but 

1676 that are currently at odds with the wording of the WPS.

1677

1678 2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

1679

1680 EPA is considering changes to three areas to improve the protections for workers and handlers 

1681 from the adverse effects of pesticides. Proposed changes include establishing minimum age 

1682 requirements for certain tasks, restrictions covering entry into and around treated areas, and 

1683 changes to the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE). These provisions are 

1684 intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides.

1685

1686 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options

1687

1688 Currently, the WPS contains no age restrictions for agricultural employees. Adolescents, 

1689 however, may be at greater risk from pesticide exposure because many of their biological and 

1690 neurological systems are still developing and are more sensitive to chemical disruption than are 

1691 adult systems. Further, adolescents may pose greater risks for pesticide exposure because they 

1692 often take more risks than their adult coworkers. See Chapter 1. In considering age restrictions, 

1693 EPA focused on two situations: handling of pesticides including mixing, loading, and applying; 

1694 and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances 

1695 under which early entry is allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3-1 

1696 summarizes the potential restrictions. The NPRM provides a complete description of the 

1697 proposed restrictions and alternatives. Unit XII.A discusses the worker restrictions and Unit 

1698 XI.B discusses the handler restrictions.

1699

1700 The proposed restrictions would not apply to persons covered by the immediate family 

1701 exemption, i.e., for children and other family members of the owner/operator of the WPS farm. 

1702

1703 Table 2.3-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Minimum Age 

1704 Restrictions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Alternative Requirement

No age restriction on person 

performing early entry activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

(AGE-01)

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to be directed to perform 

early entry activities

(AGE-02)

No age restriction on person 

performing handling activities

Employee must be 16 years of 

age to perform handler duties

(AGE-03)

Employee must be 18 years of 

age to perform handler duties

(AGE-04)

1 1705 Restriction does not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption.

1706

1707 AGE-01/03

1708 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to ensure that workers entering fields during 

1709 a REI and pesticide handlers are at least 16 years of age. As explained in more detail in Chapters 

1710 1 and 6, studies have suggested that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children 
44

1711 and young adults than for mature individuals because developing systems are more sensitive

1712 (EPA, 2002)). Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the 

1713 highest levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on their health. Further, young adults 

1714 may take more risks than older workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the 

1715 consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006)). Thus, they may be less likely 

1716 to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situations. In the case of handlers, 

1717 adolescents may not follow all label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the 

1718 potential impacts to themselves, others, and the environment. EPA estimates that there are about 

1719 19,000 workers under the age of 16 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 

1720 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely about 1,000 of these adolescent 

1721 workers who engage in pesticide handling activities on farm and it is extremely unlikely that 

1722 youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs.

1723

1724 AGE 02/04

1725 Alternatively, EPA considered a minimum age requirement of 18 years. This alternative would 

1726 provide greater benefits than would a minimum age of 16 years due to the number of adolescents 

1727 covered. Based on the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) (DoL, 2005), EPA 

1728 estimates there are nearly 87,000 adolescents between 16 and 17 years of age employed as farm 

1729 workers in addition to the 19,000 workers under the age of 16. Around 18,300 adolescent 

1730 workers might engage in early entry activities each year and 5,600 might act as handlers on 

1731 occasion, including 4,600 between 17 and 18 years of age. Older youths, however, may be less 

1732 sensitive to exposure and less likely to take risks than their younger counterparts.

1733

1734 2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions

1735

1736 Entry into areas being treated or under an REI pose risks and EPA considered several revisions 

1737 to the WPS to bolster protections for agricultural workers and handlers. The current 

1738 requirements and potential changes are shown in Table 2.3-2. In some cases, the proposed 

1739 revisions simply clarify conditions under which a person may be in or near a treated area during 

1740 the restricted interval.

1741

1742 Table 2.3-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Entry Restrictions.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Entry During Application

During a pesticide application in 

nurseries and greenhouses, the 

employer must not allow or 

direct any persons, except 

trained and equipped handlers,

to enter the entry restricted area

adjacent to the treatment area.

During a pesticide application 

on farms and forests, as well as 

nurseries and greenhouses, the 

employer must not allow or 

direct any persons, except 

trained and equipped handlers, 

to enter the entry restricted area 

adjacent to the treated area

(ENTRY-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Handler must assure pesticide is 

not applied so as to contact any 

worker or other person, other 

than a trained and equipped 

In addition to current 

requirement, handlers must 

cease application if a person 

enters the entry restricted area

No change from current 

requirements
45

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

handler. (ENTRY-02)

Entry During REI

Workers may enter a treated 

area during a REI, if labelrequired protections are 

provided, for

• no contact activities

• short term activities (≤ 1 

hour) not including hand 

labor

• limited contact activities not 

including hand labor (≤ 8 

hours)

• irrigation activities not 

including hand labor (≤ 8 

hours)

• agricultural emergencies 

including hand labor (no time 

limit)

For agricultural emergencies 

where a double notification 

product has been used, entry 

must not exceed 4 hours in a 24 

hour period

(ENTRY-03)

For agricultural emergencies 

where a double notification 

product has been used, entry 

must not exceed 8 hours in a 24 

hour period

(ENTRY-04)

or

Exceptions would no longer be 

allowed

(ENTRY-06)

Cholinesterase Inhibition

No restrictions on handlers No change from current 

requirements

Monitor for cholinesterase 

inhibition and prohibit further 

activity with cholinesteraseinhibiting products if inhibition 

is found

(ENTRY-07)

or

Limit time handling 

cholinesterase-inhibiting 

products to 30 hours in 30 days

(ENTRY-08)

1743

1744 Entry during Application

1745

1746 The current requirements limit contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into 

1747 an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, currently limited to 

1748 nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit 

1749 exposure from drift.

1750

1751 ENTRY-01

1752 The proposed requirement would establish an “entry restricted area” of 25 to 100 feet around the 

1753 area being treated, depending on the method of application, on farms and forestry operations, 

1754 similar to the area already required in nurseries and greenhouses. The size of the restricted area 

1755 is based on the pesticide application method because some methods, such as aerial applications, 

1756 are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in-furrow applications. The entry restricted 

1757 area is limited to property under control of the employer. See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, for details. 
46

1758 This “entry restricted area” would protect workers, other employees, and potentially the public in 

1759 U-Pick operations from pesticide drift. See Chapter 1.

1760

1761 ENTRY-02

1762 The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either

1763 directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 

1764 equipped handler.” The proposed requirement would strengthen this by adding a provision that 

1765 states the handler must “immediately cease or suspend application if any worker or other person, 

1766 other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted 

1767 area.” See Unit XI.A of the NPRM for a complete description of the requirement. The benefit 

1768 of the revision is to clarify the action the handler must take if someone is in the treatment area. 

1769

1770 Together, these proposed options (ENTRY-01 and 02) should result in reduced incidents of 

1771 worker exposure through unintentional contact during application, which is the second-leading 

1772 cause of pesticide incidents according to the analysis of occupational incident data in Calvert 

1773 (2008).

1774

1775 Entry During REI

1776

1777 Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to 

1778 potentially unsafe levels of pesticide residues. Agricultural pesticide labels establish crop1779 specific requirements for the REI – the time after the end of an application during which worker 

1780 entry is restricted – based on the expected level and degradation of residues on treated surfaces 

1781 and the transferability of residues during worker activities. The REI is based on the activity 

1782 resulting in the highest potential exposure given any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can 

1783 be used. For example, if applications are prohibited in the latter part of the season, EPA would 

1784 not be concerned about exposure during harvest. Early entry into the treated area during the REI 

1785 is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical 

1786 for agricultural production. For each of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks 

1787 that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3-2), 

1788 PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the 

1789 workers. However, for “agricultural emergencies,” the WPS does not currently specify the 

1790 length of time an individual worker may be in the treated area.

1791

1792 ENTRY-03

1793 For an agricultural emergency, the proposal would restrict the amount of time workers can spend 

1794 in the treated area when a double notification pesticide has been used. Please see the NPRM, 

1795 Unit XII.D for details. Products require double-notification warnings (both oral and sign 

1796 warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to limit the 

1797 duration of any exposure, which increases the likelihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained 

1798 while the worker is in the field. The four-hour limit is half the allowed time for the irrigation and 

1799 limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits 

1800 hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likely to 

1801 adhere.

1802

1803 ENTRY-04
47

1804 An alternative would also restrict time allowed, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated 

1805 area under an REI in any twenty-four hour period. This option would impose the same time limit 

1806 as the irrigation and limited contact exceptions to the REI, which provides simplicity in the 

1807 requirements. However, given that hand labor is allowed under the agricultural emergency 

1808 exception, a similar time limit would be less protective for workers than the existing time limits 

1809 on other exceptions.

1810

1811 ENTRY-06

1812 EPA also considered eliminating early entry exceptions, as suggested by some advocacy groups. 

1813 This option provides more protection for workers than under the current WPS or proposed 

1814 potential revisions by simply eliminating the potential for exposure. However, except for the 

1815 agricultural emergency exception, the permitted activities generally result in lower levels of 

1816 exposure than the activities upon which the REIs are established (e.g., thinning or hand 

1817 harvesting). Thus, the risks of entry for these purposes, and therefore the benefits of barring 

1818 entry, may be less than they first appear.

1819

1820 Cholinesterase Inhibition

1821

1822 Cholinesterase (ChE) is an enzyme that breaks down the chemical acetylcholine, which transmits 

1823 signals across nerve synapses. When cholinesterase is inhibited overstimulation and exhaustion 

1824 of nerves, muscles, and glands can occur and result in illness. Organophosphate (OP) and 

1825 carbamate pesticides, widely used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE. Agricultural 

1826 handlers who mix, load and apply these pesticides may be at risk of ChE inhibition. 

1827

1828 ENTRY-07

1829 One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as 

1830 is done in Washington State. In that state, handlers working with toxicity category I and II OPs 

1831 and carbamates are monitored for ChE inhibition. When indication of inhibition is found, 

1832 handler exposure to such pesticides is restricted for a period of time. ChE levels can be 

1833 determined through a blood test, but there is no normal range for cholinesterase levels to which 

1834 the test can be compared. Thus, a monitoring program would require an initial sample to 

1835 establish the handler’s own pre-exposure baseline level and potentially multiple follow-up tests 

1836 to measure inhibition. 

1837

1838 The purpose of a monitoring program is to identify handlers who have reached a level of 

1839 exposure that has an observable effect and protect them from further exposure. An ancillary 

1840 benefit, demonstrated by the Washington program, is that it can identify farms and individual 

1841 handlers who may need to alter their practices to reduce exposure in general. A disadvantage of 

1842 such a program is that it may be considered intrusive by the individual handler. In 2007, 

1843 Washington reports that over eight percent of handlers who handled ChE-inhibiting pesticides 

1844 declined to participate in the program; others may have felt obliged to participate by their 

1845 employers.

1846

1847 ENTRY-08

1848 Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE-inhibiting pesticides to 

1849 30 hours in any 30 day period. This requirement would be similar to the approach California 
48

1850 developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE-inhibiting pesticides more 

1851 than the limit. Most employers responded by insuring handlers stayed below the point that 

1852 would trigger monitoring. The benefits of such a requirement arise because cumulative effects 

1853 would be avoided. ChE inhibition is reversible, but repeated exposure before levels have 

1854 returned to normal will result in greater and greater inhibition. However, there is no scientific 

1855 basis for the 30 hour in 30 day limit. Thus, the actual benefits of such a limit are uncertain.

1856

1857 A complete discussion of these options can be found in Unit XVII of the NPRM.

1858

1859 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment

1860

1861 Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addressed with the use of personal 

1862 protective equipment (PPE) to reduce dermal, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide 

1863 labels may require the use of PPE. The WPS establishes generic requirements designed to 

1864 ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used properly and at the appropriate time. This is 

1865 one way WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. Potential revisions 

1866 to the WPS, shown in Table 2.3-3, are evaluated as ways to further improve safety. 

1867

1868 Table 2.3-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Personal Protective 

1869 Equipment

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Handler employer is required to 

confirm respirator fit. 

Require fit test, training and 

medical evaluation conforming 

to OSHA requirements; keep 

records

(PPE-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Employers are exempt from 

certain WPS requirements

regarding employees under the 

supervision of Certified Crop 

Advisors

Eliminate exemption for WPS 

employers

(PPE-02)

and

Eliminate exemption for 

employers of commercial 

advising services

(PPE-03)

No change from current 

requirements

Substitution of closed system for 

PPE while mixing/loading 

pesticides.

Define closed system and 

require records of system 

maintenance.

(PPE-04)

No change from current 

requirements

Contaminated PPE must be 

disposed properly

Contaminated PPE must be 

rendered unwearable and 

disposed properly

(PPE-05)

No change from current 

requirements

1870

1871 PPE-01

1872 The current WPS only requires that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that 

1873 the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly. The proposal would 

1874 establish requirements for annual respirator fit testing, training of the respirator wearer, and 
49

1875 medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator. This revision incorporates OSHA 

1876 requirements that apply to workers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This 

1877 requirement will reduce the potential for exposures that occur from poor fit. The respirator 

1878 training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify 

1879 when filters need replacement. The medical evaluation is a simple questionnaire or interview to 

1880 identify any health problems that might be exacerbated by the use of a respirator, which will help 

1881 handlers determine if they can safely wear the device. For the employer, the revision would also 

1882 clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his or her employee. Finally, as noted with 

1883 similar requirements, the record-keeping provision helps to verify compliance.

1884

1885 PPE-02/03

1886 The WPS exempts the agricultural employer from complying with some requirements, including 

1887 provision of label-required PPE, for employees who are certified crop advisors (CCA) and 

1888 employees working under the supervision of a CCA. This exemption is also extended to 

1889 commercial crop advisory services, including employees working under the supervision of 

1890 CCAs. The proposed revisions eliminate those exemptions for WPS employees (PPE-02) and 

1891 commercial service employees (PPE-03) working under the supervision of CCAs. See Unit 

1892 XVIII.B of the NPRM. The benefit of this revision is to protect employees who may not be fully 

1893 trained and may be unable to make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk, even with 

1894 instruction from a CCA.

1895

1896 PPE-04

1897 Under the current regulations, a closed mixing and loading system may be substituted for label1898 required PPE. A closed system, under the current rule, is simply defined as “a properly 

1899 functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other 

1900 persons.” This definition lacks specificity.

1901

1902 If a health hazard cannot be removed from the workplace, there are three categories of methods 

1903 to control the hazards according to industrial hygienists: engineering controls, administrative 

1904 controls, and personal protective equipment. Engineering controls should be the first line of 

1905 defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Closed systems are considered an engineering control 

1906 method. They are designed to prevent human exposure and do not require human intervention to 

1907 eliminate exposure. Closed systems reduce the human decision-making element from the 

1908 process so mistakes are not as likely. In contrast, PPE is subject to human error: it may be worn 

1909 incorrectly or removed if it becomes uncomfortable, e.g., in hot weather. Additionally, PPE only 

1910 protects the wearer; other persons in the area may still be exposed. However, the substitution of 

1911 a closed system for PPE is only desirable if the closed system is designed and maintained well.

1912

1913 The proposed revision helps to ensure these benefits by establishing a clear definition of the 

1914 requirements that constitute a closed system, which is currently lacking. The lack of clear 

1915 standards means that some closed systems are inadequate and provide less protection than use of 

1916 PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI.B. Record keeping of system maintenance 

1917 would help to verify compliance with standards. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of the changes are 

1918 handlers, including self-employed handlers (family farmers and commercial applicators) who 

1919 will be assured that the closed system provides protection to minimize exposure. 

1920
50

1921 PPE-05

1922 Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properly. A proposed revision to the WPS 

1923 would clarify that contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearable as part of proper disposal. 

1924 That is, if items like gloves or overalls must be discarded due to contamination with a pesticide, 

1925 but are otherwise intact, the agricultural employer must ensure that the items cannot be used 

1926 again, e.g., by cutting them. This will prevent other employees, family members, or anyone who 

1927 might find them from inadvertently using them and being exposed to the residues.

1928

1929 2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

1930

1931 EPA is considering regulatory options to improve emergency assistance for workers and handlers 

1932 who may have been made ill from exposure to pesticides. Most of these proposals clarify the 

1933 requirements for the provision of decontamination supplies and of emergency medical response 

1934 in case of exposure.

1935

1936 2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options

1937

1938 The current WPS requirement establishes that soap, “enough” water, and towels be made 

1939 available for routine washing and emergency eye flushing for workers. The term “enough,” 

1940 however, is not defined in the WPS, although EPA has subsequently provided guidance (EPA, 

1941 2006). Table 2.4-2 presents the options EPA considered for requirements to clarify the quantity 

1942 of water that must be available to mitigate exposures to workers and handlers.

1943

1944 Table 2.4-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Decontamination 

1945 Supplies.

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

Provide “enough” (1 gallon) water 

per worker for routine washing and 

emergency eye flushing

Provide 1 gallon of water per 

worker for routine washing 

and emergency eye flushing.

(SUPPLY-01)

No change from current 

requirements

Provide “sufficient” water (1 gallon) 

per early entry worker for thorough 

washing; provide 1 pint water for eye 

flushing as required

Provide 3 gallons of water per 

early entry worker for 

thorough washing; provide 1 

pint water for eye flushing as 

required

(SUPPLY-02)

No change from current 

requirements
51

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement 

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

Provide “enough” decontamination 

water per handler

Three gallons per handler for 

routine hand washing, 

emergency eye flushing, and 

washing entire body in case 

of emergency.

(SUPPLY-03)

Showers required at 

permanent mix/load sites

(SUPPLY-04)

All permanent mix/load sites 

require sufficient running 

water to flush eyes for 15 

minutes at 1.5 L/min. 

whenever a product requiring 

handler eye protection is 

being used

(SUPPLY-05)

Portable eye wash stations 

required at all mix/load sites

(SUPPLY-06)

1946

1947 Decontamination Supplies for Workers 

1948

1949 The current WPS regulations require that workers have access to water, soap, and single-use 

1950 towels for washing when a pesticide covered by the regulation has been used or an REI has been 

1951 in effect in the last 30 days and workers may contact anything that has been treated with the 

1952 pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining “enough” water to be one gallon per worker.

1953

1954 SUPPLY-01

1955 The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide one gallon of water per 

1956 worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. This codifies existing guidance and the 

1957 benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement 

1958 agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details.

1959

1960 SUPPLY-02

1961 The proposed revision would specify that employers must provide three gallons of water per 

1962 worker engaged in any early entry activity, i.e., in a field under a REI. See the NPRM, Unit 

1963 XII.C, for all requirements. This provision provides regulatory clarity, but it also increases the 

1964 amount of water available for thorough washing comparable to the requirement for handlers. 

1965 More water available for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential for 

1966 exposure and for higher levels of exposure than in routine activities.

1967

1968 Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

1969

1970 The current WPS regulations require that handlers have access to water, soap, and single-use 

1971 towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. EPA has issued guidance defining 

1972 “enough” water to be three gallons per handler. Current regulations also require that handlers 

1973 carry one pint of water for emergency eyewash when the label requires protective eyewear. 

1974 Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity.

1975
52

1976 SUPPLY-03

1977 This revision would specify that the employer must provide three gallons per handler for routine 

1978 washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. See Unit 

1979 XIV.A of the NPRM for all required decontamination supplies. As with SUPPLY-01, this 

1980 codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity 

1981 for employers and enforcement agencies.

1982

1983 SUPPLY-04

1984 An alternative is to require that showers be available for handlers. Showers could provide 

1985 substantial benefits, given that handlers may be mixing and loading large quantities of pesticides, 

1986 including concentrated solutions. Secondary benefits would be the availability of showers that 

1987 could be used on a routine basis by both handlers and workers to reduce residues that they might 

1988 otherwise transport home. These secondary benefits may be quite small, however, as discussions 

1989 with field personnel suggest that very few employees would avail themselves of shower facilities 

1990 on a routine basis. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.D, for more information.

1991

1992 SUPPLY-05

1993 This proposed potential requirement would specify that permanent mixing and loading sites be 

1994 supplied with sufficient running water to flush eyes for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute. 

1995 This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required

1996 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-1990. See Unit XIV.C of the 

1997 NPRM for a complete description of the proposal. The requirement is intended to provide 

1998 handlers with water to immediately flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides. 

1999 Handlers face a risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute, and load them 

2000 prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient.

2001

2002 SUPPLY-06

2003 A similar requirement would require portable eyewash stations at all mixing/loading sites, not 

2004 just the permanent sites. The benefits of this option would be somewhat higher than for 

2005 SUPPLY-05 since it would cover sites other than those permanently dedicated for mixing 

2006 pesticides. However, reports from state authorities indicate that the stations can be difficult to 

2007 maintain and keep clean. Bacteria may become problematic. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a 

2008 complete discussion.

2009

2010 2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response

2011

2012 Table 2.4-1 presents the options EPA considered for emergency response. These are explained 

2013 more fully in Unit XV.E of the NPRM. Current regulations require that transportation to an 

2014 emergency medical facility and the provision of information about the pesticide for medical 

2015 personnel must be “prompt,” but the regulations do not define “prompt.” 

2016
53

2017 Table 2.4-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Emergency Response 

2018 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)

2019

2020 EMERG-01/03

2021 EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided 

2022 within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG-01) or pesticide 

2023 handlers (EMERG-03). Without a formal definition of “prompt” it is difficult for agricultural 

2024 employers and inspectors to be sure of compliance. Clarification of the term “prompt” is 

2025 intended to ensure that workers and handlers receive transport for medical treatment for an 

2026 emergency that may be related to pesticide exposure in a timely manner. 

2027

2028 In addition to transportation, the proposal also clarifies the time for which pesticide information 

2029 such as the label and SDS are provided to the injured person or health care providers, who may 

2030 need this information to determine proper treatment. This is valuable because providing medical 

2031 personnel with information about the pesticide symptoms and their treatment in a timely manner 

2032 is critical in reducing the adverse effects of exposures.

2033

2034 EMERG-02/04

2035 The alternative considered was to define “prompt” as 60 minutes. In terms of clarifying the 

2036 regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would 

2037 clearly provide less benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is 

2038 provided within 30 minutes.

2039

2040 This chapter presented the proposed revisions to the WPS and key alternatives considered by the 

2041 Agency. It described the benefits anticipated from the revisions, which are generally the 

2042 provision of more and better information at appropriate times and places, of improved protection 

2043 by reducing potential exposure for high-risk situations, and of more rapid and complete 

2044 mitigation of exposures if they occur. Ultimately, these changes will lead to fewer acute 

2045 incidents and, more generally, to lower levels of pesticide exposure over time.

2046
54

2047 The next chapter estimates the cost of the potential requirements and Chapter 4 provides a 

2048 discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives.

2049
55

2050 Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options

2051

2052 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the incremental cost of potential changes to the worker 

2053 protection standards that the Agency considered. The incremental cost is defined as the 

2054 difference between the cost of complying with the potential requirement and the cost of 

2055 complying with the current requirement. These costs, together with the benefits of the potential 

2056 requirements as discussed in Chapter 2, help to inform EPA’s selection of requirements that are 

2057 being proposed. The relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements are discussed in 

2058 Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then estimates the incremental cost of all the proposed requirements, 

2059 considering how they may interact, and Chapter 6 presents the benefits of the proposed revisions 

2060 in terms of the ultimate outcome on human health and the environment.

2061

2062 These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and 

2063 the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. 

2064 We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is 

2065 great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pesticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, 

2066 therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on 

2067 conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made 

2068 regarding the average or typical, in practice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably 

2069 more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms. EPA 

2070 has also tended to assume that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and will be 

2071 in full compliance with the proposed regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities 

2072 conduct inspections of farms and find violations. However, inspections are not conducted 

2073 randomly across all potentially regulated establishments; many inspections are the result of 

2074 specific complaints. As a result, the information on violations does not provide meaningful 

2075 information on compliance rates.

2076

2077 As a result of these assumptions, the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall 

2078 regulatory burden of the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, 

2079 because many of the assumptions apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, they may

2080 have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost or lead to an overestimate of incremental 

2081 cost. Where feasible, we have examined the effect of alternative assumptions.

2082

2083 3.1 Overview

2084

2085 As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the potential revisions to the Worker Protection 

2086 Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and 

2087 commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). For simplicity, we use the term “WPS 

2088 farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that are subject to the WPS. Forestry 

2089 operations are not analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use 

2090 patterns in forestry operations will not typically trigger most WPS provisions such as training 

2091 and notification. Generally speaking, the revisions would require owners/operators of these 

2092 establishments to devote resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated 

2093 with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure. EPA 

2094 estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the value of the time and materials expended 

2095 to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not direct out-of-pocket expenses.
56

2096

2097 In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate 

2098 their time or make expenditures. Some activities or expenditures are conducted by the 

2099 management of the WPS farm or CPHE. The nature of these activities may vary by certain 

2100 characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other 

2101 activities require time from employees, who are divided into two groups: workers and handlers. 

2102 Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an 

2103 agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products. 

2104 Hand labor activities include such tasks as harvesting, weeding, thinning, trimming, and girdling. 

2105 Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g., to mix, load, and/or apply 

2106 pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are 

2107 typically workers as well, as they will often engage in production activities that do not entail 

2108 handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule 

2109 depends on the nature of the activity in which they are engaged at a specific point in time.

2110

2111 Federal requirements apply nationally, but states may enact additional measures. Thus, when 

2112 considering the impact of new federal standards, EPA must take into account existing state 

2113 measures. Section 3.2 explains the approach taken for estimating the state-level baseline against 

2114 which to measure the impact of potential requirements. Section 3.3 presents the estimation of 

2115 cost for all the potential requirements that EPA considered, as explained in Chapter 2. This 

2116 chapter estimates the costs of individual components and alternatives. Chapter 5 estimates the 

2117 cost of the proposed rule as well as analyzes potential impacts on employment and on small 

2118 businesses.

2119

2120 3.2. Regional Groupings

2121

2122 To estimate the impact to the affected industries of the proposed regulatory enhancements to the 

2123 WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum 

2124 standards, but states, as well as other jurisdictions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, 

2125 could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory 

2126 baseline is based on the current state, tribal and territory requirements rather than the federal 

2127 requirements. To reduce the analytical complexity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine 

2128 regions of the country.

2129

2130 Table 3.2-1 shows the regions and the states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well 

2131 as the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic 

2132 location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas. For example, the South 

2133 region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this 

2134 region and the agricultural production found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 

2135 accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, 

2136 Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 

2137 represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e., extensive 

2138 livestock production, rather than geographical continuity. EPA also considered similarities in 

2139 worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed 

2140 together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted 

2141 by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 
57

2142 warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production. 

2143 California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the 

2144 state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and 

2145 other states’ requirements.

2146

2147 Table 3.2-1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups.

Region Representative State Other Jurisdictions

South Arkansas Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Virginia

California California none

Southwest Colorado Arizona and New Mexico and the 

Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 

Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes 

and the Three Affiliated Tribes

Subtropical Florida Hawaii

Midwest Iowa Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota

Northeast New York Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Vermont, and West 

Virginia, plus Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands

Ohio Valley Ohio Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin

Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and 

Wyoming

Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe

2148

2149 Table 3.2-1 also lists a few non-state jurisdictions that are included in certain regions, including 

2150 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several tribal entities. These jurisdictions were assigned to a 

2151 region according to which of EPA’s regional offices they belong. Not all jurisdictions are 

2152 included in this analysis because data on farms and pesticide use are not available. This implies 

2153 some undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate of the incremental costs, but the 

2154 effect will be negligible since the jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, have tiny 

2155 agricultural sectors relative to those in the states.

2156

2157 EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to 

2158 establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 

2159 applied to all states within the region. In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be 

2160 as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 

2161 there is no reason to think that the variation in the national-level estimates of cost are greater 

2162 than the variation in regional-level estimates.
58

2163

2164 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements

2165

2166 The purpose of this section of the cost analysis is to evaluate the expected impacts of potential 

2167 worker protection standards at the national level and at the employer level. EPA also estimates 

2168 the potential costs across various regions of the United States, as described in Section 3.2. This 

2169 information is used to evaluate the individual regulatory options and develop a proposed suite of 

2170 regulatory changes, as explained in Chapter 4. The cost of those proposed requirements, as a 

2171 whole, is estimated in Chapter 5.

2172

2173 EPA identified a number of areas where worker protections could be improved to address the 

2174 problems discussed in Chapter 1 and within these areas considered different requirement options, 

2175 as detailed in Chapter 2. In this section, EPA presents the estimated cost of all the potential 

2176 requirements, which is then used to help inform the decision of which requirements to propose. 

2177 Section 3.3.1 details the methodology EPA follows to estimate or characterize the incremental 

2178 cost of potential requirements. Section 3.3.2 presents some of the key data used throughout the 

2179 analyses of individual requirements. Section 3.3.3 estimates the cost of potential requirements 

2180 associated with worker and handler training category, including a detailed presentation of an 

2181 example of the approach. Subsequent sections present the estimated costs of potential revisions 

2182 to the WPS concerning hazard communications (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements 

2183 (Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry restrictions (3.3.7), PPE requirements (3.3.8), 

2184 supply requirements for decontamination (3.3.9), and emergency response standards (3.3.10).

2185

2186 3.3.1 General Methodology

2187

2188 In general, potential requirements may impose costs at both the level of the employer or 

2189 establishment and at the level of the employee. That is, there are some activities and/or materials 

2190 that must be conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of 

2191 employees; these costs are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities 

2192 and/or materials may be conducted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the 

2193 number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate 

2194 the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate 

2195 those costs to the regional level, given the number of actors (establishments or employees). 

2196 There are six basic steps.

2197

2198 Step 1. Calculate the state/regional level baseline cost of existing regulatory requirement:

2199

2200

where costr,i,a

B 2201 t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r, in region i, for an actor, 

a, in time t; Hr,i,a,j

B 2202 t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; wa

2203 is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; Probt(j|i) is the 

probability of activity j in time t given the region; Mr,i,a,m

P 2204 t is the quantity of material m needed 

2205 in time t under the requirement; cm is the cost of material; and Probt (m|i) is the probability of 
59

2206 material m being required in time t given the region. An actor may be an establishment, 

2207 primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g., a pesticide handler or agricultural 

2208 worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups within an actor category, e.g., 

2209 farms according to the size of the operation. Activities conducted by the establishment include 

2210 posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each employee include attending 

2211 training and obtaining written material from the employer, that is, activities for which an 

2212 establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that activity. The probability 

2213 weighting indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake the activity in some year. 

2214 For example, if training is required biennially, any given employee would have about a 50 

2215 percent chance of taking a training.

2216

2217 Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per actor of each potential regulatory requirement: 

2218

2219

2220 where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 

2221 simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i, denoting a state or region. State requirements 

2222 can exceed federal requirements, however and if current state requirements exceed the potential 

federal requirements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we restrict Hr,i,,a,j

B ≤ Hr,a,jP 2223

and Mr,i,,a,m

B ≤ Mr,a,mP 2224 ; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously imply a cost savings.

2225

2226 Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and potential new requirements by 

2227 multiplying per-actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across 

2228 actors.

2229

2230

2231

where RCr,i

X 2232 denotes the cost of requirement r to region i of the regional baseline, B, and the 

2233 potential new requirement, P; and Na,i is the number of affected actors in a region. Note that the 

2234 number of affected actors, e.g., the number of pesticide handlers in a given region, may not be 

2235 known and has to be estimated. This is explained in the section on general data (Section 3.3.2). 

2236

2237 We can also estimate the national level costs by summing across regions.

2238

2239
60

Step 4. Estimate the present value of the cost stream1 2240 . To better compare the impacts across the 

2241 various potential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, EPA calculates the present 

2242 value (PV) of regional costs over a ten-year time horizon.

2243

2244

2245 where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. The time horizon is 

2246 not particularly important as most of the per-actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur 

2247 annually. However, a few potential requirements require some capital investments and ten years 

2248 was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might 

2249 financially amortize such expenditures. Further, the number of actors is changing over time, 

2250 with the number of farms and farm workers declining and the number of CPHEs increasing; rates 

2251 of change were calculated using three successive Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 

2252 2008b) spanning a ten-year period. This is explained more fully in Section 3.3.2. We utilize a 

2253 discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent, to 

2254 represent the private discount rate as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 

2255 2003).

2256

2257 Again, the present value of national level costs is estimated as the sum of the regional costs.

2258

2259 Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement in each region by subtracting 

2260 the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement.

2261

2262

2263 Where PV(RICr,i) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i. 

2264 The PV of national incremental cost, PV(NICr), is calculated the same way.

2265

2266 Step 6. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized 

2267 figure represents the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present 

2268 value as a variable cost stream.

2269

2270

2271 where AICr is the annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time 

2272 horizon, i.e., ten years; and all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annualized 

2273 incremental cost by the number of impacted entities provides a simple measure of the costs per 

2274 establishment, which is helpful information to weigh the costs and benefits of a potential 

2275 requirement. A more detailed examination of impacts on small entities is presented in Chapter 5, 

2276 considering the costs of all proposed requirements.

2277

 1 Present value is a measure of all future costs, translated into the equivalent value if paid or received immediately.
61

2278 A few of the potential requirements require some deviation from this general methodology. This 

2279 will be explained in the following sections as we present the results. The next section discusses 

2280 the data that are commonly used throughout the analysis. Data that are specific to individual 

2281 requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential requirement.

2282

2283 3.3.2 General Data

2284

2285 For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to 

2286 meet current and potential requirements and the probability or frequency with which they will be 

2287 needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each potential 

2288 requirement. The other component of the per-actor costs are the prices associated with time and 

2289 material. The wage rates for the various actors are used frequently in the analysis and are 

2290 discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional and national (Step 3) requires data on the number 

2291 of actors in each category, which includes the establishment meeting the requirement or the 

2292 employees to which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time 

2293 (Step 4), we need to take into account changes in costs and the agricultural sector. Most of the 

2294 time and materials needed to comply with current and potential requirements reoccur on an 

2295 annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, as farms 

2296 consolidate and mechanize and as farms increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. 

2297 In this section, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the establishments and 

2298 employees, including both numbers and wages, and changes in each over time.

2299

2300 Establishments, Farms

2301

2302 According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, 

2303 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department 

2304 of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of 

2305 data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify the number of these operations that use 

2306 pesticides and hire labor. Farms that both use pesticides and hire labor may be covered by the 

2307 WPS requirements. However, the WPS applies only to those pesticides used in the commercial 

2308 or research production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. 

2309 Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not 

2310 covered by the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock 

2311 production. There are about 512,000 livestock operations that also have crop production, 

2312 however, that are included in this analysis. Table 3.3-1 presents the number of farms where 

2313 crops are raised, including ranches that produce crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their 

2314 distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis. According to the tabulation, 

2315 304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hired labor and used pesticides in 2007. However, 

2316 pesticides are not necessarily used every year. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, 

2317 and greenhouses hiring labor (394,658) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS 

2318 requirements; these operations will be referred to as “WPS farms.” This may be a slight 

2319 overestimation due to the presence of organic growers. However, many organic producers also 

2320 have conventionally grown fields and organic-approved pesticides, while generally considered 

2321 less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements. 

2322
62

2323 There is likely to be substantial overestimation of the number of affected farms, however, 

2324 because the WPS applies only when workers are engaged in hand labor activities or if handlers 

2325 are working with pesticides used for crop production. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in 

2326 the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries and greenhouses. The 2007 Census 

2327 of Agriculture identifies 73,550 WPS farms in these categories, based on the primary source of 

2328 revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in diverse types of production so many other farms might 

2329 produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highly mechanized like the production of 

2330 oilseeds and/or grains. Moreover, pesticide handlers may be employed on any category of farm, 

2331 so this analysis includes all farms with crop production.

2332

2333 Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the 

2334 definition of handler includes any self-employed person who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. 

2335 However, these farms will generally not be affected by the proposed revisions because there is an 

2336 exemption from WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her immediate 

2337 family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some 

2338 exemptions to pesticide label requirements, e.g., entry into treated fields during a REI during an 

2339 agricultural emergency. Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect 

2340 all farms applying pesticides.

2341

Table 3.3-1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms1 2342 .

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

2343 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b)

1 2344 Farms include nurseries and greenhouses as well as livestock operations that also produce crops.

2345

2346 The tabulation for farms using pesticides and farms hiring labor is at the national level only. 

2347 EPA assumes that farms hiring labor and using pesticides are distributed throughout the country 

2348 in the same proportion as all crop farms. Thus, while the national figures are well-defined, the 

2349 regional numbers are less precise.

2350

2351 Table 3.3-2 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on 

2352 the impacts of many of the requirements. For example, smaller farms are less likely to employ a 

2353 pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a 

2354 commercial applicator. The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater 

2355 than $750,000, and the small farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small 
63

2356 Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013). EPA further subdivides the small farm 

2357 category into three groups: small-small farms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, 

2358 medium-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small 

2359 farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 

2360 which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million. 

2361 Subdivisions of small feedlots are small-small, with annual gross revenue less than $50,000; 

2362 medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large-small, with 

2363 annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million. These distinctions correlate to the 

2364 number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also 

2365 correlate to pesticide use. Around 90 percent of large and large-small WPS farms used 

2366 pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did. Seventy-four percent of 

2367 medium-small farms used pesticides.

2368

2369 Table 3.3-2. Number of WPS Establishments, by size category, and CPHEs.

Region WPS 

Farms

SmallSmall 1MediumSmall 2LargeSmall 3Large 4

South 58,804 11,906 18,062 20,746 8,089

California 24,469 4,954 7,516 8,633 3,366

Southwest 12,629 2,557 3,879 4,456 1,737

Subtropical 9,866 1,998 3,031 3,481 1,357

Midwest 85,641 17,340 26,305 30,214 11,781

Northeast 40,650 8,231 12,486 14,341 5,592

Ohio Valley 91,166 18,459 28,003 32,164 12,541

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 9,829 14,910 17,126 6,678

Northwest 22,890 4,635 7,031 8,076 3,149

U.S. 394,658 79,909 121,223 139,237 54,289

2370 Source: Special tabulation from 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Establishments distributed 

2371 across regions according to distribution of all crop farms.

1 2372 Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and feedlots with annual revenue less than $50,000. 2 2373 Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annual 

2374 revenue between $50,000 and $500,000. 3 2375 Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue between 

2376 $500,000 and $2.5 million. 4 2377 Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 

2378 million.

2379

2380 Establishments, Commercial Pesticide Handlers

2381

2382 In order to identify the number of CPHEs, EPA searched the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) 

2383 database of companies and identified firms under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

2384 code descriptions for crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting 

2385 services, soil chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting). 

2386 Within these categories, there were 1,231 firms that reported hiring at least one employee.

2387

2388 Numbers are not available for firms making aerial applications. Based on conversations with the 

2389 National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008), EPA estimates that there are 3,200 
64

2390 commercial aerial applicators nationwide. Assuming an average of two pilots per firm, we 

2391 estimate that there are 1,600 aerial application establishments. Given the proportion from Dun & 

2392 Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at 

2393 least one employee.

2394

2395 Adding the estimate of aerial applicators to the number of firms identified in Dun & Bradstreet 

2396 for other pest control firms results in a total of 2,793 CPHEs with employees. These firms are 

2397 distributed across the regions in the same proportion as total farms. See Table 3.3-3. This 

2398 assumption seems reasonable considering that the CPHEs would largely be servicing the farm 

2399 sector.

2400

2401 EPA also considered the number of commercial applicators. In 2007, the year corresponding to 

2402 the NASS data, there were 89,529 commercial applicators certified in the Agricultural Plant 

2403 Production category. Given data on employees from Dun & Bradstreet and by the NAAA, we 

2404 estimate those establishments to account for 19,873 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At 

2405 the extreme, all these commercial applicators could be self-employed. More likely, many are 

2406 part of small operations not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one-fourth of 

2407 these applicators are self-employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an 

2408 average of 2.5 commercial applicators, including the owner of the establishment. As shown in 

2409 Table 3.3-3, this implies that there are 17,414 self-employed commercial applicators and 20,897 

2410 CPHEs with two or three applicators. These two categories are distributed across the regions 

2411 based on the number of commercial applicators certified in each state (CPARD, 2007).

2412

2413 Table 3.3-3. Estimated number of CPHEs, by region.

Region CPHE

multiple employees

CPHE

few employees

CPHE

self-employed

South 416 918 765

California 173 1,049 874

Southwest 89 662 552

Subtropical 70 120 110

Midwest 606 8,355 6,963

Northeast 288 3,386 2,822

Ohio Valley 645 2,404 2,003

Texas/Mountain West 344 889 741

Northwest 162 3,113 2,594

U.S. 2,793 20,897 17,414

2414 Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (2010); NAAA (2008); CPARD (2007).

2415

2416 Establishments, Wage Rates

2417

2418 The value of the owner/operator’s time is important in the estimation of the cost of most 

2419 requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007c), managerial wages for 

2420 farm establishments are $19.75 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of 

2421 benefits received, such as insurance. BLS reports that wages and salaries comprise 70 percent of 

2422 total compensation for management in the civilian labor force (BLS, 2010). We, therefore, use a 

2423 loaded wage rate of $28.21 per hour as the full value of time. For commercial pesticide handling 
65

2424 establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers 

2425 (since employers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series 

2426 for the NAICS-specific value (115100 - “Support Activities for Crop Production”) for SOC code 

2427 37-1012 (“First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers”) (BLS, 

2428 2007c). Using the same rate for benefits as for farm establishments, the loaded wage rate for this 

2429 category is $30.30 per hour.

2430

2431 Employees, Farmworkers

2432

2433 Table 3.3-4 presents the number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops

2434 and the share of workers in each region. As we are including all farms that hire labor in the 

2435 category of farms covered by the WPS, we implicitly assume that all labor is covered, over 2.3 

2436 million people. The WPS only covers farmworkers engaged in hand labor activities, so this is 

2437 likely an overestimate of affected labor. Over 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and 

2438 vegetable farms and nurseries and greenhouses, however, so any overestimation is less than that 

2439 in the number of affected farms. Table 3.3-4 also presents the number of employees on farms 

2440 according to their size designation under the SBA. While about 77 percent of farms that hire 

2441 labor use pesticides, 87 percent of labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the 

2442 crop farms, the number of workers at the national level is from a special tabulation by NASS 

2443 from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Regional numbers for labor on farms by 

2444 size are estimated by distributing the total number of employees in the same proportion as all 

2445 farm workers.

2446

2447 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

2448 Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b)

1 2449 Large farms are those with annual revenue greater than $750,000 or feedlots with annual revenue 

2450 greater than $2.5 million, small farms are those with annual revenue of $750,000 or less or feedlots 

2451 with annual revenue of $2.5 million or less.

2452

2453 Employees, Pesticide Handlers

2454
66

2455 The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms unknown. EPA assumes that, on average, large 

2456 WPS farms employ two individuals who handle pesticides and large-small WPS farms employ 

2457 one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smallest categories of WPS farms, EPA 

2458 assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. The distribution of handlers, therefore, 

2459 is equivalent to farms, as in Table 3.3-1, not to workers as in Table 3.3-4. Pesticide handlers 

2460 represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct group. It is unlikely that an on-farm handler 

2461 would be occupied full time with pesticide handling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform 

2462 other production-related tasks.

2463

2464 Table 3.3-5 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, and the number 

2465 of handlers employed at CPHEs, given the same assumptions underlying Table 3.3-4. All WPS 

2466 farms are likely to use commercial applicators for some applications.

2467

2468 Table 3.3-5. WPS Agricultural Workers and Handlers and CPHE handlers.

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1

Handlers

CPHEs 2, 

multiple 

employees

Handlers

CPHEs,

few employees

Handlers

CPHEs,

self-employed

South 36,924 2,961 2,296 765

California 15,365 1,232 2,623 874

Southwest 7,930 636 1,656 552

Subtropical 6,195 497 299 100

Midwest 53,776 4,312 20,889 6,963

Northeast 25,525 2,047 8,465 2,822

Ohio Valley 57,245 4,591 6,009 2,003

Texas/Mountain 

West 30,481 2,444 2,223 741

Northwest 14,373 1,153 7,782 2,594

U.S. 247,815 19,873 52,242 17,414

2469 Source: NASS (2008b); D&B (2010); NAAA (2008), EPA estimates.

1 2470 Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS 

2471 establishment and one handler per large-small WPS establishment, not including the employer. 

2472 Handlers are a subset of workers, not an additional category.

2 2473 Number of handlers includes employer. Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all 

2474 farms.

3 2475 Number of handlers includes employer. Distribution across regions follows number of state 

2476 commercial applicator certifications for Agricultural Plant Production.

2477

2478 Employees, Wages

2479

2480 Data from the May 2007 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 

2481 Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers 

2482 employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (BLS, 2007c). The number of 

2483 handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (17,080 in total) is 

2484 estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45-2091(Agricultural Equipment 

2485 Operators) or 37-3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation) that work for 
67

2486 a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production). Regional numbers are 

2487 estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3-1.

2488

2489 The average wage rate for U.S. field workers reported in the November 2007 NASS Farm Labor 

2490 Report (NASS, 2007) is $9.40 per hour. The BLS (2010) reports that, for all civilian workers, 

2491 wages represent slightly more than 69.5 percent of total compensation, while for workers in the 

2492 Natural Resource, Construction, and Maintenance category, wages are around 67.5 percent of 

2493 total compensation. An agricultural category is not available. For nonunion workers, which may 

2494 better represent farm labor, wages are about 72 percent of total compensation. Given the 

2495 available information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this 

2496 analysis, resulting in a loaded wage rate for workers of $13.43 per hour. Since the revisions to 

2497 the WPS are not expected to influence wages or benefits, the choice of loading factor is not 

2498 critical to estimating the incremental costs of the requirements.

2499

2500 Handlers represent a more skilled set of workers, but we lack data on wage differentials. Instead, 

2501 EPA estimated the wage rate for handlers as the simple average of the agricultural worker and 

2502 the owner/operator of enterprise, obtaining a loaded wage rate of $20.83. An unloaded wage rate 

2503 of $14.07 per hour is reported for commercial pesticide handling establishment handlers (BLS, 

2504 2008). The loaded wage rate for handlers of commercial pesticide handling establishments, 

2505 therefore, is $20.10 per hour. We note that the two wage rates are similar, which lends support 

2506 for the estimated wage rate for on-farm handlers.

2507

2508 Future time periods

2509

2510 To project costs into the future, EPA must take into consideration any changes over time. EPA 

2511 calculates the present value (PV) of regional baseline and new regulatory costs as shown in Step 

2512 4 above. Thus, the calculation is:

2513

2514

2515 where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as defined as above. Some indices are 

2516 suppressed for clarity.

2517

2518 In general, the per-actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However, 

2519 the number of actors is changing as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, 

2520 and as growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. Changes in the number of 

2521 actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where ga represents the 

2522 annual percentage change in the number of actors. That is,

2523

2524

2525 As a result, we can rearrange the equation for PV into components for each actor.

2526
68

2527

2528 That is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that 

2529 combines the effect of the growth or decline in numbers with the effect of the discount rate, 

2530 which can then be summed across actors. Thus, in lieu of estimating regional costs in every year 

2531 of the time horizon, we can often calculate the present value as the initial cost multiplied by 

2532 some factor that combines the growth rates of the actors with the discount rate.

2533

2534 Based on numbers reported in the Agricultural Censuses of 1997, 2002, and 2007 (NASS, 1999, 

2535 2004, and 2008b), EPA estimates the decline in farm numbers to be 0.47% annually and the 

2536 decline in farm workers to be 2.14% per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the ten2537 year sum of the combined effects is a multiplier of 8.61 for WPS farms and 8.03 for workers. 

2538 The WPS farm factor is applied to farm handlers as well. These factors are in contrast to a ten2539 year sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3-6. Annual data on the number of 

2540 farms and quarterly data on farm labor (NASS, 2013) indicate that the number of farms is quite 

2541 steady and that the annual decline in farms workers is less than one percent. The difference in 

2542 estimated costs is negligible, however, and does not influence the relative cost and benefits of the 

2543 options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered 

2544 in a sensitivity analysis for the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5.

2545

2546 Table 3.3-6 Multipliers for calculating NPV.

Actor ga r = 3% r = 7%

WPS Farms - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Handlers - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Workers - 2.14% 8.03 6.91

CPHEs 4.27% 10.57 8.93

CPHE handlers 0.17% 8.85 7.57

Commercial Applicators 3.06% 10.03 8.50

Discount alone 0% 8.79 7.52

2547 Source: EPA calculations.

2548

2549 For CPHEs with multiple employees, the growth rate is calculated using the U.S. Census 

2550 Bureau’s 2006 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (Census Bureau, 2006). Within these statistics, EPA 

2551 utilizes the NAICS code of 115112 (Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating) as 

2552 representatives of these establishments and calculates the rate based on the number of 

2553 establishments from 1998 to 2006. The number of CPHEs is estimated to be growing at a rate of 

2554 4.27 percent per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the combined effect over 10 years 

2555 is a multiplier of 10.57. Reliance on the past rate of growth, which has been high, may overstate 

2556 the future growth of commercial pesticide services. If the future rate of growth is more 

2557 moderate, the multiplier would be lower.

2558

2559 For handlers employed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from 

2560 employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment 

2561 Statistic’s National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from May 
69

2562 2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop 

2563 Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45-2091 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37-

2564 3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation). Handler numbers are growing 

2565 at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent 

2566 discount rate.

2567

2568 The growth rate of commercial applicators was calculated (based on CPARD 2007 data) to be 

2569 3.06 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 10.03 for a three percent discount rate. This 

2570 growth rate applies to CPHEs with few employees and their handlers as well as to self-employed 

2571 commercial handlers.

2572

2573 This completes the discussion of the general data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the 

2574 data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 

2575 requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with 

2576 training, followed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response 

2577 and decontamination supplies.

2578

2579 3.3.3 Training

2580

2581 Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training, potentially 

2582 hiring trainers, and incurring the opportunity cost of labor during the time workers and handlers 

2583 are receiving the training. Commercial pesticide applicator firms bear costs for handler training.

2584

2585 We assume that all farms hiring labor conduct training sessions even if over the course of the 

2586 production season they find they do not need to make pesticide applications. Otherwise, any 

2587 untrained employees, especially handlers, would have to be trained prior to an application, which 

2588 could delay treatment. Alternatively, the pesticide application could be made and untrained 

2589 employees would not be allowed to work in and around treated areas until they receive training, 

2590 which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into 

2591 compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other farm activities, WPS farms 

2592 may find it more cost-effective to forego training until a pesticide application is needed. Thus, as 

2593 a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimates the incremental cost of potential training requirements 

2594 if only those WPS farms using pesticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hypothesizes 

2595 that WPS farms find it cost-effective to forego training under the current regulatory environment, 

2596 but will not under potential regulations. For example, currently, if the owner/operator is a 

2597 certified applicator, he or she may lead worker training sessions, which would facilitate the rapid 

2598 provision of training as needed. A potential requirement, however, would raise the qualifications 

2599 needed to lead a training, which might make it more difficult to organize an immediate training. 

2600 Thus, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate the incremental cost of potential 

2601 requirements if training occurs as needed in the baseline but will occur regardless of pesticide 

2602 use under the revisions. We also assume that all employees receive training, which likely leads 

2603 to an overestimate of costs. Some employees, especially on farms with a primary focus of 

2604 livestock production, will probably not engage in fieldwork that would expose them to pesticide 

2605 residues and will, therefore, not require pesticide safety training.

2606
70

2607 In this section, we present the estimation of one potential training requirement in detail to 

2608 demonstrate the methodology. For the other potential requirements, we provide summary 

2609 information about the effect of the requirements and present the results. Details on the 

2610 estimation are available in Appendix A. Potential requirements are numbered as in Chapter 2.

2611

2612 Requirement: Immediate Training of Workers

2613

2614 TRAIN-01. Immediate full training of workers. The potential requirement would require full 

2615 training of workers prior to entry into an area where a pesticide application had been made or a 

2616 REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days.

2617

2618 Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs

2619 Under current requirements, workers must be trained every five years. Requirements currently 

2620 allow for an abbreviated training, with full training required before the sixth day of entry into an 

2621 area described above.

2622

2623 Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the 

2624 workers, who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although the WPS farm 

2625 incurs the training costs and implicitly pays the worker to take the training at the same wage he 

2626 or she earns doing field work.

2627

2628 Regarding the provision of training, the cost is essentially the cost of providing a trainer. We do 

2629 not include material costs as there are none specifically required under the requirements, 

2630 although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is

2631

2632

2633 where j, in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training. There are four types of 

2634 trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different 

2635 wage rate. Table 3.3-7 presents this estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of 

2636 handlers and certified applicators, paid $37.87 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of 

2637 trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $37.87 per 

2638 hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 

2639 75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour and assumed to lead one percent 

2640 of trainings. Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2641 (BLS, 2007a). The wages in Table 3.3-7 are loaded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of 

2642 total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2. The wage for handler trainers is based on 

2643 NAICS code for SOC 19-1013 (soil and plant scientist). Handler wages are as explained in 

2644 Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are based on owner/operator wages as in Section 3.2. 

2645 The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with 

2646 trainers, extension agents, and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the 

2647 owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a 

2648 training. Based on EPA observations of trainings and the length of training videos, EPA 

2649 assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes.

2650
71

2651 Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-4), there are, on 

2652 average, 20 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750,000 in annual sales) and 3.6 

2653 workers per small WPS farm. With a five-year training cycle, an average of four workers to less 

2654 than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained every year. This number 

2655 could easily be accommodated with a single session. However, given new hires, including 

2656 workers who change employers, an average farm may need to train almost half its work force 

2657 each year (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm 

2658 masks considerable variability across farms with different production systems. For example, 

2659 large WPS farms that primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 

2660 average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 

2661 workers. Given the overall averages, and the flexibility for training new hires provided by the 

2662 five-day period before a worker must be trained, EPA assumes for simplicity that, on average, a 

2663 WPS farm conducts one full training each year. Individual farms will differ, perhaps 

2664 substantially. In fact, EPA assumes that small farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to 

2665 hold 0.7 training sessions each year on average, small farms with more than ten workers hold an 

2666 average of 2.2 training session per year, large farms with fewer than ten workers will hold 0.9 

2667 sessions per year, and large farms with more than ten workers hold 4.5 session per year. On 

2668 average, however, the frequency or probability that the training will be led by a particular type of 

2669 trainer is simply the proportion of trainings that type of trainer conducts.

2670

2671 Table 3.3-7. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2.66

Training by Train-theTrainer$37.87/hr 30 min 0.100 $ 1.90

Training by certified 

applicator

$28.21/hr 30 min 0.750 $10.63

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.010 $ 0.10

costr,i,a

B $15.29

2672 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2673

2674 For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego training unless and until a pesticide 

2675 application is needed. The probability of conducting a training is therefore weighted by the 

2676 likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application, which is, on the average, 77.1

2677 percent. Thus, the expected per-WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $11.79.

2678

2679 The per-worker cost for an establishment is estimated in a similar manner. Each worker to be 

2680 trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (U.S. 

2681 Department of Labor, 2008). In the baseline, 48.9 percent of workers will to be trained each 

2682 year. This percentage is derived as follows.

2683

2684 Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available, however a report from the 

2685 National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 

2686 percent of the agricultural workforce is comprised of foreign-born newcomers. While this 
72

2687 underestimates the true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate and 

2688 examines the impact of this bias in a later sensitivity analysis.

2689

2690 This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year. Current standards 

2691 require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning 

2692 workforce will need to take the full training in any given year. According to the NAWS (DoL, 

2693 2005), however, less than 25 percent of workers had been with their current employer for more 

2694 than five years. Most workers will receive safety training if they change employers because the 

2695 voluntary training verification cards provided in some states are not well accepted by employers 

2696 as sufficient proof of training. In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training 

2697 even though they are within the five-year period because they don’t remember when they last 

2698 took the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. In 

2699 the absence of specific data, EPA assumes 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the 

2700 full training for one reason or another. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a 

2701 calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 

16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training2 2702 . Note that 

2703 some workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year and about 

2704 28 percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 

2705 2001-2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005). EPA does not account for any additional costs associated with 

2706 the worker’s time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the 

2707 baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of 

2708 the proposals and alternatives.

2709

2710 Some small portion of the workforce may work less than six days and thus could receive an 

2711 abbreviated training, but not a full training. Based on Farm Labor Reports (NASS, 2007 and 

2712 2008a), EPA estimates that 28 percent of the agricultural workforce, including both new and 

2713 returning workers, are part-time employees who work less than 150 days. EPA assumes that five 

2714 percent of these part-time employees, or about 1.4 percent of the workforce, do not receive 

2715 training because they are employed for less than six days. Thus, 98.6 percent of the first time 

2716 and returning workers in need of training will take the full training, or 48.9 percent of the total 

2717 workforce.

2718

2719 Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1.4 percent. However, 

2720 this suggests that up to 35,000 farm workers each year do not receive pesticide safety training 

2721 when they are hired or within five years of a previous training.

2722

2723 Table 3.3-8 presents the per-worker cost of training under current requirements, including the 

2724 per-worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An abbreviated training is assumed 

2725 to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 

2726 percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated training only. We further assume that 25 

2727 percent of new hires receive an abbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full 

2728 training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days. Together, this 

2729 suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each 

2730 year. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three 

 2 This will be the percentage of the work force trained, on average, if immediate training is required.
73

2731 minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator, whose time is 

2732 valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2.

2733

2734 Table 3.3-8. Per-Worker Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 30 min 0.489 $ 3.28

Abbreviated Training 

Session $13.43/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated 

Session $28.21/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.08

costr,a

B $ 3.40

2735 Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources.

2736

2737 For the sensitivity analysis, we note that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that 

2738 make a pesticide application. Weighting the probability of attending some kind of training 

2739 session by this amount yields an expected cost per worker of $2.97.

2740

2741 Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Costs of Potential Requirement

2742 The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner.

2743

2744 EPA assumes that trainings will be needed 1.5 times per year, on average, over all farms, since 

2745 workers may be hired at different times during the year. This represents an increase over the 

2746 baseline, shown above, due to the loss of flexibility currently provided by the five-day grace 

2747 period. The probability of a training, by type of trainer, is, therefore, 50 percent higher than in 

2748 the baseline. Table 3.3-9 presents this estimation for establishments.

2749

2750 Table 3.3-9. Per-Establishment Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j)

cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.150 $ 2.84

Training by certified 

applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 1.125 $15.87

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.015 $ 0.16

costr,a

P $22.85

2751 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2752

2753 For the sensitivity analysis, the probabilities would again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the 

2754 likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application. Expected compliance cost 

2755 would be $17.62.

2756
74

2757 The per-worker cost for an establishment is similar. Each worker to be trained spends 30 

2758 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (BLS, 2008). EPA 

2759 calculates that, in future years, 49.6 percent of workers will be trained every year as explained 

2760 above. This percentage includes workers employed for less than six days since the grace period 

2761 would be eliminated.

2762

2763 In the first year under the rule, EPA calculates that an additional 1.2 percent of the total 

2764 workforce will need training. This represents the returning workers who previously worked less 

2765 than six days and, under the grace period, did not receive a full training. The percentage is 

2766 calculated as 84 percent, the proportion of returning workers, multiplied by the 1.4 percent of the 

2767 workforce we calculated above as receiving only abbreviated training.

2768

2769 Table 3.3-10 presents the per-worker unit cost of eliminating the training grace period.

2770

2771 Table 3.3-10. Per-Worker Costs for TRAIN-01.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j)

cost

costr,a

P

t

Worker Training (Year 1) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.508 $ 3.41

Worker Training (future) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.496 $ 3.33

2772 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources.

2773

2774 Under the sensitivity analyses, expected costs are estimated to be $2.98 in the first year and 

2775 $2.91 thereafter. Cost is somewhat lower because the probability of attending a training is 

2776 adjusted to account for the fact that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that make a 

2777 pesticide application.

2778

2779 Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs

2780 Given the estimated costs per-establishment and per-worker, we can estimate the regional level 

2781 baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in 

2782 each region that are affected by the requirements and adding the two components together.

2783

2784

2785 Table 3.3-11 presents the baseline costs, where the number of farms is taken from Table 3.3-2 

2786 and the number of workers from Table 3.3-4. Under current requirements, the national cost is 

2787 estimated to be $13.9 million per year. Establishment-level costs total about $6.0 million per 

2788 year and costs for worker time is approximately $7.9 million per year. Costs are for the first 

2789 year; in future years, the baseline costs per actor are not expected to change but the number of 

2790 actors is anticipated to decline. Under the alternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, 

2791 baseline cost for the first year is $11.5 million.

2792
75

2793 Table 3.3-11. Regional Baseline Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training, Year 1.

WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost, 

Baseline

RCB

i

($1,000)

costr,i,,a

B $15.23 $ 3.40

Region

Number of 

WPS Farms

Ni frm

Number of WPS 

Workers

Ni wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 1,830

California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,715

Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 461

Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 529

Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,327

Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,568

Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 2,593

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,373

Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,525

US 394,658 2,322,610 $13,922

2794 Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008); see Table 3.3-1. Baseline costs per 

2795 WPS farm and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 

2796 summed. Numbers in columns may not sum due to rounding.

2797

2798 Table 3.3-12 presents the estimated regional and national costs for the potential requirements. In 

2799 the first year, costs are estimated to be $16.9 million, an increase over baseline of $3.0 million. 

2800 Establishment level costs are estimated to be $9.0 million while worker-level cost rise only 

2801 slightly over the baseline. In future years, EPA estimates the worker-level will decline slightly 

2802 because it eliminates the need for an abbreviated training in addition to the full training. The 

2803 expected per-worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3-10) which would, if 

2804 applied to the first year, result in worker-level cost of $7.7 million.

2805

2806 Overall, however, the requirement would reduce the flexibility of agricultural establishments to 

2807 hire workers as needed and to provide a full training when there is a critical mass of employees. 

2808 This effect is captured by the increased number of trainings, which drives the increase in per2809 establishment costs shown in Table 3.3-9.

2810
76

2811 Table 3.3-12. Regional Compliance Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training, Year 1.

WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost, 

Potential

RCP

est

($1,000)

costr,a

P $22.84 $ 3.41

Region

Number of WPS 

Farms

Ni est

Number of WPS 

Workers

Ni wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 2,278

California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,905

Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 558

Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 605

Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,978

Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,879

Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 3,286

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,742

Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,703

US 394,658 2,322,610 $16,933

2812 Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008b); see Table 3-3.2. Baseline costs per 

2813 establishment and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 

2814 summed. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2815

2816 As a sensitivity analysis, EPA assumes training costs are incurred only by those WPS farms 

2817 making a pesticide application in a given year. Under this scenario, the first-year cost is 

2818 estimated to be $13.9 million.

2819

2820 Step 4. Calculate the PV of Costs.

2821 EPA calculates the PV of costs over the ten-year time horizon as explained in Section 3.3.1. The 

2822 costs per establishment for the baseline and the potential requirement are constant over time. 

2823 Thus, we can multiply the first year cost by 8.61, as explained in Section 3.3.2, to obtain the PV 

2824 of establishment cost. The cost per worker in the baseline is also constant and the multiplication 

2825 factor is 8.03. However, the cost per worker declines from $3.41 in the first year to $3.33 in 

2826 future years under the potential requirement once all part time workers obtain full training. The 

2827 PV of worker cost for the potential requirement is the first year cost plus the lower cost for future 

2828 years, times the number of workers, multiplied by 7.03, which calculates the discounted cost for 

2829 the last nine years of the time horizon.

2830

2831 That is,

2832

2833 becomes, for the worker cost at the national level,

2834

PV(NCr,wrkr

P 2835 ) = $7.917 million + $3.33·(2,322,610)·(8.03-1)

2836

2837 Regional cost is calculated the same way and the establishment and worker elements are added 

2838 together. Estimates are presented in Table 3.3-12.
77

2839

2840 Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

2841 The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking 

2842 the difference in the PV of the compliance and the regional baseline costs.

2843

2844

2845 Estimates are shown in Table 3.3-13, showing both establishment and worker components. This 

2846 potential requirement would reduce the per-worker cost, primarily because it eliminates 

2847 abbreviated trainings. The per-establishment cost, however, increases because more full 

2848 trainings will need to be conducted due to the elimination of the grace period between 

2849 employment and training.

2850

2851 Table 3.3-13 Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.

Region PV(RCP

frm) PV(RCPwrkr) PV(RCBfrm) PV(RCBwrkr) PV(RIC)

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 11,571 7,349 7,746 7,471 3,704

California 4,815 10,588 3,223 10,763 1,417

Plains 2,485 2,118 1,664 2,153 787

Subtropical 1,941 2,990 1,300 3,039 592

Midwest 16,851 8,034 11,281 8,167 5,438

Northeast 7,999 7,474 5,355 7,597 2,521

Ohio Valley 17,938 9,467 12,009 9,623 5,774

Texas/Mountain 

West 9,552 4,983 6,394 5,065 3,075

Northwest 4,504 9,280 3,015 9,433 1,336

US 77,656 62,283 51,986 63,309 24,643

2852 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2853

2854 Table 3.3-14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent 

2855 discount rate. Regional costs are estimated to range from $67,000 per year in the Subtropical 

2856 region to $657,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley.

2857
78

2858 Table 3.3-14. Present Value of Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training.

Region PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1000 $1000

South 18,920 15,216 3,704 422

California 15,403 13,986 1,417 161

Plains 4,603 3,816 787 90

Subtropical 4,931 4,339 592 67

Midwest 24,886 19,448 5,438 619

Northeast 15,472 12,952 2,521 287

Ohio Valley 27,405 21,632 5,774 657

Texas/Mountain West 14,534 11,459 3,075 350

Northwest 13,784 12,448 1,336 152

US 139,939 115,296 24,643 2,805

2859 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2860

2861 Step 6. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement.

2862 The national incremental cost of the potential requirement is simply the sum of the regional level 

2863 incremental cost or the difference in the sum of regional level baseline and potential costs. 

2864 Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3.3-14. The incremental cost of the potential 

2865 requirement is estimated to be $24.6 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. This 

2866 corresponds to $2.8 million per year and an average of $7.10 per year per WPS farm. The per2867 farm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the 

2868 worker for the time spent in training. However, many temporary workers employed to harvest 

2869 fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 

2870 spent in training may represent forgone wages.

2871

2872 Sensitivity Analysis, Timing of Training

2873 As discussed throughout this example, EPA examined the effect of the assumption that all farms 

2874 hiring labor would, on average, conduct trainings, even if no pesticide application is ultimately 

2875 made on the farm. Under the alternative assumption that training only occurs if a pesticide 

2876 application is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $2.2 million 

2877 annually, or $5.50 per year per WPS farm, on average.

2878

2879 At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of 

2880 the loss of flexibility permitted by the grace period, it would not apply under the potential 

2881 requirement. That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers 

2882 attending training would increase from the baseline. Under this scenario, the incremental cost of 

2883 this potential requirement is estimated to be $5.1 million per year or $12.80 per WPS farm.

2884

2885 Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate

2886 As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined the impact of the approximated hiring rate on 

2887 estimates of baseline and potential costs by estimating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in 

2888 lieu of the 16 percent rate used above. A higher rate means more new workers who must receive 

2889 abbreviated and/or full training, but fewer returning workers who must be retrained. The former 

2890 is the larger effect, implying that by using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of 
79

2891 training in the baseline. With a new hire rate of 20 percent, the estimated incremental cost of 

2892 immediate training is $2.789 million annually, about a percentage lower than the estimate using

2893 of a 16 percent new hire rate. Therefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to the 

2894 assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a 

2895 reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias.

2896

2897 Other Training Requirements

2898

2899 Table 3.3-15 presents the net present value of the cost of the potential training requirements EPA 

2900 is considering. Details of these estimations can be found in Appendix A. In this section, we 

2901 briefly discuss the results and highlight any data considerations.

2902

2903 The most costly changes to the current standards would be to require annual training of workers 

2904 compared to the current requirement of training every five years (TRAIN-03, $8.8 million 

2905 annually) and to expand the content of worker training including an explanation of information 

2906 found in crop sheets (TRAIN-07, $5.3 million annually). Costs are estimated using a 3% 

2907 discount rate. The high cost reflects the significant increase in the amount of trainer and 

2908 employee time devoted to training and the number of affected farms and workers. Relatively 

2909 low-cost potential requirements include increasing the trainer qualifications for worker trainings 

2910 (TRAIN-08 and 09), which are estimated to cost around $1.1 million per year over 10 years. The 

2911 cost is primarily due to higher wages paid to more qualified trainers. Implementation of these 

2912 requirements would be delayed two years to allow sufficient trainers to acquire the necessary 

2913 qualifications and this delay is factored into the analysis. EPA also considered eliminating the 

2914 training verification programs (TRAIN-17), which would save the over $560,000 annually. 

2915 Alternatively, requiring verification be given to workers, but as a copy of the training registry, 

2916 could save almost $180,000 but accomplish essentially the same objective.

2917

Table 3.3-15. Present Value of National Costs, Potential Training Requirements 1 2918 .

Potential Requirement PV(NCP

) PV(NCB) PV(NIC) Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Immediate Training 139,939 115,296 24,643 2,805

02 Immediate Training with 

Exceptions 135,225 115,296 19,929 2,268

03 Annual Worker Training 192,127 115,296 76,831 8,745

04 Biennial Worker Training 143,345 115,296 28,049 3,192

05 Annual Worker Training, 

Small Farm Exception 181,320 115,296 66,024 7,515

06 Expand Worker Training 

Content 2 160,164 122,092 38,072 4,333

07 Expand Worker Training 

Content (crop sheet variant)2 168,813 122,092 46,721 5,318

08 Increase Worker Trainer 

Standards 125,060 115,296 9,764 1,111

09 Increase Worker Trainer 

Standards, Train-the-Trainer 

variant 125,060 115,296 9,764 1,111
80

Potential Requirement PV(NCP

) PV(NCB) PV(NIC) Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

10 Keep Worker Training 

Records -2yr 14,269 0 14,269 1,624

11 Keep Worker Training 

Records -5yr 17,144 0 17,144 1,951

12 Annual Handler Training 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 -181

2919 Source: EPA estimates.

1 2920 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 2921 California requires additional worker training content, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN-06 and 

2922 07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constrained to be less than or equal to the cost of the 

2923 potential requirement.

3 2924 California requires additional content and annual training for handlers, but for the purpose of the 

2925 regional baseline for other handler requirements, costs are constrained to be equal to the potential 

2926 regulatory costs.

2927

2928 TRAIN-02. Immediate full training of workers with exception. This potential requirement is a 

2929 variant on the one discussed previously (TRAIN-01); it would provide an exception to the 

2930 requirement of immediate training of workers. This exception would allow agricultural 

2931 employers to delay the full pesticide safety training for up to 2 days if workers are provided with 

2932 an EPA-approved right-to-know information sheet explaining pesticide hazard information prior 

2933 to entering an area that had been treated with a pesticide in the last 30 days. In addition to 

2934 providing workers with this right-to-know sheet, its content must be explained to the worker in a 

2935 manner they understand. The exception would maintain some of the existing flexibility for 

2936 employers. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option, compared to current requirements, 

2937 to be about $2.3 million per year or about $5.80 per farm per year, on average.

2938

2939 TRAIN-03, 04, and 05. Frequency of worker training. Under current requirements, all workers 

2940 must be trained at least once every five years if they will be entering a recently treated area. 

2941 EPA is proposing to increase the frequency of worker training to every year (TRAIN-03). EPA 

2942 also considered requiring training every other year (TRAIN-04) and providing WPS farms with 
81

2943 fewer than ten employees with an exception from annual training requirement under certain 

2944 circumstances.

2945

2946 Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provides the training, and at the 

2947 worker or handler level where employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. 

2948 Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential 

2949 requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to 

2950 accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequency of trainings. The primary 

2951 reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training 

2952 each year. Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN-03) would result in incremental 

2953 costs to the agricultural sector of about $8.7 million per year over the baseline, or about $22.20

2954 per establishment. Biennial worker training (TRAIN-04) would cost about $3.2 million per year

2955 over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment.

2956

2957 If training does not occur as a matter of course, but only occurs if a pesticide application is made, 

2958 fewer WPS farms and workers are impacted each year. Under this assumption, annual training is 

2959 estimated to cost about $7.4 million annually ($18.70 per WPS farm) and biennial training would 

2960 cost about $1.8 million ($4.50 per WPS farm).

2961

2962 Given the large proportion of small businesses in the U.S. farm sector, EPA convened a Small 

2963 Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel to advise the Agency on the development of the rule. 

2964 The panel suggested providing an exception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than 

2965 ten workers that had no new employees and were using the same pesticide as in previous years 

2966 (TRAIN-05) (EPA, 2008). The SBA defines small farms on the basis of revenue, i.e., annual 

2967 sales less than $750,000, but based on data from the Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA 

2968 estimates almost 95 percent of small WPS farms have fewer than ten workers. In fact, almost 60 

2969 percent of large WPS farms employ fewer than ten workers. It is not clear how many of these 

2970 farms would meet the latter two criteria. EPA estimates that, if five percent of small farms could 

2971 take advantage of the exception (i.e., had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in 

2972 previous years), this option would cost about $7.5 million per year across all farms, about $1.2

2973 million less than annual training without exceptions. The incremental cost is estimated to be 

2974 $12.40 per year, on average, for small farms. In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training 

2975 is estimated to be $15.40 per year, on average, for small farms. If ten percent of small farms met 

2976 the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fall to $10.20 per year, on average. 

2977 Note that the estimated cost of this option does not include the cost of documenting compliance 

2978 with the criteria for exception.

2979

2980 TRAIN-06 and 07. Content of worker training. Current requirements specify the content of 

2981 trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover. The expanded content that 

2982 would be required under the proposed option would include, among other things, an explanation 

2983 of the hazard information found in the SDS. Together, the expanded content is expected to add 

2984 another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $4.3 million per year (TRAIN-06). This averages 

2985 out to be about $11.00 per WPS farm. The alternative would include an explanation of the 

2986 hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer 

2987 session estimated to be an extra 18 minutes. The alternative is expected to cost about $5.3 
82

2988 million per year or an average of $13.50 per WPS farm. Both estimates assume a two-year delay 

2989 in implementation to allow for the development of the new training content.

2990

2991 The baselines for TRAIN-06 and 07 are different from those changing the frequency of

2992 requirement because California already requires expanded content similar to TRAIN-06.

2993

2994 EPA also estimated the incremental cost if only WPS farms making a pesticide application in a 

2995 given year conduct training. An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-06) would cost $3.6 

2996 million annually, or $9.00 per WPS farm, while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-07) 

2997 would cost $4.3 million annually, or $11.10 per WPS farm.

2998

2999 TRAIN-08 and 09. Increase worker trainer qualifications. These possible requirements would 

3000 set standards for trainers of agricultural workers. TRAIN-08 (proposed) would require trainers 

3001 to be qualified trainers of certified applicators or individuals who have completed an approved 

3002 Train-the-Trainers program; TRAIN-09 would only allow individuals who have completed an 

3003 approved Train-the-Trainers program. The impact of these potential requirements would be an 

3004 increase in the overall cost for trainers. There may be an increase in costs to WPS farms of about 

3005 $1.1 million per year or $2.80 per WPS farm for both options. In the short term, both options 

3006 could result in a shortage of trainers, with TRAIN-09 the more problematic. Employers could 

3007 face delays in scheduling training sessions, a cost we cannot quantify. Implementation of the 

3008 revision would be delayed two years to allow for more trainers to be trained.

3009

3010 The incremental cost of these potential requirements is estimated to be $857,000 per year or 

3011 $2.20 per WPS farm, if only those farms making a pesticide application conduct worker training. 

3012 However, it could be that all farms currently conduct worker training only as needed, but under 

3013 the new requirements will conduct trainings as a matter of course because qualified trainers may 

3014 not be available on demand. Under this high-cost scenario, the incremental cost is estimated to 

3015 be $2.8 million annually or $7.20 per WPS farm.

3016

3017 TRAIN-10 and 11. Record keeping requirements, Worker training. Currently, WPS farms are 

3018 not required to maintain records of the workers who have received training. These potential 

3019 revisions would impose such requirements. Costs consist of the opportunity cost of labor for 

3020 employees to acknowledge training and for employers to distribute, collect, and store the 

3021 acknowledgements. There are also material costs to store the acknowledgements, depending on 

3022 the length of storage. TRAIN-10 would require retention for two years while TRAIN-11 would 

3023 require retention for five years. In total, the cost to document and store records on agricultural 

3024 worker training is estimated to cost about $1.6 to $2.0 million annually or $4.10 to $4.90 per 

3025 year per WPS farm.

3026

3027 If training only occurs if there is at least one pesticide application, the estimated costs of the 

3028 requirements are $1.3 million per year ($3.20 per WPS farm) to keep records for two years and 

3029 $1.6 million per year ($4.00 per WPS farm) to keep records for five years.

3030

3031 TRAIN-12 and 13. Frequency of handler training. Current requirements stipulate that handler 

3032 training is valid for five years. EPA considered increasing the frequency of training to every 

3033 year under TRAIN-12 or every other year under requirement TRAIN-13 for handlers. Training 
83

3034 costs are incurred at the establishment level, to provide the training, and at the handler level, as 

3035 employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. As with worker training, some 

3036 establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the increase 

3037 in the frequency of trainings, but the primary reason that the regulatory cost increases is that 

3038 more handlers would receive training each year.

3039

3040 EPA estimates that there are over 247,000 handlers employed by WPS farms, based on the 

3041 assumption that there are, on average, two handlers for each large farm (annual revenues greater 

3042 than $750,000) and one handler for each of the largest small farms (annual revenues between 

3043 $100,000 and $750,000). There are also about 17,000 handlers employed by CPHEs (BLS, 

3044 2007c). For lack of better data, EPA uses the same 16% new hire rate for both categories to 

3045 determine the number of returning handlers that will need periodic training. We exclude self3046 employed commercial handlers and other handlers who are certified because the training or 

3047 examinations required by states would meet the WPS requirements. In fact, most of the 17,000 

3048 CPHE handlers and many of the WPS handlers included in this cost estimate are also likely to be 

3049 certified or in the process of obtaining certification and would probably meet WPS training 

3050 requirements.

3051

3052 Under TRAIN-12, the increase in annual handler training over current requirements runs about 

3053 $3.5 million per year and would cost the larger WPS farms an additional $17.00 per year and 

3054 CPHEs an additional $66.70, on average. Again, because most CPHE handlers would have or 

3055 seek commercial certification, the true incremental cost is likely to be near zero. Biennial 

3056 training under TRAIN-13 would cost $1.6 million annually over the baseline. Average per entity 

3057 costs for the larger WPS farms would be about $8.10 per year more for handler training. CPHEs 

3058 would incur additional costs of about $27.40 per year, on average. The per-entity costs are 

3059 higher for the CPHEs because they employ more handlers.

3060

3061 California already requires pesticide handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is 

3062 adjusted accordingly. As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the 

3063 federal standards. In the case of the potential requirement requiring biennial training, the cost of 

3064 California baseline is constrained to be that under biennial training to account for the fact that 

3065 federal requirements would not lower costs to California establishments.

3066

3067 It could be that pesticide handlers would only be trained if a pesticide application were needed. 

3068 Under this scenario, requiring annual handler training would result in an incremental cost of $3.1

3069 million annually or $15.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are always making pesticide 

3070 applications, there is no change in the assumptions underlying the estimate of their cost. 

3071 Requiring biennial handler training is estimated to cost an additional $1.4 million per year ($6.90

3072 per larger WPS farm) over baseline, under the alternative assumption. EPA notes that the 

3073 assumptions regarding the number of impacted farms and handlers has little effect on the 

3074 estimated incremental cost because data show that 90 percent of handlers are employed on farms 

3075 making pesticide applications in any given year.

3076

3077 TRAIN-14 and 15. Content of handler training. Current requirements specify the content of 

3078 handler trainings and EPA estimates that trainings take about 45 minutes based on the length of 

3079 commercially available video materials. The expanded content under the potential requirements 
84

3080 could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the 

3081 training covers hazard communication via the SDS (see HAZCOM-02) or the more detailed crop 

3082 sheets (see HAZCOM-04). This would cost an additional $656,000 for TRAIN-14 (additional 

3083 15 minutes) and $795,000 for TRAIN-15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training 

3084 each year. Average handler training costs under TRAIN-14 and 15 are estimated to increase by 

3085 $3.20 or $3.90 per year for larger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are 

3086 estimated to rise by $14.70 and $17.90 per year respectively. These requirements would not take 

3087 effect for two years while the new training materials are developed. As noted above, we are 

3088 likely overestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for 

3089 expanded training for CPHEs and private certification would meet the requirements for WPS 

3090 farms.

3091

3092 As with worker training, the baselines for potential handler training requirements differ 

3093 according to existing California requirements. As explained in the methodology, baseline costs 

3094 are constrained to be less than or equal to those of the potential requirements to avoid

3095 erroneously estimating a reduction in costs.

3096

3097 As a sensitivity analysis, EPA estimated the incremental cost of these requirements under the 

3098 assumption that handler training occurs only if a pesticide application is made during the season. 

3099 An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN-14) would cost about $553,000 per year ($2.70 per 

3100 larger WPS farm) while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-15) would cost about 

3101 $680,000 per year ($3.30 per WPS farm). CPHE costs are not affected by these assumptions.

3102

3103 TRAIN-16 and 17. Record keeping requirements, Handler training. Currently, WPS farms and 

3104 CPHEs are not required to maintain records of the handlers who have received training, except in 

3105 California. These potential requirements are similar to TRAIN-10 and 11. In total, the cost to 

3106 document and store records on pesticide handler training is estimated to cost about $162,000 to 

3107 $289,000 annually, which ranges from $0.80 to $1.40 per larger WPS farm and from $3.00 to 

3108 $3.80 per CPHE.

3109

3110 If handler training only occurs in conjunction with a pesticide application, keeping records for 

3111 two years is estimated to cost $150,000 per year, with WPS farms incurring costs around $0.70

3112 per year. Requiring records be kept for five years is estimated to cost about $276,000 annually 

3113 under this alternate assumption and WPS farms would face an additional $1.40 per year. Costs 

3114 to CPHEs are unaffected by this assumption.

3115

3116 TRAIN-18, 19, and 20. Training verification. Under these potential requirements, EPA would 

3117 end voluntary programs to issue training verification cards. The cost of the program is the 

3118 opportunity cost of labor for employers to distribute the cards and employees to receive them; 

3119 EPA also incurs costs to manufacture the cards. About 22 states and territories currently 

3120 participate in the program, based on 2010 requests for new cards. Of the representative states, 

3121 Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions 

3122 have requested verification cards. For this analysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, 

3123 Plains, Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zero to reflect low participation. Arkansas, along 

3124 with five of the seven states it represents, participates, as does California and Colorado, along 

3125 with one of the two states it represents. Baseline costs for these three regions, South, California, 
85

3126 and Southwest, are estimated assuming full participation, reflecting high participation among the 

3127 states. Baseline costs for the other three regions, Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are 

3128 calculated using a 50 percent participation rate because about half the states in these regions 

3129 participate in the current program. Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of 

3130 participation, EPA estimates that eliminating the training verification program (TRAIN-18)

3131 could save about $567,000 annually, including costs to EPA of providing the cards. Savings per 

3132 WPS farm amount to $1.40 per year and for CPHEs, $0.80 per year, but savings would only 

3133 occur in states currently participating in the program. 

3134

3135 Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) would cost about $641,000 annually, or roughly 

3136 $1.60 per WPS farm and $1.50 per CPHE. Costs, however, would only be incurred in states not 

3137 fully participating in the current program.

3138

3139 Replacing the voluntary program with a requirement that employees be provided evidence of 

3140 training (TRAIN-20) would, under the current frequency of training, save about $180,000 

3141 annually or about $0.50 per year per WPS farm and $0.04 per CPHE. Savings arise because 

3142 individualized cards are more expensive to complete than simply providing a copy of the training 

3143 register. However, WPS farms and CPHEs observe additional material cost, as EPA and states 

3144 are currently providing cards or otherwise subsidizing them. Further, savings only arise in states

3145 currently participating in the voluntary program; establishments in other states would bear costs.

3146

3147 If training currently occurs only if a pesticide application is made on a WPS farm, the cost saving 

3148 of eliminating the verification cards is estimated to be $498,000 per year while the cost of 

3149 requiring verification cards would be about $566,000 annually. Requiring verification through a 

3150 copy of the training register (TRAIN-20) would save around $158,000 annually, under this 

3151 alternative assumption.

3152

3153 3.3.4 Hazard Communication

3154

3155 Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their 

3156 employees about the use of pesticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry 

3157 operations are also covered, but as the impact is minimal, they are not considered in this analysis. 

3158 As with training, the impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving 

3159 the information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. Hazard communication 

3160 requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications.

3161

3162 Table 3.3-16 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement considered 

3163 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 3164 ). 

3165 The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 

3166 compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 

3167 is the requirement to provide workers with crop sheets, which describe the ways in which a 

3168 worker might be exposed to a particular pesticide for each crop (HAZCOM-04). The 

3169 requirement is estimated to cost $13.0 million annually. The proposed change from central 

3170 posting to making application information available on request (HAZCOM-01) entails 

3171 comparatively low cost at $1.1 million per year.
86

3172

Table 3.3-16. Present Value of Costs, Hazard Communication Requirements 1 3173 .

Potential Requirement PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

01 Application Information 

Availability 164,954 154,908 10,046 1,143

02 Pesticide Information 

Availability – SDS and 

label 131,032 84,201 46,831 5,330

03 Pesticide Information 

Availability – label 59,865 59,791 14,074 1,602

04 Pesticide Information 

Availability – crop sheets 163,774 49,303 114,471 13,029

05 Record Keeping – 2 years 29,894 3,677 26,217 2,984

06 Record Keeping – 5 years 32,770 3,677 29,093 3,311

07 Provide Crop Sheet with 

Label 2 318,330 293,020 25,310 2,881

3174 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 3175 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 3176 Requirement would apply to registrants at a national scale only.

3177

3178 In this section, we discuss the results of the estimation and present details if the situation 

3179 diverges from the typical method. Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in 

3180 Appendix A. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 15.4

3181 pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given 

3182 year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 

3183 applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially field crops, but the 

3184 number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following examples show how EPA arrived at 

3185 this number.

3186 • Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 

3187 (NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). 

3188 Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average 

3189 farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 

3190 acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, 

3191 which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn – soybean rotation with some fields 

3192 in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 

3193 and soybean crops grown in rotation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 

3194 in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical 

3195 farm.

3196 • Fruit crops in Washington. There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 

3197 production, implying about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per 

3198 farm, on average (NASS, 2008b, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 32). This suggests a typical 

3199 farm might have four blocks of fruit production: two of apple, one of cherry, and one of 

3200 pear. Typical spray programs (Northwest Wholesale, Inc., 2011a, b, c) imply 12 

3201 applications to apple blocks, six to the cherry block, and seven to the pear, for a total of 

3202 37 applications. Including one herbicide application to each leaves us with 40 
87

3203 applications per year.

3204 • Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida 

3205 vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no information on field size or 

3206 number of fields per farm. Further, Florida’s climate allows two or even three crops each 

3207 year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 

3208 tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 

3209 Florida, 2008-09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, 

3210 including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 

3211 however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including an herbicide 

3212 treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and 

3213 fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 

3214 Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, 

3215 however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and 

3216 DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receives about six pesticide treatments, considering 

3217 tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of 

3218 time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and to stagger production activities. 

3219 Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of 

3220 pesticide applications.

3221 Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms 

3222 accounting for another 22 percent (NASS, 2008b). The average across all farms, given 12 

3223 applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is 

3224 about 20 applications per farm. This does not consider farms that are primarily livestock with

3225 some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average.

3226

3227 HAZCOM-01. Application information. Currently, farm owners or operators must post 

3228 information about a covered pesticide application made within the previous 30 days when 

employees are present3 3229 . This requires time to compile and record the information. Discussions 

3230 with stakeholders suggest that the time required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. 

3231 A sheet of paper is needed to record the information, which takes about a minute (0.017 hours) to 

3232 post at a central location. This must be done for every application. Table 3.3-17 presents the 

3233 estimated baseline cost per establishment for all regions except for California and 

3234 Texas/Mountain West. Representative states for those regions have provisions similar to the 

3235 proposed requirements.

3236

3237 These costs may be underestimated. Stakeholders indicate that multiple postings are often 

3238 necessary for a single application because the central area is outdoors and the posting can be 

3239 subject to weathering.

 3 An insecticide application in or around a cattle barn, for example, would not be covered under the WPS.
88

3240 Table 3.3-17. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for HAZCOM-01, Provide Application 

3241 Information.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 15.4 $ 36.26

Information sheet $ 0.09/sheet 1 sheet 15.4 $ 1.39

Post application information $28.21/hr 0.017 hr 15.4 $ 7.25

costr,i,a

B $ 44.90

3242 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3243

3244 Under the proposed requirement, HAZCOM-01, WPS farms would provide the application 

3245 information to any worker or handler who requests to review it rather than post the information. 

3246 EPA assumes that such a request would take about six minutes (0.1 hour) or about five minutes 

3247 more than posting. EPA does not have experience as to how often a request would occur. It is 

3248 likely to be rare, but EPA estimates costs assuming a request for 25 percent of applications, or 

3249 3.9 times per year. This is likely to be a significant overestimate. Thus, in lieu of posting the 

3250 application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $10.88 per year, 

3251 making the total cost of the new requirement $48.53 per farm per year. This is also the baseline 

3252 cost for California and Texas/Mountain West as the representative states already have a 

3253 provision that employees or their representatives can request the application information. 

3254

3255 There are no actions required of any other actor. Table 3.3-18 presents the estimated regional 

3256 costs for the first year the requirement is in effect. California and Texas already require the 

3257 display of the additional information.

3258

3259 Table 3.3-18. Regional Costs for HAZCOM-01, Application Information, Year 1.

Region N WPS est RC P RC B

costr,i,a

B $ 44.90

costr,i,a

P $48.53 $1,000

South 58,804 2,640,541 2,853,784

California 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

3260 Source: EPA estimation.

1 3261 Baseline costs are $48.53 as for the potential requirement.

3262

3263 The costs of this requirement, both current and potential, recur annually. In estimating the PV of 

3264 costs over a 10-year time horizon, the only factor that changes through time is the number of
89

3265 establishments, which has been declining at a rate of 0.47% annually over the last decade. This 

3266 trend is expected to continue as agriculture consolidates. EPA estimates the PV of the baseline 

3267 cost is $155 million dollars over 10 years at a 3% discount rate, considering requirements in 

3268 California and Texas (Table 3.3-15). The potential requirement is expected to cost about $165

3269 million over 10 years. Thus, incremental costs of increasing the information provided about 

3270 pesticide applications are estimated to be about $10.0 million. This corresponds to $1.1 million

3271 annually and, on average, to be $2.90 per WPS farm per year. If baseline costs are higher than 

3272 estimated due to multiple postings for each application, the incremental cost of this provision 

3273 will be lower.

3274

3275 HAZCOM-02, 03, and 04. Pesticide-specific information. Agricultural employers are currently 

3276 required to post information about pesticide applications, including the active ingredient used 

3277 and the product name and registration number. The proposed revision (HAZCOM-02) would 

3278 require additional hazard information, consisting of the label and the associated SDS, be 

3279 collected and made available. The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and 

3280 copy the material. The SDS is typically available with the label at distributors and on line. Four 

3281 representative states (California, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) already require this information to be 

3282 available. EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $5.3 million annually. The cost is 

3283 proportional to the number of applications.

3284

3285 An alternative would be to require only that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM-03). The 

3286 cost of this option would be just over $1.6 million annually. A second alternative, HAZCOM3287 04, would be to require crop sheets for all applications. This information would be crop3288 chemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given 

3289 typical cropping practices, and emergency procedures in case of exposure. These sheets would 

3290 likely be harder to obtain and, while generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more 

3291 frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical. EPA estimates the cost of 

3292 this potential requirement to be $13.0 million annually or $33.00 per WPS farm.

3293

3294 HAZCOM-05 and 06. Keep records of application information. There are no current 

3295 requirements that WPS farms keep records of pesticide applications; information about an

3296 application must only be posted for 30 days following the expiration of the REI. EPA 

3297 considered requiring records to be kept for two or for five years. The primary costs would be 

3298 materials such as copies of the application information and something in which to keep records. 

3299 Baseline, compliance, and incremental costs over a ten-year period at the national level are 

3300 shown in Table 3.3-14. EPA estimates annualized incremental costs are $2.9 to 3.3 million 

3301 respectively, which averages out to be $7.60 per establishment under HAZCOM-05 to $8.40 per 

3302 establishment for HAZCOM-06. EPA assumes that all WPS farms will fall under record 

3303 keeping requirements since over time all are expected to make some pesticide applications.

3304

3305 HAZCOM-07. Provision of crop sheets. To support the potential requirement for crop-chemical 

3306 specific hazard information (HAZCOM-04), this proposal would require registrants to provide 

3307 additional safety information along with the pesticide label, which provides use directions. This 

3308 would require the development of new printing templates, which would be a one-time cost for 

3309 each existing pesticide product, the cost of which would depend on the number of crops for 

3310 which the crop is registered. EPA would expect to phase this in over a three year period to allow 
90

3311 registrants to include the new material as they reprint product labels. It would also increase 

3312 printing costs over the entire time 10-year time period we analyze because of the additional 

3313 volume of material. EPA estimates this potential requirement would impose additional costs of 

3314 about $25.3 million on registrants over 10 years, or an annualized cost of about $2.9 million per 

3315 year.

3316

3317 3.3.5 Notification

3318

3319 Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employers who must provide their 

3320 employees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 

3321 information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 

3322 information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. As with hazard 

3323 communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 

3324 pesticide applications.

3325

3326 Table 3.3-19 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement. As in 

3327 previous tables, it shows the present value of regional compliance costs for the potential 

requirements, PV(RC P

), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B 3328 ). 

3329 The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 

3330 compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 

3331 is the requirement to post warning signs for Restricted Entry Intervals every 100 feet around the 

3332 perimeter of a treated field (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this would cost $261 million per 

3333 year in additional signs and labor. Other potentially costly requirements include maintaining 

3334 records of oral notification of REIs (NOTIFY-04 and 05). These two potential requirements 

3335 would cost about $20 million per year in time and materials. Relatively low cost requirements 

3336 considered by EPA include revisions to warning signs and safety posters (NOTIFY-06 and 14), 

3337 which are expected to cost $99,000 and 108,000 per year respectively. EPA is also proposing to 

3338 allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REIs of less than four hours. EPA 

3339 estimates this will save greenhouse operations about $10,000 per year nationally.

3340

Table 3.3-19. Present Value of Costs, Notification Requirements 1 3341 .

Potential 

Requirement

PV(RCP) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

01 REI > 48 hours 

Warning Sign 420,709 322,892 97,816 11,133

02 REI > 72 hours 

Warning Sign 392,487 322,892 69,594 7,921

03 REI ≤ 4 hours Oral 

Notification 

(greenhouses) 980 1,065 -84 -10

04 Record Keeping for 

Oral Notification – 2 

years 177,198 0 177,198 20,168

05 Record Keeping for 

Oral Notification – 5 

years 180,074 0 180,074 20,495
91

Potential 

Requirement

PV(RCP

) PV(RCB) PV(RIC) Annualized 

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

06 Revise Warning Sign 

(“Entry restricted 

Area”) 19,535 18,663 873 99

07 Revise Warning Sign 

(Skull and Cross 

Bones) 46,923 18,663 28,260 3,216

08 Posting Warning 

Signs w/in 100′ 

worker housing 99,064 99,064 0 0

09 Posting Warning 

Signs every 100′ 2,394,818 99,064 2,295,755 261,294

10 Oral Information for 

Entry restricted –

workers 10,295 4,162 6,134 698

11 Oral and Written 

Information for Entry 

restricted – workers 13,547 4,162 9,386 1,068

12 Record Keeping for 

Entry restricted –

workers 2 years 4,120 0 4,120 469

13 Record Keeping for 

Entry restricted –

workers 5 years 6,996 0 6,996 796

14 Revise Safety Poster 8,729 7,777 951 108

15 Safety Poster, -

Worker 

Decontamination 25,336 7,777 17,558 1,998

16 Safety Poster, -

Handler 

Decontamination 14,669 7,777 6,891 784

17 Safety Poster with 

REI signs 49,872 7,777 42,094 4,791

18 Clarify Notifications 

by Commercial 

Applicator 316,546 316,546 0 0

3342 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 3343 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

3344

3345 NOTIFY-01 and 02. Posting warning signs. Two potential requirements require the physical 

3346 posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY-01, would require 

3347 posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours. An alternative, NOTIFY-02, would require posting if the 

3348 REI exceeds 72 hours. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a 

3349 sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e., both verbal 

3350 communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnings of all applications

3351 and these new requirements would not apply to those operations. Costs are expected to vary by 

3352 farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally notify a large number of 
92

3353 workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medium to small-small farm is presented in Table 

3354 3.3-20, as an example. EPA assumes that most employers in small farms provide oral 

3355 notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made. 

3356 Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will have to be informed of 

3357 the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to provide multiple 

3358 notifications. Employers with many workers, however, may find it too complicated and too time 

3359 consuming to orally notify them all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs

3360 already. Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be 

3361 double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two 

3362 signs are generally needed for posting. We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker 

3363 housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed (see NOTIFY-08). Signs will 

3364 generally last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by 

3365 the proportion of non-greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is 

3366 77.1 percent (NASS, 2008). The expected per-farm cost is estimated to be between $35 and 

3367 $110 depending on the size of the farm. There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which 

3368 accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification over the entire season.

3369

3370 Table 3.3-20. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs for NOTIFY-01, Post 

3371 REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 14.3 $ 20.14

Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0.307 $ 3.47

Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 1.23 $ 11.54

Signs $ 5.66 per 3 0.018 $ 0.30

Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.071 $ 1.00

costr,i,a

B $ 36.45

3372 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3373

3374 The costs associated with these potential requirements are the material expense of additional 

3375 signs and labor costs of posting signs more frequently. Offsetting some of these costs is a 

3376 reduction in the time required to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3-21 presents the 

3377 calculations. We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater 

3378 than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time. Double notification is still 

3379 required for ten percent of applications. As a result, the expected per-establishment cost 

3380 increases to between $70 and $110, where large farms with many workers are not expected to be 

3381 impacted. Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected per-worker cost decreases to $5 to 

3382 $7.

3383
93

3384 Table 3.3-21. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for 

3385 NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 10.0 $ 14.09

Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0.307 $ 6.94

Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 4.91 $ 46.14

Signs $ 5.66 per 6 0.018 $ 0.60

Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.284 $ 4.01

costr,i,a

B $ 71.79

3386 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3387

3388 For NOTIFY-02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that 

3389 signs would be required 30 percent of the time while oral notification would occur 80 percent of 

3390 the time. Per-establishment cost is calculated to be between $60 and $110 per year and per3391 worker cost to be between $6.00 and $8.00, depending on farm size.

3392

3393 Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warning signs to be about $7.9 million annually if 

3394 posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $11.1 million annually if posting is 

3395 required for REIs over 48 hours. The estimated incremental costs average $20.10 to $28.30 per 

3396 year per non-greenhouse WPS farm across all farm sizes.

3397

3398 These estimates take into consideration the allowance that new signs are to be phased in by the 

3399 third year.

3400

3401 NOTIFY-03. Oral notification of REIs in greenhouses. Currently, greenhouses are required to 

3402 post REI warning signs for all pesticide applications; signs are also required to be removed 

3403 shortly after the end of the REI. This proposal would give owners/operators of greenhouses the 

3404 option of simply notifying their employees orally for REIs of four hours or less. For many 

3405 operations, this would lead to savings in the time required to post and remove signs. However, 

3406 some operations may be large enough that orally notifying all their employees would be more 

3407 time consuming. EPA estimates that this revision would save about $10,000 per year nationally 

3408 or about $1.80 per year per WPS greenhouse, on average. As noted above, greenhouses with 

3409 many workers may not alter their practices while greenhouses with relatively few workers would 

3410 save more than the average.

3411

3412 NOTIFY-04 and 05. Record keeping of oral notifications. A potential addition to the WPS 

3413 would require owners/operators to obtain acknowledgement from their employees that the 

3414 employees were notified of REIs. Under NOTIFY-04, these records would be kept for two 

3415 years; under NOTIFY-05 they would be kept for five years. As explained in NOTIFY-01 and 

3416 02, the size of the farm, particularly the number of workers, influences the decision to post or 

3417 orally inform employees of the REI. The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in 

3418 Table 3.3-22 for small farms and includes preparing the written copy of the notification, 

3419 obtaining employees’ signatures, and filing the document. The annual frequency for each action 

3420 is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY-01, explained above. The cost for large farms is 
94

3421 estimated to be $38.73, slightly lower than for small farms because it is more cost-effective to 

3422 post fields when there are many workers. There is also a per-worker cost for providing the 

3423 signature, which EPA estimates to be $1.46 per year for workers on small farms and $1.19 per 

3424 year for workers on large farms. Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double 

3425 notification products as explained under NOTIFY-03. Greenhouse costs are estimated to be 

3426 $3.72 per year, on average, with a per-employee cost of $0.13 per year.

3427

3428 Table 3.3-22. Per-Small WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs 

3429 for NOTIFY-04, Keep Records of REI notifications.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Prepare copy of warning 28.21 0.033 15.0 14.12

Information sheet 0.09 1 15.0 1.35

Obtain acknowledgement 28.21 0.050 16.5 23.30

Store acknowledgement 28.21 0.017 15.0 7.06

Folder 0.20 1 0.75 0.15

costr,i,a

B $ 45.98

3430 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3431

3432 EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY-04 is $20.2 million annually. The average cost per 

3433 WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $51.20 per year and is similar for small and 

3434 large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $7.10. NOTIFY-05, with a five3435 year retention requirement, would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage 

3436 container to hold the files. EPA estimates the cost to be about $20.5 million per year with an 

3437 average cost per WPS farm of $52.00 per year and $7.90 per year per greenhouse.

3438

3439 NOTIFY-06 and 07. Revise warning signs. EPA is considering revisions to warning signs 

3440 posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI. The proposed revision, NOTIFY-06, 

3441 would replace the current circle with a stop-sign like octagon and replace the words “Keep Out” 

3442 with “Entry Restricted Area.” An alternative, NOTIFY-07, would instead replace the circle with 

3443 a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide information about the pesticide that was used. For 

3444 the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.30, more expensive. Nationally, this 

3445 revision may cost about $99,000 per year. Per-farm cost would average less than $0.30. For 

3446 NOTIFY-07, the potential requirement would also entail labor costs to post application-specific 

3447 information and higher material cost for a sign on which information could be written. This 

3448 could cost $3.2 million annually, which is $8.10 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS 

3449 greenhouses, on average. Greenhouses would bear high costs due to the frequency with which 

3450 they are required to post REI warning signs.

3451

3452 NOTIFY-08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently, when warning signs are posted, they 

3453 must be placed at the usual access points to a treated field or at each corner and where visible if 

3454 worker housing is adjacent to the field. The number of access points to a field is highly variable, 

3455 but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across 

3456 irrigation infrastructure for workers and/or equipment to enter. We assume about 20 percent of 

3457 farms will need a third sign to place near worker housing. Posting signs is likely the exception, 
95

3458 rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler. The baseline costs, i.e., 

3459 costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the labor to post the signs and the 

3460 material cost of the signs. Signs can be reused, so most establishments probably only need two 

3461 or three, i.e., to post one field at a time. Greenhouses, however, must post warning signs for all 

3462 pesticide applications and likely need four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots 

3463 simultaneously.

3464

3465 NOTIFY-08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to 

3466 engender any costs.

3467

3468 EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require posting warning signs every 100 

3469 feet around a treated area to alert workers if, for example, they were to cross a field without 

3470 passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY-09). Size and shape of field are extremely 

3471 variable, but as a scenario that might be somewhat representative, EPA considered a square field, 

3472 40 acres in size. Each side would be 1,320 feet, requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in 

3473 total. Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smaller, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular

3474 one-acre plot. Accounting for the cost of additional signs and additional labor, EPA estimates 

3475 that this potential requirement could cost over $2.3 billion dollars over ten years at a three 

3476 percent discount rate or about $261 million annually. The annual incremental cost is estimated 

3477 to average over $690 for WPS greenhouses and about $660 for other WPS farms.

3478

3479 NOTIFY-10 and 11. Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 

3480 Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period for which the 

3481 restricted-entry interval is in effect. Workers must have either read the product labeling or been 

3482 informed of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety. NOTIFY-10 would permit oral 

3483 instruction, but would require more detailed information be provided, which would require more 

3484 time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information. An alternative, NOTIFY-11 

3485 would require that the information also be provided in writing, in the form of crop sheets 

3486 generated by the registrants. EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY-10 to be about 

3487 $698,000 annually and $1.1 million per year for NOTIFY-11. Per WPS farms, annual costs are 

3488 expected to be $1.80 and $2.70, respectively.

3489

3490 NOTIFY-12 and 13. Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 

3491 Under these potential measures, EPA would require that employers obtain acknowledgement 

3492 from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record 

3493 sheet for two or five years (NOTIFY-12 and NOTIFY-13, respectively). Record keeping is 

3494 expected to cost about $469,000 per year for two-year retention and, for five years, $796,000 per 

3495 year, which includes material to document receipt of the information and to store the 

3496 documentation. The cost is equivalent to $1.20 to $2.00 per WPS farm.

3497

3498 NOTIFY-14. Revise pesticide safety information display. The proposal would require 

3499 agricultural establishments to include, along with the safety display, contact information for 

3500 medical assistance and for state agencies overseeing pesticide use. The incremental cost of this 

3501 action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which 

3502 would be done by the WPS farm. EPA estimates that this potential requirement would cost 

3503 growers about $108,000 per year over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, and 
96

3504 considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two years. The annualized cost is 

3505 estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS farm per year. Costs may be somewhat overstated because 

3506 signs are available free through EPA. 

3507

3508 NOTIFY-15, 16, and 17. Safety displays at decontamination sites. These requirements would 

3509 add additional pesticide safety displays where decontamination supplies are located. NOTIFY3510 15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses handler sites on WPS farms. 

3511 NOTIFY-17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require displays wherever REI 

3512 warning signs are posted. The cost of these requirements arises from the cost of new signs and 

3513 the labor to post them. EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary by 

3514 the size of the operation, which will determine the number of sites at which safety posters will be 

3515 required. EPA identifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2. 

3516 Table 3.3-23 presents EPA’s estimates of the per-establishment unit costs, assuming that the 

3517 requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average. Large farms incur 

3518 much higher cost for posting safety displays with REI signs because they likely post more 

3519 frequently than do small farms. See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY-01 and 02. If 

3520 safety displays are required with REI warning signs, however, large farms could reduce the 

3521 number of postings by shifting to oral notification.

3522

3523 Table 3.3-23. Per-Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites

Establishment Baseline Worker 

Decontamination 

Sites

(NOTIFY-15)

Handler 

Decontamination 

Sites

(NOTIFY-16)

With REI Signs

(NOTIFY-17)

Small WPS 

Farm/Nursery $ 2.23 $ 7.18 $ 3.54

$11.49

Small WPS 

Greenhouse $31.17

Large WPS 

Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15

$34.37

Large WPS 

Greenhouse $42.20

3524 Source: EPA estimates.

3525

3526 Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by each potential requirement, EPA 

3527 estimates the national cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is estimated to be 

3528 $2.0 million annually or $5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites 

3529 (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 per WPS farm. Safety displays can be 

3530 obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. 

3531 Placing safety posters with REI warning signs (NOTIFY-17) is estimated to cost $4.8 million 

3532 annually or $12.10 per WPS farm.

3533

3534 NOTIFY-18. Notification of agricultural establishments by CPHE employers. WPS currently 

3535 requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that 

3536 proper steps can be taken to protect workers in the area or who might enter the field. Further, if 

3537 there are any changes to the application, e.g., delay in application, change of product (brand), the 
97

3538 CPHE must immediately inform the client. The latter requirement has raised concerns about the 

3539 practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspects of the application 

3540 and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical information pertaining to worker 

3541 safety is provided in a timely manner. The proposed revision would specify that the CPHE must 

3542 inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI 

3543 begins. It also revises the regulations to match EPA guidance. No costs are expected to arise 

3544 from this revision.

3545

3546 Sensitivity Analysis

3547 The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements 

3548 and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis. That 

3549 is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide 

3550 applications per year instead of 20 applications.

3551

3552 The incremental costs for the potential requirements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY-01 

3553 and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the number of applications. This is because the 

3554 baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting 

3555 warning signs for REIs greater than the threshold (48 and 72 hours, respectively) changes by a 

3556 fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications 

3557 results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision. The savings generated by 

3558 allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notify workers when the REI is less than four hours 

3559 varies (NOTIFY-03) proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of record keeping 

3560 of oral notification (NOTIFY-04 and 05) also varies nearly proportionally with the number of 

3561 applications. The cost of providing more information upon early entry (NOTIFY-10 and 11) 

3562 varies proportionally with the number of applications as does record keeping for two years 

3563 (NOTIFY-12). Maintaining records for five years (NOTIFY-13) is less sensitive to the number 

3564 of applications because of fixed costs of storage.

3565

3566 The incremental costs of the potential notification requirements that deal with revisions to REI 

3567 warning signs (NOTIFY-06 and 07) or safety posters (NOTIFY-14), and the location of safety 

3568 posters (NOTIFY-15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications. The cost of 

3569 the potential requirement to post REI warning signs every 100 feet (NOTIFY-09) varies with the 

3570 number of applications, but less than proportionally. The same is true for NOTIFY-17, which 

3571 would require safety displays with every REI warning sign. The revisions to clarify when signs 

3572 must be posted in sight of adjacent worker housing (NOTIFY-08) and to codify notification by 

3573 commercial applicators (NOTIFY-18) are not expected to entail costs regardless of the number 

3574 of applications.

3575

3576 3.3.5 Age

3577

3578 EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter 

3579 areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions. These restrictions could 

3580 raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid 

3581 employees in place of younger, lower paid staff. In estimating the impact of these potential 

3582 requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1. 

3583 The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the 
98

3584 baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the difference with labor costs under the 

3585 potential requirement. Table 3.3-24 presents the results for this protective category.

3586

Table 3.3-24. Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1 3587 .

Region

NCP NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Minimum Age of 16, 

Early Entry Workers 10,734 9,366 1,367 156

02 Minimum Age of 18, 

Early Entry Workers 15,974 9,618 6,356 723

03 Minimum Age of 16, 

Handlers 2 42,290 38,192 4,098 466

04 Minimum Age of 18, 

Handlers 2 65,019 38,192 26,827 3,053

3588 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 3589 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

2 3590 Several states have minimum age restrictions on handlers for which we adjust the baseline.

3591

3592 AGE-01 and 02. Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. EPA is 

3593 considering setting a minimum age for agricultural workers (other than immediate family 

3594 members) who may enter areas subject to a REI. Entry during a restricted-entry interval may 

3595 occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks that have limited or no 

3596 contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities. In this analysis, EPA has 

3597 assumed that there will be one early entry event for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on 

3598 average, half of the farm’s workers will be engaged in associated tasks. As it is unlikely that a 

3599 farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any 

3600 under-age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum 

3601 age older for these limited events. Thus, these potential requirements are likely to impose 

3602 negligible costs on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs 

3603 associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time.

3604

3605 As an upper bound, however, we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher 

3606 paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. EPA has found no data 

3607 regarding wage differentials by age categories, but it seems reasonable that factors such as age 

3608 and experience would contribute to higher wages. The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is 

3609 used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field 

3610 workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year old field workers 

3611 would earn about 50% of the average wage. Thus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as 

3612 $5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. EPA notes 

3613 that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers 

3614 during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer.

3615

3616 The additional labor cost of the 16 year-old minimum age would be about $160,000 annually, or 

3617 an expected cost of about $0.40 per WPS farm per year. A minimum age of 18 would impose 
99

3618 costs of $720,000 annually, or about $1.80 per WPS farm. As noted above, this cost is unlikely 

3619 to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm’s labor management.

3620

3621 AGE-03 and 04. Minimum age for pesticide handlers. EPA is considering setting a minimum 

3622 age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e., those who 

3623 mix, load and/or apply pesticides. There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS 

3624 although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides 

3625 classified as Category I or II toxicity. EPA evaluated the impacts of both a 16-year minimum 

3626 (NOTIFY-03) and an 18-year minimum (NOTIFY-04).

3627

3628 Table 3-3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling 

3629 tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15-year olds are paid half the hourly wage 

3630 of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percent of adult wages. The wage rate for adult 

3631 handlers is from the BLS (2008). EPA calculates the wage for adolescent handlers on-farm to be 

3632 $7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former is 

3633 approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Benefits, valued at 30 percent of 

3634 total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates. Among employees surveyed by the 

3635 National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied 

3636 pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 percent were 14- and 15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 

3637 16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. The survey further indicated that 

3638 handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler-related 

3639 activities. Given the wages, hours worked, and the proportion of adolescent handlers, we 

3640 calculate an expected cost per WPS farms for these handler tasks of about $12.43 per year.

3641

3642 To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY-03), the time of 14 and 15 year old 

3643 handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $14.35. This would be 

3644 an upper bound, of course, because the employer could still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years 

3645 of age. For a minimum age requirement of 18 (NOTIFY-04), all adolescent labor is replaced by 

3646 adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of $21.35 per year.

3647

3648 The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner. However, there are no data estimating the 

3649 number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. It is likely that the proportion is 

3650 smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely 

3651 higher. EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none 

3652 are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work. Further, we assume that 

3653 these handlers work part time, spending, on average, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours 

3654 per week. This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer employment. Labor costs 

3655 assume that 16 and 17 year-olds are paid about 60 percent of the average adult wage.

3656
100

3657 Table 3-3.25 Labor costs for Handlers, by Age

Age Category and 

Establishment

Wage/Hour Hours 

Worked

Proportion 

of workers

Total Labor 

Cost

Baseline, WPS Farm

14-15 Year Old 10.41 50 0.004 1.92

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Total WPS farm 12.43

Baseline, CPHE

16-17 Year Old, CPHE 12.06 640 0.010 77.18

Minimum Age, 16, WPS 

Farm

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Adult 20.83 50 0.004 3.84

Total WPS farm 14.35

Minimum Age, 18

Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.021 21.35

Adult, CPHE 20.10 640 0.010 128.64

3658 Source: BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations.

3659

3660 EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers nationally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large 

3661 WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the largest small operations employ 

3662 one handler (see Section 3.3.2). Given the NAWS findings, this suggests around 1,000 handlers 

3663 in the 14-15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16-17 year age group. Table 3.3-26 presents 

3664 EPA’s estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state 

requirements, RLB

, and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RLP 3665 . Incremental labor 

3666 costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect 

3667 and about $880,000 for CPHEs.

3668

3669 Table 3.3-26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE-04 WPS Handler, 18 Year 

3670 Age Restriction, Year 1.

Region NWPS hndlr

B RLP RLB

($1,000)

South 36,924 1,116 655

California 15,365 464 273

Southwest 7,930 240 141

Subtropical 6,195 187 110

Midwest 53,776 1,625 954

Northeast 25,525 771 453

Ohio Valley 57,245 1,730 1,016

Texas/Mountain West 30,481 921 541

Northwest 14,373 434 255

U.S. 247,815 7,489 4,398

3671 Source: EPA Estimations.

3672
101

3673 Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate, the annual cost of setting a minimum age of 18 

3674 for handlers is estimated at $3.1 million, which averages $11.20 per WPS farm and $317 per 

3675 CPHE. Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual labor costs of about 

3676 $466,000. The latter option is substantially less costly because it would only affect the few 

3677 handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost of $2.40 per 

3678 WPS establishment.

3679

3680 These requirements could result in higher labor costs for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. 

3681 Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be 

3682 transfer of wages from adolescents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults.

3683

3684 3.3.6 Entry

3685

3686 Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide 

3687 residues. Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide

3688 applications occur. Unlike the training and notification examples, which require farm operators, 

3689 agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to 

3690 purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely require specific activities or materials. These 

3691 potential requirements preclude certain work activities from occurring at certain times in certain 

3692 places. The primary cost of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management 

3693 burden of scheduling work activities and pesticide applications to minimize conflicts. This 

3694 burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the 

3695 diversity of production activities in which the operation engages. Estimates for the potential 

3696 requirements are presented in Table 3.3-27.

3697
102

Table 3.3-27. Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1 3698 .

Region NCP NCB NIC Annualized NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Restricted area of 25 to 100 ft 

during application for all 

agricultural establishments 0 0 0 0

02 Halt application if nonhandler enters treatment area 0 0 0 0

03 Limit entry during 

emergencies to 4 hours 0 0 0 0

04 Limit entry during 

emergencies to 8 hours 0 0 0 0

05 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions 2,173,318 0 2,173,318 247,358

06 Monitoring handlers for 

chlolinesterase inhibition 137,368 3,394 133,975 15,248

07 Limit time handling 

cholinesterase-inhibiting 

products 38,533 1,470 37,063 4,218

3699 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 3700 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

3701

3702 ENTRY-01. Entry restricted area. During an application, entry into the area being treated is 

3703 restricted to appropriately attired handlers. A proposed requirement defines the entry restricted 

3704 area during an application on a WPS farm or forestry operation as extending 25 to 100 feet from 

3705 the edge of the treated area, depending on the application method. This restriction already 

3706 applies to WPS nurseries and greenhouses and would only apply to area under control of the 

3707 employer. For a WPS farm, imposing the restricted area could affect the scheduling of work 

3708 activities in areas immediately adjacent to the area being treated, but only during the application. 

3709 This may complicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely 

3710 preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments.

3711

3712 ENTRY-02. Entry into a restricted area. The proposed requirement specifies that a handler 

3713 working for a WPS farm or a forestry operation must cease application if he or she observes a 

3714 person, other than a trained and equipped handler, in the treatment area. Since current 

3715 requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non-handlers, the restriction simply clarifies 

3716 the applicator’s responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable costs.

3717

3718 ENTRY-03 and 04. Limit early entry under the Agricultural Emergency exception for double 

3719 notification products. During agricultural emergencies, agricultural employers can send workers 

3720 into treated areas to conduct critical tasks even during the REI. One potential requirement 

3721 (ENTRY-03) would limit the amount of time an individual worker could spend in an area treated 

3722 with a product that requires both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; 

3723 see discussion on NOTIFY-01 and NOTIFY-02). Another option (ENTRY-04) would limit the 

3724 time to eight hours. Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout 

3725 this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early entry event is 
103

3726 about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. Further, 

3727 EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or ten percent, involve double 

3728 notification products, i.e., those requiring both oral notification and physical posting. Thus, only 

3729 a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a 

3730 product in any given year. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be 

3731 involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers 

3732 if the time limit is reached. This will involve some management burden, but the effect is not 

3733 quantifiable.

3734

3735 The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both 

3736 of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are 

3737 needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the potential requirements is likely 

3738 negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 

3739 reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, 

3740 tasks that would not be of long duration on a small operation.

3741

3742 ENTRY-05. Early entry exceptions. Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by 

3743 administrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for 

3744 agricultural emergencies. As suggested by farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA considered 

3745 eliminating all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY-05). The impact of this requirement would be to 

3746 expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address 

3747 unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irrigation equipment. 

3748 This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial. To characterize potential losses, EPA 

3749 developed the following scenario: an establishment may face a problem, which might be 

3750 addressed under current exceptions, on some proportion of its acreage, e.g., 25 percent. The 

3751 inability to address the problem might contribute to yield or revenue loss of some amount on 

3752 those acres, e.g., five percent. Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year, 

3753 including family farms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to 

3754 pesticide labels under the WPS. In this case, EPA calculates that 9.8 percent of farms have early 

3755 entry events that would lead to such losses, given the proportion of specialty crop farms, 

3756 nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide-using farms and the assumption that there is an 

3757 early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications.

3758

3759 Growers most at risk would be those producing specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables and 

3760 those producing nursery and greenhouse crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive 

3761 to water and other stress than are field crops. Farms at risk would include all farms using 

3762 pesticides since the exemption to the REI extends to family farms only through the WPS. 

3763 According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including 

3764 government payments) was $50.5 billion for vegetables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and 

3765 greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 2008b). From the special tabulation requested from NASS, 

3766 there are nearly 200,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). 

3767 Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $260,000 per year and a five percent 

3768 loss would be around $13,000. Table 3.3-28 presents the calculation of per-establishment loss 

3769 using these figures.

3770
104

3771 Table 3.3-28. Per-Establishment Unit Costs for ENTRY-05.

Action/Material value of 

production

affected 

acreage

likelihood cost

Five percent yield loss $13,024 25% 9.8% $320.00

Total $320.00

3772 Source: EPA estimation. See text for derivation of numbers.

3773

3774 Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent 

3775 likelihood of occurrence could be an overstatement. Under this scenario, the expected loss per 

3776 establishment would be $320 per year, although if such an event were to occur, which would not 

3777 happen every year, the loss to affected enterprise would be around $3,250, i.e., the five percent 

3778 loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extrapolating to the national level indicates losses 

3779 of $247 million per year.

3780

3781 ENTRY-06 and 07. Cholinesterase inhibition. EPA considered two approaches that could 

3782 address the issue of handler exposure to cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. ENTRY-06 would 

3783 establish a monitoring program while ENTRY-07 would simply impose a limit on the time 

3784 handlers could work with these chemicals.

3785

3786 Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries facilitates a testing program to monitor 

3787 pesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers who apply organophosphate and N3788 methyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural employers are required to allow their employees to 

3789 participate in the program, which involves a blood test to establish a baseline and follow-up tests 

3790 for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The employee 

3791 can decline to participate. ENTRY-06 would make the program mandatory in all states. If the 

3792 handler’s cholinesterase levels drop, the handler would not be allowed to be exposed to such 

3793 pesticides until levels return to normal.

3794

3795 Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is used to establish both baseline and potential 

3796 costs for a U.S. program. The calculation for a handler employed on a WPS farm in the 

3797 Northwest is presented in Table 3.3-29. Washington reports that the voluntary program cost 

3798 $115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses. Given 

3799 that 2,024 handlers participated in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a 

3800 per-handler cost of $55.14. Based on the description of how the program follows up with an 

3801 examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e., those employed on 

3802 farms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program. The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 

3803 14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region.

3804

3805 The per-handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the handler’s 

3806 time that is spent getting tested. Each participating handler must go to a medical center and 

3807 submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily decline to participate. EPA assumes this takes 

3808 about one and a half hours, on average, including travel and wait time. Washington reports that 

3809 386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow-up 

3810 testing for cholinesterase inhibition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in 

3811 the program obtain follow-up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region. The data also 

3812 show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow-up tests, which implies that they spend 
105

3813 2.1 hours, including travel and wait time. As shown in Table 3.3-29, the expected cost per WPS 

3814 handler in the Northwest region is estimated to be $13.32.

3815

3816 Table 3.3-29. Per-WPS Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY-07, Cholinesterase monitoring 

3817 in NW.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Testing cost $ 55.14/handler 1 0.141 $ 7.76

Baseline blood test $ 20.83/hr 1.5 0.141 $ 4.40

Follow-up blood test $ 20.83/hr 2.07 0.027 $ 1.16

costr,NW,a

B $ 13.32

3818 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3819

3820 California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers 

3821 working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA 

3822 estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9.55

3823 for WPS handlers and $9.40 for CPHE handlers. See Appendix A for details. The baseline cost 

3824 in all other regions is zero.

3825

3826 To estimate national participation in a cholinesterase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates 

3827 from the Washington program. We estimate, based on the number of large and large-small 

3828 farms, that there are 4,415 WPS handlers in Washington state, which suggests that 45.8 percent 

3829 of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be tested, and 

3830 accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utilize pesticides each year. We further estimate 

3831 that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would participate given the rate at which WPS handlers 

3832 are involved and the fact that CPHE handlers work with pesticides every year. We assume that 

3833 the participation rate in Washington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and 

3834 carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variety of crops. Thus, the expected per-WPS handler 

3835 cost of the national program is calculated as in Table 3.3-30, but with the probability of testing 

3836 cost and baseline blood test of 0.458 and of follow-up blood tests of 0.087, or 19.1 percent of the 

3837 baseline participation. Expected cost per WPS handlers is $43.36 and is $47.51 for CPHE 

3838 handlers.

3839

3840 The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $15.2 million annually and 

3841 would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $52.70 per year, on average, and 

3842 would cost a CPHE an average of $123 per year.

3843

3844 In theory, a monitoring program would not be expected to affect the handlers’ ability to work. If 

3845 inhibition were seen, a handler could still work with other classes of pesticides. Nor would a 

3846 program necessarily affect the grower’s ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers 

3847 would likely be available. In practice, however, finding another application job or another 

3848 handler at a particular moment could be problematic. In 2007, only about one percent of 

3849 participating Washington handlers showed cholinesterase inhibition sufficient to warrant 

3850 removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely.

3851
106

3852 An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with 

3853 cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY-07). The primary cost of this approach would 

3854 be tracking the time handlers spend with such products. Data are not available for a precise 

3855 estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the cost as follows. Each handler, including self3856 employed handlers, would need to record his/her time following an activity using a ChI product, 

3857 a task that would take perhaps two minutes. The employer would then need to document the 

3858 accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take about three 

3859 minutes per handler. ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes 

3860 for WPS farms that they make up about 20 percent of applications, on average, and about 30 

3861 percent of applications by CPHE handlers. Following the scenario for ChI monitoring, we 

3862 calculate that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChI pesticides. Similarly, 51.0 percent of 

3863 CPHE handlers work with ChI products . Given these assumptions, which may underestimate 

3864 the extent of use of ChI products, EPA estimates the cost of tracking handlers’ time to be about 

3865 $4.2 million annually. The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, 

3866 but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides. CPHEs could face costs of around 

3867 $80 per year because of the number of applications an individual handler makes. This does not 

3868 include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time 

3869 limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or she reaches the limit and 

3870 alternative jobs are not available.

3871

3872 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

3873

3874 Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable 

3875 adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling 

3876 pesticides or entering fields when exposure is still probable. The potential requirements in this 

3877 category are intended to improve the use and efficacy of PPE. Costs to establishments are 

3878 mostly in additional materials such as additional PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit 

3879 testing. Additional time may be required for maintenance and record keeping. Some actions or 

3880 material will be required of all WPS farms that hire handlers, because they are part of routine 

3881 preparations. Other requirements may only be applicable when a pesticide application is actually 

3882 made. Table 3.3-30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of 

3883 PPE.

3884
107

Table 3.3-30. PPE, Present Value of Costs 1 3885 .

Potential Requirement

NCP NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640

02 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions for CCA 

employees, WPS 52,052 52,047 5 0.5

03 Eliminate early entry 

exceptions for CCA 

employees, CCA 13,338 13,325 13 1

04 Revise closed-system 

standards 153,863 93,133 60,730 6,912

05 Contaminated PPE 

rendered unwearable 0 0 0 0

3886 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 3887 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

3888

3889 PPE-01. Respirator fit test and medical evaluation. Currently, employers are required to insure 

3890 that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedures for doing so. Thus, in the 

3891 baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some individual adjustments at the time 

3892 of an application. The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA-like program of 

3893 fit testing. Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because the requirement has been 

3894 incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants. CPHE handlers are 

3895 fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self-employed handlers.

3896

3897 The proposed requirement would bring users of respirators for handling pesticides on-farm under 

3898 provisions similar to OSHA requirements, including that those using respirators are medically 

3899 cleared for their use. The costs of this requirement would include the time required for handlers 

3900 to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical screening. The actions and 

3901 materials required are shown in Table 3.3-31. The medical screening consists of a health survey 

3902 that takes about 30 minutes to complete. The survey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a 

3903 licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008). The Agency 

3904 assumes that, on average, one handler from large and large-small crop farms and one handler 

3905 from large livestock farms growing crops will routinely obtain the fit test each year, implying 

3906 about 60 percent of all handlers. This is probably an overestimate, but a number of widely used 

3907 pesticides have respirator requirements and growers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is 

3908 necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee. Data from OSHA (2004) indicate that about 23 

3909 percent of those taking the medical screen will need a follow-up examination, which implies 

3910 about 13.7 percent of all handlers. The examination is expected to take about two hours, 

3911 including travel and wait time. The cost of the examination is $101, based on the average cost of 

3912 an office visit to a general practitioner (Machlin and Carper, 2007). Once cleared, the handler 

3913 takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time. 

3914 The material for the fit test costs about a dollar (OSHA, 2004). As currently required, if the 

3915 respirator is used, the employer must provide instructions on proper use. Actual respirator use is 
108

3916 likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however. The expected cost-per WPS handler of the 

3917 requirement is calculated to be $48.72, as shown in Table 3.3-31.

3918

3919 Table 3.3-31. Per-WPS Handler Costs for PPE-01, Respirator fit test.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Initial survey $20.83/hr 0.5 hour 0.595 $ 6.19

Medical evaluation $42.91/hr 5 min 0.595 $ 2.13

Time for follow-up exam $20.83/hr 2 hour 0.137 $ 5.70

Follow-up medical exam $101.00 1 0.137 $ 13.82

Time for fit test, with travel $20.83/hr 1.5 hour 0.595 $ 18.58

Fit test material $1.00 1 0.595 $ 0.59

Employer instructs on 

proper use

$28.21/hr 6 min 0.351 $ 0.99

Handler receives 

instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0.351 $ 0.73

costr,i,a

P $ 48.74

3920 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3921

3922 The cost per-CHPE handler is calculated to be $82.29, which is higher than for WPS farms due 

3923 to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test. Since OSHA requirements 

3924 already apply to commercial enterprises, this cost is incurred in the baseline as well as under the 

3925 proposed requirement, resulting in no additional cost. However, the employer of the CPHE 

3926 handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per year to collect and store documentation of the 

3927 fit test and evaluation. The record keeping costs for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60 

3928 per year.

3929

3930 EPA estimates that the incremental cost of this potential requirement would be about $10.6

3931 million annually, with an average annual cost of $54.40 for WPS establishments that hire 

3932 handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs. The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost.

3933

3934 PPE-02 and 03. Exceptions for Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs assist growers to plan 

3935 production activities such as irrigation or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for 

3936 soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically 

3937 damaging levels. Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction 

3938 of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. The proposed requirements would remove the 

3939 exception for those working under CCAs employed by a farm (PPE-02) and/or under CCAs 

3940 employed by a firm that contracts advisory services (PPE-03). The requirement would only 

3941 apply to employees who are not certified. Without the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms 

3942 would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be 

3943 available under different provisions. Thus, the impacts of eliminating the exception will be 

3944 negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, 

3945 coveralls) on rare occasions.

3946
109

3947 PPE-04. Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements 

3948 allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in 

3949 which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. EPA is 

3950 considering revising the standards that define a closed system under which such a substitution is 

3951 permitted. The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and 

3952 CHPEs. Some entities may not use closed systems now. Others may have a system that is 

3953 already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those that are not in compliance, some 

3954 establishments may purchase a new, compliant system while others will opt for use of PPE. In 

3955 addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all system maintenance, something that is 

3956 not currently required under federal regulations, but is required by California.

3957

3958 Given the variability in possible impacts, estimation of the cost of the potential requirement is 

3959 difficult. In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms and 

3960 50 percent of large family farms do not currently use a closed system. Instead, they utilize PPE 

3961 and, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year. The other large and large3962 small WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only replace one pair of personal 

3963 filters each year. This probably overestimates the number of family farms using a closed system 

3964 as family farms may be less likely to self-apply pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also 

3965 assumes that about 20 percent of systems will require maintenance each year, entailing costs of 

3966 $86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). The probability of an 

3967 action is then modified by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides, 

3968 which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of 

3969 Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Table 3.3-32 presents the baseline calculations, showing EPA’s 

3970 estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large and large-small WPS farms. The baseline cost 

3971 for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year.

3972

3973 Table 3.3-32. Per-WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed 

3974 systems.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.67 $ 12.11

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.13 $ 11.66

costr,i,a

B $ 43.96

3975 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3976

3977 The per-establishment cost for CPHEs is calculated in a similar manner, but we assume that 

3978 CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two 

3979 person CPHEs have one. Thus the current expected cost per CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and 

3980 $35.27, respectively. Note that California systems are all in compliance with the potential 

3981 definition of a closed system. However, state requirements do not include recordkeeping.

3982

3983 Table 3.3-33 presents the expected cost for large and large-small WPS farms to comply with the 

3984 proposed standard. In addition to the 25 percent of farms not using a closed system, EPA 

3985 assumes another 25 percent of large and large-small WPS farms already have a system that 
110

3986 would meet the potential requirement. As shown in the second and third lines of Table 3.3-33, 

3987 these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct 

3988 maintenance as needed. We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system, 

3989 likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). Once in compliance, their filter and 

3990 maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems. Finally, 25 percent 

3991 of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a 

3992 closed system. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all 

3993 probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use 

3994 pesticides in a given year.

3995

3996 Table 3.3-33. Per- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for 

3997 closed systems, Year 1.

Action/Material (j) wage/price

wj

unit 

time/quantity

Hr,i,j /Mr,i,j

annual 

frequency

Prob(j|i)

cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89

New Closed System $480.00 1 0.25 $ 121.23

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.22 $ 4.04

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19

File Maintenance Record $ 28.21 3 min 0.09 $ 0.04

Record and Folder $ 0.29 1 0.09 $ 0.03

costPPE,a

P $ 177.52

3998 Source: EPA estimation. Prices (Gempler’s, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA 

3999 assumptions.

4000

4001 Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials. EPA 

4002 assumes that slightly less than ten percent of all large and large-small WPS farms (20% of those 

4003 with closed systems) will have a maintenance event to report. All establishments with closed 

4004 systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in 

4005 the file. As shown in Table 3.3-33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $178 in the 

4006 first year for large and large-small WPS farms. In subsequent years, these farms will not need to 

4007 purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $56.29, on average across all the affected 

4008 WPS farms.

4009

4010 A similar approach was used to estimate an expected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and 

4011 per CPHE of $221 to $442 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple 

4012 handler enterprises, respectively. The differences in cost arise because of different assumptions 

4013 about the use of closed systems on these establishments. For example, we assume that all 

4014 CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed 

4015 systems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems. In all cases, one third 

4016 are assumed to have systems already in compliance, one-third would obtain a new system, and 

4017 one-third would rely on PPE.

4018
111

4019 EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $32.5

4020 million for the first year, assuming that all new closed systems are purchased immediately. Over 

4021 ten years, using a three percent discount rate, the incremental cost is estimated at $60.7 million. 

4022 Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about 

4023 $4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,000, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 

4024 million. This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $24.90, to family farms of $12.00,

4025 and to CPHEs of $48.00. Note that the average impact per establishment includes those 

4026 establishments unaffected by the change in standards.

4027

4028 PPE-05. Disposal of contaminated PPE. The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated 

4029 PPE. The proposed revision would specify that contaminated PPE be rendered unwearable. The 

4030 change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact.

4031

4032 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

4033

4034 The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of 

4035 exposure to pesticides. EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define 

4036 expected standards for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees 

4037 to mitigate exposures if they occur. Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA 

4038 characterizes some potential cost impacts. A summary of the results of the cost analysis of these 

4039 potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3-34.

4040

Table 3.3-34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1 4041 .

Potential Requirement

NCP NCB NIC Annualized 

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0

02 Decontamination 

requirements, early entry 

events – workers 33 11 22 3

03 Decontamination requirements 

- handlers 434 434 0 0

04 Showers for handler 

decontamination 22,682,537 0 22,682,537 2,581,636

05 Emergency eyeflush - handlers 2,547 2,547 0 0

06 Eyewash station 121,999 2,547 119,452 13,596

4042 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1 4043 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.

4044

4045 SUPPLY-01. Quantity of water available for workers. A current WPS provision requires that 

4046 “enough” water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing 

4047 tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, 

4048 supplemented the rule with policy that stated that one gallon per worker would be considered 

4049 sufficient. This potential revision would make it explicit, in the regulations, that one gallon of 

4050 water be available for each worker for routine decontamination. Given the policy manual, it is 

4051 likely that all WPS farms are in compliance with the potential requirement such that the 
112

4052 incremental cost will be zero. Water would likely be supplied from existing wells or delivery 

4053 systems; some sort of containers would be necessary to have water available in the field.

4054

4055 SUPPLY-02. Quantity of water available for early entry events. Similarly, for tasks in treated 

4056 areas during an REI, the WPS requires “sufficient” water be available for decontamination and 

4057 the “How to Comply” manual stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient. 

4058 The proposed requirement would increase the amount of water needed to three gallons. 

4059 Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs to 

4060 be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in 

4061 the activity. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. 

4062 (NASS, 2010), a gallon would cost about $0.003. Given these assumptions, the incremental cost 

4063 of increasing water availability is estimated to be $2,500 annually. This amounts to less than 

4064 $0.01 per WPS farm per year.

4065

4066 SUPPLY-03. Quantity of water available for handler decontamination. Currently, the WPS 

4067 requires that “enough” water be available for handlers to use for routine and emergency washing, 

4068 including emergency eye-flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the 

4069 rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient. This 

4070 potential revision would codify the existing definition of ‘enough’ water for decontamination. 

4071 The impact of this requirement would be negligible given the existing requirement and policy 

4072 manual. As noted in SUPPLY-01, water availability would not generally be a problem.

4073

4074 Supply-04. Provide showers for handler decontamination. This option would require all 

4075 establishments with handlers to install showers for decontamination purposes. The impact of this 

4076 requirement would be substantial. Based on an estimate from an architectural engineer, material 

4077 and construction costs to install a shower with plumbing and utilities would cost about $105,000 

4078 (Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007). Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars 

4079 for construction. Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $2.6 billion per year and almost $12,000

4080 per WPS farm. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. In practice, most 

4081 WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all 

4082 applications themselves or turn to CPHEs. The cost for current CPHEs to install showers could 

4083 be as much as $2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand 

4084 for pesticide applications. In the short term, EPA estimates that there are over 150,000 handlers 

4085 employed on WPS establishments who could lose their jobs. Some would likely transfer to more 

4086 general employment categories, possibly at some loss of wages. Others would likely find 

4087 employment with CPHEs, for which demand would increase. Thus, the final number of jobs lost 

4088 as a result of this potential requirement is uncertain.

4089

4090 There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement. For use in an 

4091 emergency, a decontamination shower may only cost about $630, not including installation 

4092 (Grainger, 2013). Such equipment is usually for indoor use and it is unclear whether it would be 

4093 appropriate for mixing/loading sites on-farm. If the goal is to provide handlers, and potentially 

4094 workers, with an opportunity to clean off any residues before returning home, an outdoor shower 

4095 with privacy panels may suffice for small farms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013). Some 

4096 farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the 

4097 more substantial facilities described above, but annualized costs might be less than $1 billion.
113

4098

4099 SUPPLY-05 and 06. Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements 

4100 specify that handlers should have at least one pint of water available when working with 

4101 pesticides requiring protective eyewear. Potential requirements would require there to be a 

4102 sustained flow of water. SUPPLY-05 would require that there be sufficient running water at all 

4103 permanent mixing and loading sites to provide 1.5 liters per minute. There would be little or no 

4104 impact to this requirement as permanent sites are likely to have running water for other purposes 

4105 such as diluting concentrated pesticides.

4106

4107 An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would require a separate eyewash station. The average cost of a 

4108 portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 2008; Gempler’s, 2008). Given the number of 

4109 CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates 

4110 the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $66.7 million. Assuming that annual 

4111 maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annualized cost of this 

4112 potential requirement is about $13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate.

4113

4114 3.3.9 Emergency Response

4115

4116 The time between an accident and the provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in 

4117 mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticide. Current requirements require “prompt” action 

4118 in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of information about the specific 

4119 pesticide to which the individual was exposed. Terms such as “prompt” lack specificity, 

4120 however; they do not provide employers with clear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is 

4121 considering potential requirements that would more precisely define standards for emergency 

4122 response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as 

4123 explained below.

4124

4125 EMERG-01 and 02. Response for worker exposure. Potential requirements would define 

4126 expected emergency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes 

4127 (EMERG-01) or 30 minutes (EMERG-02). Estimation of a precise cost of this requirement is 

4128 not possible as field conditions are highly variable. However, as this merely clarifies existing 

4129 requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones 

4130 suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement. The 

4131 most difficult aspect of the requirement for field workers will be identifying the pesticide to 

4132 which an individual is exposed. In an early entry situation, the problem may be assumed to be 

4133 the most recent application. However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, 

4134 especially if workers are exposed to pesticide drift from an application performed on a different 

4135 farm. 

4136

4137 EMERG-03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Similarly, potential requirements would 

4138 define expected emergency response time in case of handler exposure as either 60 minutes 

4139 (EMERG-03) or 30 minutes (EMERG-04). Neither potential time frame is likely to result in 

4140 measurable impacts. In particular, identification of the pesticide to which the individual is 

4141 exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers.

4142

4143
114

4144 This concludes the analysis of the cost of each requirement option. The following chapters 

4145 discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subset of the options discussed in this section. 

4146 Chapter 4 describes the cost-benefit analysis used by the Agency in selecting the requirements 

4147 for proposal. Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal 

4148 on employment and small businesses. Chapter 6 discusses the ultimate benefits of the proposed 

4149 revisions in terms of improved human health that results from less pesticide exposure, both from 

4150 reduced pesticide incidents and from lower day-to-day exposure.

4151

4152
115

4153 Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements

4154

4155 EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that will provide benefits to workers and pesticide 

4156 handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler 

4157 establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessive costs to employers. Out of the potential 

4158 requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the 

4159 requirements the Agency is proposing.

4160

4161 Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements.

Identifier Title

INFORM: Training, Hazard Communication, and Notification

TRAIN-02 Immediate Training of Workers, with 2-Day Exception

TRAIN-03 Annual Training of Workers

TRAIN-06 Expand Worker Training

TRAIN-08 Increase Worker Trainer Qualification Standards

TRAIN-10 Keep Worker Training Records – 2 years

TRAIN-12 Annual Handler Training

TRAIN-14 Expand Handler Training

TRAIN-16 Keep Handler Training Records – 2 years

TRAIN-20 Require Employees Receive Verification of Training

HAZCOM-01 Application Information Available on Request

HAZCOM-02 Availability of Pesticide Label and SDS

HAZCOM-05 Keep Application Information – 2 years

NOTIFY-01 Post Warning Signs if REI Greater than 48 Hours for Outdoor Production

NOTIFY-03 Oral Notification if REI Less than 4 Hours (Greenhouse)

NOTIFY-06 Revise Warning Signs

NOTIFY-08 Define ‘Adjacent’ Worker Housing as within 100 Feet

NOTIFY-10 Oral Information for Entry into Restricted Areas

NOTIFY-12 Keep Records of Early Entry – 2 years

NOTIFY-14 Revise Basic Pesticide Safety Display

NOTIFY-15 Add Safety Display to Worker Decontamination Sites

NOTIFY-16 Add Safety Display to Handler Decontamination Sites

NOTIFY-18 Notification of Application by Commercial Applicators

PROTECT: Age, Entry, and PPE

AGE-01 Minimum Age of 16 for Early Entry

AGE-03 Minimum Age of 16 for Handlers

ENTRY-01 Expand Restricted Area

ENTRY-02 Halt Application in case of Entry into Restricted Area

ENTRY-03 Limit Early Entry Time during Agricultural Emergencies to 4 Hours

PPE-01 Require Respirator Fit Test

PPE-02 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for WPS Employees working under a CCA

PPE-03 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for Employees working under CCAs

PPE-04 Revise Closed-System Standards

PPE-05 Render Contaminated PPE Unusable
116

Identifier Title

MITIGATE: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Response

SUPPLY-01 Routine Worker Decontamination Requirements

SUPPLY-02 Decontamination Requirements for Early Entry Events

SUPPLY-03 Decontamination Requirements for Handlers

SUPPLY-05 Water Flow Requirements for Handler Eye Flushing

EMERG-01 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency

EMERG-03 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency

4162

4163 This chapter provides a comparison of the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in 

4164 developing the proposed revisions to the WPS. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of 

4165 different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or 

4166 more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement. The 

4167 emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of providing the 

4168 agricultural workers and handlers with the highest level of protection practicable while 

4169 minimizing economic impacts to agriculture, and small businesses in particular.

4170

4171 In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered 

4172 the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory 

4173 development process (e.g., farmworkers and farmworker advocate organizations, growers and 

4174 grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticide safety trainers, researchers, and other federal 

4175 agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA). Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this 

4176 document as they lie outside the scope of a cost-benefit analysis. Other relevant factors include, 

4177 for example, equity considerations (e.g., potential distribution of costs) and concerns over the 

4178 feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory experiences. A discussion of all 

4179 these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule.

4180

4181 4.1 Training Options

4182

4183 The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training for workers and 

4184 handlers. Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections. 

4185 Insuring that workers and handlers have the information necessary so that they can take 

4186 appropriate steps to protect themselves from pesticide exposure is more efficient than attempting 

4187 to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise.

4188

4189 4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training

4190

4191 EPA is proposing to require that all workers receive complete pesticide safety training prior to 

4192 their entry into a pesticide-treated area with limited exceptions that allow for a two-day grace 

4193 period (TRAIN-02). Requiring employers to provide the complete training to workers before 

4194 they enter a treated area would ensure that workers understand how to protect themselves when 

4195 working in pesticide-treated fields. This is an especially critical issue for many temporary 

4196 workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than 

4197 five days on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fall into this category. 

4198 These temporary workers may work on multiple farms, especially for harvest, and never receive 
117

4199 complete training. Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substantial improvement in 

4200 pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this proposal will ensure that about 13,000 more workers 

4201 will receive full training before they enter previously treated areas. These changes should 

4202 decrease the number of occupational pesticide-related illnesses because workers would be better 

4203 informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area.

4204

4205 EPA estimates that TRAIN-02 will cost about $5.80 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an 

4206 increase in the number of trainings conducted to account for workers who are hired at different 

4207 times. The alternative, TRAIN-01 (no grace period), is estimated to cost $7.10 per year per 

4208 WPS farm. In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also considers the fact the workers 

4209 themselves may bear some of this cost since many workers hired at harvest are paid by the 

4210 amount they pick rather than by the hour.

4211

4212 4.1.2 TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and 

4213 handler training

4214

4215 EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN-03) and handler (TRAIN-12) pesticide safety 

4216 training be valid for one year from the date of training, instead of five years. This means that 

4217 employees would be retrained on an annual basis. To be effective, training must be repeated at 

4218 appropriate intervals. Pesticide safety educators have noted that “repeating basic safety 

4219 messages increases adoption of improved safety practices (Spradley, 2007).” Thus, retention of 

4220 pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training. 

4221 Calabro et al. (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better 

4222 than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their 

4223 patients. Thus, while both alternatives would be an improvement over the current five year 

4224 cycle, annual training is likely to provide substantially greater benefits than biennial training.

4225

4226 Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS 

4227 farms an additional $22.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about 

4228 $8.10 per year. For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17.00 per 

4229 year per WPS farm and $66.70 per year for CPHEs. Costs for biennial handler training is 

4230 estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year for WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively.

4231

4232 While the difference in costs between the annual and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA 

4233 balanced the higher cost of annual training with the importance of more frequent training. As 

4234 noted above, annual training will lead to better retention of the self-protective information by 

4235 workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 

4236 exposure and illness in workers and handlers. Moreover, training reinforces many of the other 

4237 WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs.

4238

4239 The Agency also considered an alternative based on a comment from the SBAR panel. This 

4240 option (TRAIN-05) would require annual retraining but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 

4241 10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see 

4242 Chapter 2.2.1). EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms 

4243 (those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15.40 per year under TRAIN-03 to 
118

4244 $12.40 per year. However, this alternative would mean about 82,000 workers would not receive 

4245 training, possibly for several years.

4246

4247 4.1.3 TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and 

4248 handler training

4249

4250 Expansion of pesticide safety training content is a key component of the overall WPS rule 

4251 amendments and affects multiple areas of the proposed changes. A major goal of this expansion 

4252 is to support changes in the hazard communication component in the revised WPS. The new 

4253 training reinforces EPA’s strategy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic 

4254 pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure 

4255 risks while putting less emphasis on pesticide-specific information that could lead to 

4256 complacency in some cases and excess concern in others.

4257

4258 EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pesticide safety training to include additional 

4259 topics on how to reduce take-home pesticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN-06) and 

4260 handlers (TRAIN-14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed 

4261 requirements for early entry notification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard 

4262 communication materials, especially the SDS.

4263

4264 The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training by about 15 

4265 minutes. The longer training sessions would cost an additional $11.00 per WPS farm per year

4266 for worker training and an estimated $3.20 per WPS farm and $14.70 per CPHE per year for 

4267 handler training.

4268

4269 EPA also considered alternatives that would have supported the use of crop sheets instead of 

4270 SDS as the primary means of hazard communication. These alternatives (TRAIN-07 and 15) 

4271 would be slightly more expensive since explaining the details of crop sheets would be more 

4272 complex than explaining the SDS. The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this 

4273 estimate, nor is the cost of printing and distributing copies; the latter two are captured in 

4274 HAZCOM-07 and HAZCOM-04, respectively.

4275

4276 Generally speaking, the benefits of crop and chemical-specific information do not appear to 

4277 justify the costs of development, distribution, and training. Crop sheets may confuse workers 

4278 with complex pesticide information, possibly before any product is used. Providing such 

4279 information could be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide 

4280 safety messages.

4281

4282 4.1.4 TRAIN-08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards

4283

4284 EPA is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS-trained 

4285 handlers (TRAIN-08), leaving training to those qualified to train certified applicators or those 

4286 who have completed a “Train-the-Trainers” program. An alternative evaluated here is to limit 

4287 training only to those who have completed a Train-the-Trainers program (TRAIN-09). As 

4288 discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers 
119

4289 may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to 

4290 train. The unique characteristics and demographics of the farmworker population, especially 

4291 language and literacy issues, implies that there are substantial benefits to having trainers that 

4292 have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse population. These trainers, 

4293 i.e., those completing the Train-the-Trainers program, have the ability to convey pesticide safety 

4294 information, the knowledge of adult education principles, and the communication skills needed 

4295 to reach low-literacy audiences. Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding 

4296 and retention of pesticide safety training by workers. This improvement would increase the 

4297 likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined in the pesticide safety training 

4298 and reduce the potential for exposure to themselves and their family members. Trainers of 

4299 certified applicators will have the technical knowledge, but may not have the skills to convey the 

4300 information to a farmworker audience. The cost of both provisions is estimated to be about 

4301 $2.80 per WPS farm. However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have 

4302 completed a Train-the-Trainer program could lead to shortages of trainers, even though the 

4303 provision will be delayed for two years.

4304

4305 4.1.5 TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN-16 vs 17: Record keeping

4306

4307 EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN-10) and handler 

4308 (TRAIN-16) employee training for two years. As explained in Chapter 2, these proposals may

4309 benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that 

4310 applicable requirements have been met. Keeping records for two years is expected to cost WPS 

4311 farms about $4.10 per year for worker training and less than $1.00 for handler training. For 

4312 CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the cost of handler training is about $3.00 per year. 

4313 Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of 

4314 training and about $0.80 more per CPHE than retaining records for two years. Information from 

4315 regulatory agencies indicates that a two year time frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify 

4316 training through records retained by the employer, especially if training is to be conducted 

4317 annually. Therefore EPA concludes that, if training occurs more frequently than is currently 

4318 required, the longer, five-year retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the 

4319 two-year period.

4320

4321 4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification

4322

4323 There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employers to use verification 

4324 cards to identify workers and handlers who have been trained in accordance with the WPS. The 

4325 purpose of the program has been, in part, to provide some means of verifying compliance with 

4326 training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they 

4327 change employers, thus reducing duplicative training. In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems 

4328 with the current voluntary program for training verification in which workers and handlers 

4329 receive cards they can show to subsequent employers. Primary among the problems is that cards 

4330 may be lost or stolen and are too small to contain all the information needed for adequate 

4331 verification. These problems reduce employers’ ability to rely on the cards and, therefore, the 

4332 ability of employees to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the 

4333 voluntary program to justify the expenditure. Eliminating the program (TRAIN-18) is estimated, 
120

4334 in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would 

4335 accrue to EPA. Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) is estimated to cost about $641,000 

4336 per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification 

4337 (TRAIN-20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program.

4338

4339 However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the 

4340 proposed requirements for annual training (Section 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of 

4341 training and thus shortens the period over which the information must be verifiable. The 

4342 information will thus be more reliable. The proposed record keeping requirements discussed in 

4343 Section 4.1.5 would provide sufficient supporting documentation. EPA also notes that a majority 

4344 of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers who may move frequently from farm to farm at 

4345 harvest as these workers are typically paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked. 

4346 Thus, the time these workers spend in training – especially repeated training – reduces their 

4347 wages.

4348

4349 Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program have the advantage of 

4350 being easy for workers to carry. They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time 

4351 required to fill them out individually. In addition to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training 

4352 register as verification has the distinct advantage of providing subsequent employers with 

4353 sufficient information for their records, while verification card of the sort typically used would 

4354 not. If subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain 

4355 all the information, they are unlikely to be willing to accept the cards as proof of training.

4356

4357 4.2 Hazard Communication Options

4358

4359 The WPS requires agricultural employers to post information on pesticide applications for 

4360 workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, nursery, or greenhouse, known as “central 

4361 posting.” The current requirement for central posting includes the display of the following 

4362 information: location and description of treated areas, the pesticide product name, EPA pesticide 

4363 registration number, the pesticide active ingredient name(s), the time and date the pesticide is to 

4364 be applied, and the REI, specified in duration (e.g., hours or days). Posting is required for 30 

4365 days following the expiration of the REI.

4366

4367 EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to workers and 

4368 handlers in the event of an exposure and so they may learn about chemicals they might be 

4369 exposed to in the workplace. However, there are several problems with the central posting 

4370 requirement that impede its intended purpose. On large establishments, or those where growing 

4371 areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where 

4372 workers or handlers are working. Employers have informed the Agency that it can be difficult 

4373 to make changes to the information prior to beginning the application and to ensure that the 

4374 information remains current. Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to 

4375 workers and handlers. 

4376

4377 4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information

4378
121

4379 EPA is proposing to require that employers make pesticide application hazard information, 

4380 available to workers, handlers, and their representatives upon request (HAZCOM-01). At the 

4381 same time, this revision would eliminate the requirement for the application records to be posted 

4382 at a central location. In addition, the application information would add the start and end times 

4383 of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI. The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 

4384 million annually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 

4385 percent of applications.

4386

4387 Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting worker and handler exposure to pesticides can best 

4388 be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps that workers and handlers can take to protect 

4389 themselves. Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and 

4390 handlers rejecting the standard safety principles from the training, leading to increased potential 

4391 for exposure. In addition, workers may not routinely pass the central posting area because their 

4392 workplace is at a different part of the establishment. Thus, central posting is not necessarily an 

4393 effective means to communicate with employees.

4394

4395 However, this detailed information would be important in the event a worker or handler is 

4396 poisoned and needs medical attention, for example. It is the healthcare provider who most needs 

4397 to know to what the patient is exposed in order to provide the proper treatment. The proposed 

4398 change would continue to make available, at a designated location, pesticide application 

4399 information for workers and handlers

4400

4401 4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide-specific Hazard Communication 

4402 Materials 

4403

4404 EPA is proposing that the agricultural employer compile the SDS and the product label in 

4405 addition to the current application record (HAZCOM-02). The cost of this requirement is 

4406 estimated to be $13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3. One alternative would 

4407 be to add only the pesticide label to the current information (HAZCOM-03), which would cost 

4408 about $4.10 per year per WPS farm. These cost estimates are based on posting the information 

4409 at a central location. A second alternative would be to require crop sheets (HAZCOM-04), 

4410 estimated to cost $33.00 per year per WPS farm. This cost estimates is based on the distribution 

4411 of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area.

4412

4413 As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed information on crop sheets may confuse workers with 

4414 overly specific information about pesticide hazards, leading to complacency in some situations 

4415 and inappropriate concern in others. A simple, consistent approach to safety, provided through 

4416 frequent training, is likely to be more effective. Hazard information is particularly valuable in 

4417 case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provide the bulk of this value. While the pesticide 

4418 label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for 

4419 safe use and handling. The SDS provides information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and 

4420 on treatment.

4421

4422 4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention

4423
122

4424 As discussed above in TRAIN-10 and -11, recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of 

4425 verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five years

4426 (HAZCOM-06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM-05) ($8.40 vs. 

4427 $7.60 per WPS farm), However, state agencies have indicated that a retention period of more 

4428 than two years provides little or no additional benefit.

4429

4430 4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registrant-produced crop sheets

4431

4432 EPA considered requiring registrants to publish crop-specific hazard sheets along with the labels 

4433 for all agricultural products. This requirement would support the alternative approach to hazard 

4434 communication under HAZCOM-04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training 

4435 under TRAIN-06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know 

4436 how to interpret and use the crop sheets. As noted in the discussions above, however, it is not 

4437 clear that this additional information provides substantial additional benefits. While this 

4438 additional information is useful in certain circumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse 

4439 workers with complex pesticide application information that would be counterproductive to 

4440 providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages. EPA estimates this 

4441 requirement would cost $25.3 million over three years, equivalent to $2.9 million annually for 

4442 ten years. This cost does not include the cost of developing these sheets, which would likely be 

4443 substantial as they would have to be location-specific.

4444

4445 4.3 Notification Options

4446

4447 In addition to the more general training and hazard communication requirements, the WPS also 

4448 requires that specific information be provided in certain situations. This information is often 

4449 necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that would put them at risk.

4450

4451 4.3.1 NOTIFY-01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production

4452

4453 The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about 

4454 areas where an REI is in effect unless required by the product label to provide both oral and 

4455 posted warnings. NOTIFY-01 would require posting if the REI is longer than 48 hours, at an 

4456 estimated cost of $11.1 million per year, and NOTIFY-02 would require posting for REIs longer 

4457 than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7.9 million per year. On a per-farm basis, estimated to 

4458 cost are about $28.30 per year for NOTIFY-01 and about $20.10 per year for NOTIFY-02. A 

4459 WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from 

4460 NOTIFY-02 to NOTIFY-01 is approximately $1.40 per worker. 

4461

4462 Entry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor 

4463 contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 

4464 (Calvert et al., 2008). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of 

4465 awareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI. Given the 

4466 magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an individual worker of posting are likely to be high, 

4467 including the marginal benefits of posting when REIs are between 48 and 72 hours.

4468
123

4469 4.3.2 NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production

4470

4471 The current rule requires posting of the warning sign for all applications in enclosed space 

4472 production (greenhouses and enclosed nurseries). EPA proposes to relax this requirement and 

4473 allow employers the options of oral or posted notification if the product applied has a REI of four

4474 hours or less. This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would 

4475 accrue to small businesses who can easily inform a few workers that a REI is in effect.

4476

4477 Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently 

4478 enter unposted treated areas. Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without 

4479 increasing workers’ risk of exposure. 

4480

4481 4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification 

4482

4483 To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs 

4484 shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered requiring that agricultural employers create 

4485 and retain records of the oral warning provided, signed by the workers who received the 

4486 notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY-04) or 5 years (NOTIFY-05). Given the frequency of 

4487 pesticide applications, a large quantity of records would be required. As explained in Chapter 3, 

4488 these provisions would cost about $20.2 to $20.5 million per year, respectively.

4489

4490 The addition of the proposed recordkeeping component for oral notification could encourage 

4491 employers to ensure workers receive accurate information, which in turn could lead to fewer 

4492 workers entering fields under a REI and fewer incidents of occupational exposure. EPA has 

4493 insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncompliance with the existing 

4494 requirements and that there would be high benefits associated with these alternatives. Posting 

4495 for long REI (NOTIFY-01) and training (TRAIN-06) are likely to provide similar benefits at 

4496 lower cost.

4497

4498 4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

4499

4500 EPA is proposing minor modifications to the current WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon 

4501 as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase “Entry Restricted” in place of the blanket 

4502 “Keep Out.” The cost is likely to be inconsequential, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be 

4503 about $0.25 per WPS farm per year. 

4504

4505 EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones symbol, but more critically considered 

4506 requiring the REI signs to include information on the pesticide used to treat the field. As a result, 

4507 the cost of this option is estimated to be about $8.00 per year per WPS farm. As noted in 

4508 Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on the REI warning sign is not likely to help the 

4509 worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits.

4510
124

4511 4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

4512

4513 When the WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs must currently be placed where 

4514 they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated 

4515 area, or an area affording maximum visibility and when treated areas are adjacent to worker 

4516 housing. EPA proposes to revise the WPS to specify that warning signs must be posted in a 

4517 visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of a treated area 

4518 (NOTIFY-08). This is a clarifying revision and EPA anticipates negligible impacts. It will 

4519 largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations.

4520

4521 EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and 

4522 every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this provision would 

4523 cost about $660 per year per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typically preclude 

4524 walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would 

4525 substantially reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertently enter a field under REI. Posting in 

4526 cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY-01) is likely to result in higher benefits.

4527

4528 4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry 

4529 tasks

4530

4531 The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in 

4532 effect except for cases of “limited contact,” “no-contact,” “short-term,” “irrigation,” or 

4533 “agricultural emergency activities” as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112). The 

4534 WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these 

4535 exceptions with the label-required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed 

4536 on the label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker 

4537 exits the field. EPA is proposing that agricultural employers provide more detailed information 

4538 to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI. This additional 

4539 notification includes the type of contact permitted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with 

4540 which workers must be provided. NOTIFY-10 would require that this information be provided 

4541 orally and is estimated to cost $698,000 annually or about $1.80 per WPS farm. NOTIFY-11 

4542 would require the information be provided both orally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 

4543 million per year or $2.70 per WPS farm per year. 

4544

4545 Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide-related illness in 

4546 workers (Calvert et al., 2008). Providing workers with more information about how to protect 

4547 themselves from pesticide exposure would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of 

4548 pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. Given the 

4549 differences in language and frequent low English literacy rates among farmworkers, written 

4550 information may not be useful and could distract workers from the oral information. 

4551

4552 4.3.7 NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks

4553

4554 Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verifying and insuring compliance will 

4555 provide substantial benefits. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers to obtain the 
125

4556 signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required 

4557 information and keep this record on file for 2 years (NOTIFY-12). The estimated national cost 

4558 for this requirement is $469,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average. 

4559 Extending the retention period to five years (NOTIFY-13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm 

4560 per year, but the longer period appears to provide no significant benefits. According to 

4561 discussions with state agencies, a two-year timeframe is adequate for enforcement needs.

4562

4563 4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display

4564

4565 The WPS currently requires agricultural establishments to post a pesticide safety poster listing 

4566 basic pesticide safety information. With NOTIFY-14, the Agency is proposing to augment the 

4567 required content to provide additional medical information and emergency contact information,

4568 including contact information for the state or tribal regulatory agency. This additional 

4569 information will reinforce the safety training in aspects that are not part of routine activities, i.e., 

4570 recognizing pesticide poisoning and knowing whom to call in case of a pesticide exposure 

4571 incident. If there are any changes in contact information, posters must be updated promptly. It is 

4572 critical that such information be readily available because workers and handlers are unlikely to 

4573 retain emergency contact information if it is only presented orally. 

4574

4575 The incremental cost of NOTIFY-14 would be the time required to include this information on 

4576 existing safety programs, which would be done by the WPS farm. The annualized cost is 

4577 estimated to be about $108,000 or about $0.30 per WPS farm per year.

4578

4579 4.3.9 NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays

4580

4581 Currently, safety information must be displayed at a central location on the WPS farm, along 

4582 with any application-specific information (see HAZCOM-01, Section 4.2.1). EPA proposes that 

4583 employers maintain the central safety display and also display the information at 

4584 decontamination sites. NOTIFY-15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses 

4585 handler sites. The value of displaying the information in a main area through which workers will 

4586 frequently pass is to reinforce pesticide training. However, it is also important that the 

4587 information be displayed at sites where the information will be most useful, that is, along with 

4588 decontamination supplies.

4589

4590 The cost of these requirements comes from the cost of new posters or displays and the labor to 

4591 post them. On an annual basis, the cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is 

4592 estimated to be $2.0 million or $5.10 per WPS farm. EPA anticipates that these requirements 

4593 will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation. The smallest WPS farms, for example, 

4594 with two or three workers may need only one safety display, and will incur costs below the 

4595 average. The cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 

4596 or $2.00 for WPS farms that employs handlers.

4597

4598 An alternative (NOTIFY-17) would be to require safety information to be posted along with REI 

4599 warning signs. Although the additional safety display would help to reinforce safety training 

4600 because they would increase the number of times they were seen, there is no particular value to 
126

4601 associating the displays with REI warnings as accidental exposure can occur in many situations, 

4602 not just entry into a recently treated field. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option to 

4603 be about $4.8 million annually, or around $12.10 per WPS farm, on average, or nearly double the 

4604 cost of NOTIFY-15 and 16 combined.

4605

4606 4.3.10NOTIFY-18: Notification by commercial applicators

4607

4608 The WPS currently requires handler and worker employers to exchange information about 

4609 pesticide applications before the application takes place and immediately upon any change, 

4610 including minor changes in the start and end time of an application. EPA is proposing to codify 

4611 existing guidance regarding when information must be transmitted. For example, minor changes 

4612 in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not affect the REI would not have to be reported. No 

4613 costs are anticipated; benefits are mainly the resolution of regulatory uncertainty.

4614

4615 4.4 Age Requirement Options

4616

4617 The WPS does not currently establish age restrictions on workers or handlers covered by the 

4618 regulation. This is problematic for two reasons. First, young people may be more susceptible to 

4619 pesticides because their systems are still developing. Second, adolescents generally take more 

4620 risks than do adults; they may not accurately gauge risks and they may discount the potential 

4621 consequences of those risks. Minimum age requirements for certain activities could have 

4622 substantial benefits, specifically workers performing tasks in fields during a REI and as pesticide 

4623 handlers where exposure may be high.

4624

4625 Under the proposal, these age restrictions do not apply to persons covered by the immediate 

4626 family exemption.

4627

4628 4.4.1 AGE-01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities

4629

4630 Early entry activities are allowed under certain situations, including agricultural emergencies

4631 where, for example, a freeze is expected to cause damage to a crop. The fact that the REI has not 

4632 expired indicates that there is heightened risk from exposure to pesticide residues. Precluding 

4633 adolescents from these activities protects their more susceptible systems from this exposure. 

4634 Reduced exposure can reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide-related 

4635 illnesses, as well as protect them from chronic and developmental effects that may be associated 

4636 with children’s exposure to pesticides.

4637

4638 EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for workers to engage in early entry 

4639 activities (AGE-01), which is estimated to cost about $156,000 per year, or $0.40 per year per 

4640 WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of employing adults at a higher wage rate for these 

4641 activities. However, the cost of this provision is actually one of scheduling available workers 

4642 rather than employing different workers. This option would potentially protect about 19,000

4643 workers under the age of 16, and cost about $8.20 per adolescent. A second option, to establish a 

4644 minimum age of 18 (AGE-01), is estimated to cost $723,000 per year, or $1.80 per year per WPS 
127

4645 farm. This option would cover about 86,900 workers under the age of 18 at a cost of $8.30 per 

4646 adolescent. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the two options is very similar.

4647

4648 Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 

4649 exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in early entry activities under the EPA’s 

4650 proposed option.

4651

4652 4.4.2 AGE-03 vs AGE-04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides

4653

4654 Similarly, EPA considered two options for a minimum age requirement for WPS handlers, AGE4655 03, a prohibition on persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides and AGE-04, 

4656 which limits WPS handling activities to individuals 18 years of age and older.

4657

4658 The benefits of an age restriction for handlers are similar to those for workers engaged in early 

4659 entry activities. Moreover, since handlers work directly with pesticides, there is greater potential 

4660 for risks to themselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit persons younger than 16 from 

4661 handling pesticides (AGE-03). EPA estimates that this restriction would protect more than 1,000

4662 adolescents currently handling pesticides. The alternative, a minimum age of 18 (AGE-04), 

4663 would protect about 4,800 adolescents, including around 200 adolescents working for CPHEs.

4664

4665 The total cost of the proposed minimum age is estimated to be $466,000 per year and would 

4666 likely only cost WPS farms about $2.40 per year, on average. Given the small number of 

4667 adolescents under 16 tasked with handling pesticides, the cost is about $460 per adolescent. The 

4668 estimated cost of limiting handling to persons over 18 years of age is $3.1 million per year 

4669 nationally. This would cost an average WPS establishment about $11.20 annually and a CPHE 

4670 about $317 annually, although the latter estimate in particular is likely to be highly conservative

4671 because of the number of hours adolescents are assumed to work. Considering that nearly 4,800

4672 adolescents may be engaged in handling activities, the cost is about $630 per adolescent. The 

4673 cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adolescent protected, is somewhat better for the proposed 

4674 option. However, the estimate for the minimum age of 18 is heavily influenced by the 

4675 assumptions about the number of hours worked by adolescents in CPHEs.

4676

4677 Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 

4678 exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in handling activities under the EPA’s 

4679 proposed option.

4680

4681 4.5 Entry Restriction Options

4682

4683 Existing entry restrictions are primarily aimed at protecting farm workers during and after 

4684 pesticide applications. The goal of the revisions is to strengthen those protections.

4685

4686 4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas

4687

4688 While the WPS currently includes requirements for entry-restricted areas around the treated area 

4689 during applications to nurseries and in greenhouses, there are no entry-restricted areas during 
128

4690 applications on farms and forests. Currently, a worker on a farm may be assigned to work in an 

4691 area immediately adjacent to the treated area where a pesticide application is taking place. Many 

4692 incidents of drift and off-target applications have resulted in reported worker illnesses. Drift is 

4693 cited in a SENSOR-Pesticides/CDPR publications as the leading factor contributing to pesticide 

4694 poisoning incidents reported among agricultural workers from 1998-2005 (Calvert et al., 2008).

4695

4696 Additionally, the current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to 

4697 contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately 

4698 trained and equipped handler.” However, the current regulatory language fails to provide 

4699 handlers with a clear course of action if they observe a person, other than a trained and properly 

4700 equipped handler, to be present in the entry-restricted area.

4701

4702 EPA proposes ENTRY-01, the establishment of entry-restricted areas during applications for 

4703 farms and forests. Extending the protection of entry-restricted areas for all WPS-covered 

4704 workers is a simple way to improve worker safety. A second revision, ENTRY-02, specifies that 

4705 handlers must “cease application” if a non-handler enters the treated and entry-restricted areas. 

4706 The revisions entail minor regulatory improvements and clarifications while resulting in 

4707 potentially significant impacts on reducing incidents of worker exposure to drift. The cost 

4708 estimated for restricting entry to perimeters adjacent to an area being treated is negligible, 

4709 because workers can be reassigned temporarily while the application takes place.

4710

4711 4.5.2 ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities

4712

4713 As described above (Section 4.3.6), the WPS provides for exceptions to entry restrictions so that 

4714 certain activities considered critical to successful agricultural production can take place during a 

4715 REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions allow entry into an area under an REI for activities 

4716 with limited contact with treated surfaces, irrigation activities, certain short-term activities, and 

4717 activities associated with agricultural emergencies. The “limited contact” and irrigation 

4718 exceptions allow workers to be in a treated area for up to eight hours but existing regulations do 

4719 not establish a limit on the duration workers are allowed in the treated area for agricultural 

4720 emergencies. Since length of exposure is a factor in the amount of residue a person may contact, 

4721 limiting the time in the field effectively reduces the dose a worker may receive.

4722

4723 EPA considered two options. ENTRY-03 would impose a four-hour time limit in a 24-hour 

4724 timeframe for an individual early entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while 

4725 ENTRY-04 would impose an eight-hour time limit for the agricultural emergency exception if a 

4726 product requiring double notification (both oral and posting) was utilized.

4727

4728 As explained in Section 3.3, neither option entails measurable costs, given the rarity that double 

4729 notification products are used combined with the occurrence of an emergency, and the possibility 

4730 of rotating workers if the activity is longer than normal. Thus, ENTRY-03, which would provide 

4731 some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY-04, is proposed.

4732

4733 Another option would simply be to eliminate the exceptions to the REI and avoid all associated 

4734 exposures (ENTRY-05). Agricultural production is subject to many weather-related risks and 
129

4735 problems cannot always be foreseen. EPA estimates that eliminating the exception to the REI 

4736 could cost almost $250 million annually in lost production.

4737

4738 4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition

4739

4740 EPA considered requiring a monitoring program for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers 

4741 working regularly with certain organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. If a 

4742 handler’s cholinesterase levels dropped below a set threshold, they would be restricted from 

4743 further applications until their levels returned to normal. EPA estimates that a national program, 

4744 modeled on the current program operating in Washington State, would cost about $95 per 

4745 handler involved in the program, or $15.2 million annually. 

4746

4747 The Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarely drop below the threshold 

4748 of concern; only one percent of participating handlers had cholinesterase depression at the trigger 

4749 level in 2007 (Furman, 2007). A secondary benefit of the program, according to the Washington 

4750 experience, is the identification of farms that may need to alter their pesticide application 

4751 practices, identified by handlers showing some cholinesterase inhibition, but not sufficient to 

4752 warrant removal from further handling tasks. Most recommendations stemming from 

4753 Washington farm evaluations are for increased training and proper use of PPE. EPA is 

4754 proposing significant expansions to the current WPS requirements to improve handler training 

4755 and encourage the proper use of PPE on all agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. 

4756 Together, the training and PPE proposals are expected to address pesticide exposure risks faced 

4757 by all handlers, including the select population of handlers that are at risk for cholinesterase 

4758 inhibition. The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected 

4759 to prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem 

4760 after the exposure has occurred.

4761

4762 EPA also considered restricting the number of hours handlers may work with OPs and N-methyl 

4763 carbamates to no more than 30 hours over a 30-day period (ENTRY-07). This option is 

4764 estimated to cost about $4.2 million annually. However, the benefits of the approach are highly 

4765 uncertain. Data to establish a specific limit of this type of proposal are not available. 

4766

4767 4.6 PPE Options

4768

4769 Personal protective equipment (PPE) can be critical for reducing exposure by routes such as 

4770 inhalation and dermal exposure. Pesticide product labels provide directions for the appropriate 

4771 equipment and the situations in which it is required. Provisions in the WPS support the label 

4772 directions by setting criteria to ensure that PPE is of good quality and is used appropriately. 

4773 Potential revisions reflect the goal of enhancing protections for workers and handlers.

4774

4775 4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator 

4776 PPE

4777
130

4778 Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, loading, and 

4779 application. The current WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ respirators fit 

4780 correctly and that the handler is trained to use it, but the regulation does not explicitly require fit4781 testing. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assume that respirators fit. Respirators that do not 

4782 fit properly may result in preventable handler exposure to pesticides.

4783

4784 EPA is proposing to incorporate OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing into WPS 

4785 requirements. The proposal will establish a consistent approach for all employers to follow that 

4786 will improve protection when a handler uses a pesticide product that requires a respirator. 

4787 OSHA’s standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, includes a specific standard for fitting the respirator on the 

4788 user, instruction on how to recognize when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to 

4789 take if this occurs. There is also a requirement for the respirator user to be medically evaluated 

4790 to ensure the handler is healthy enough to use a respirator. EPA estimates the annual cost to be 

4791 about $82 per handler that obtains a fit test or $10.6 million per year. The average annual cost 

4792 would be about $54.40 for WPS farms that hire handlers. CPHEs are assumed to follow OSHA 

4793 guidelines currently, given the nature of the business.

4794

4795 Ensuring that respirators fit properly will increase their effectiveness, ultimately leading to a 

4796 reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

4797

4798 4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting 

4799 under CCAs

4800

4801 The current PPE exemptions for employees working under the supervision of certified crop 

4802 advisors (CCAs) may result in reduced safety due to informational gaps. Employees may be 

4803 unaware of the risks posed by pesticides while the supervisor may be unaware of the level of 

4804 contact the employee has with treated surfaces. This is different from the ability of the CCA to 

4805 make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk and the revisions will retain the exemption 

4806 for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and perform crop advising tasks during an REI. 

4807

4808 The Agency is proposing to eliminate the exemption for the employees of WPS farms (PPE-02) 

4809 and employees of commercial CCAs (PPE-03) who are not certified but are working under a 

4810 CCA. Such employees would be required to use the label specified PPE and have available 

4811 decontamination supplies and emergency assistance would be provided in case of a suspected 

4812 pesticide-related illness.

4813

4814 As discussed in Section 3.3.7, the costs associated with these revisions is likely negligible 

4815 because PPE and decontamination supplies would already be available and because entry to 

4816 perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for uncertified employees 

4817 (Jones and Smith, 2006). 

4818

4819 4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions

4820

4821 The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified PPE when using a closed system for 

4822 mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, however, does not provide specific criteria for 
131

4823 an acceptable closed system. State enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the 

4824 existing language is vague, impractical, and unenforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs 

4825 may have inadequate systems resulting in inadvertent exposure of handlers and others in the 

4826 area. The proposed revision, PPE-04, would establish specific criteria for closed systems that are 

4827 enforceable ensure and ensure that a system is protective of handlers. The proposed standards 

4828 are based on California criteria. Properly designed and employed closed systems afford superior 

4829 protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment

4830

4831 EPA estimates the cost of this proposal to be equivalent to about $6.9 million per year, with 

4832 average annualized costs of about $25 for large and large-small WPS farms (those making more 

4833 than $100,000 in annual sales), $12 per year for large family farms (those making more than 

4834 $750,000 in annual sales), and about $48 per year for CPHEs. The costs include the purchase of 

4835 new systems by some firms or farms and some increase in costs for the more frequent utilization

4836 of the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their systems. In terms of cost4837 effectiveness, considering the number of handlers, including self-employed commercial handlers 

4838 and handlers on family farms, the cost per handler of improved protection is about $20 per year. 

4839

4840 4.6.4 PPE-05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable 

4841

4842 The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properly. PPE 

4843 can become contaminated with pesticides from routine use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose 

4844 the wearer to those pesticide residues. EPA proposes to require that contaminated PPE, if it 

4845 cannot be properly cleaned, be rendered unusable before disposal. This clarification is in 

4846 response to concerns raised by State agencies that contaminated PPE may be reused if not 

4847 destroyed.

4848

4849 This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary exposure resulting from the

4850 wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from 

4851 overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are discarded in a trash bin, a person in need of 

4852 additional clothing may find the discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment 

4853 apart would make it less likely that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the 

4854 pesticide residues. 

4855

4856 The cost is expected to be negligible. The employer must dispose of contaminated PPE under 

4857 the existing requirements and there is expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer 

4858 to render the PPE unusable. 

4859

4860 4.7 Decontamination Supply Options

4861

4862 On-site decontamination can be a critical first step in mitigating exposure to pesticides. The 

4863 WPS and associated guidance specifies the materials that should be available.

4864

4865 4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: Decontamination supplies for workers

4866
132

4867 The WPS requires that water for decontamination be available for workers engaged in tasks in 

4868 fields previously treated with pesticides, but does not specify the quantity of water that is 

4869 necessary. Existing guidance indicates that one gallon per worker is enough for such routine 

4870 situations. SUPPLY-01 would incorporate this guidance into the WPS to eliminate any 

4871 regulatory uncertainty. No cost is expected with this revision.

4872

4873 Currently, the same standard applies to workers engaged in activities in fields during a REI. 

4874 Given the potential for higher levels of residue remaining on plant material, accidental contact 

4875 (e.g., a worker slips and falls into foliage) could result in higher exposure than might occur in 

4876 routine situations. SUPPLY-02 would increase the amount of water that must be available to 

4877 three gallons per worker. In Chapter 3, EPA estimates the cost for the additional water would be 

4878 less than $0.01 per WPS farm. Water is generally available at negligible pumping cost or from a 

4879 water district while the benefits from potential mitigation of accidental exposure appear high in 

4880 comparison.

4881

4882 4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers

4883

4884 Similar to the situation for workers, WPS requires water be available for handlers without 

4885 specifying the quantity. Guidance indicates three gallons per handler is enough for routine 

4886 washing, and emergency decontamination. SUPPLY-03 would incorporate this guidance to 

4887 eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. As above, no cost is expected with this revision.

4888

4889 EPA considered adding a requirement for handler employers to provide shower facilities for 

4890 handlers, SUPPLY-04. The benefits of this option are highly uncertain. Provisions for 

4891 emergency decontamination, including eye rinsing, are already in place or proposed (see 

4892 SUPPLY-05 below). Showering prior to going home would reduce the likelihood of transporting 

4893 pesticide residues to the handler’s home, but it is questionable whether many employees would 

4894 routinely utilize showers even if they were available. Representatives of agricultural employers 

4895 on the SBREFA panel noted that in their experience, when showers are available that handlers 

4896 opt not to use them. There are a number of reasons people may not avail themselves of shower 

4897 facilities, including the need for a change of clothes or a simple preference for showering in the 

4898 privacy of their own home. Some cultural beliefs and practices may factor into this decision not 

4899 to utilize existing shower facilities (Arcury et al. 2001).

4900

4901 Requiring employers to provide showers would be costly; the estimated cost of building each 

4902 shower facility is $105,000. Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for 

4903 construction alone, with WPS farms bearing the vast majority of the burden. The cost for 

4904 CPHEs to install showers would be about $2.5 billion. This estimate does not include the cost of 

4905 maintenance. SBREFA panelists commented that if the shower option were to become a WPS 

4906 requirement, many agricultural employers would avoid the high cost of compliance by choosing 

4907 not to employ handlers on their establishment. If this were to occur, a requirement for shower 

4908 facilities for handlers would cause employers to avoid hiring handlers and could lead to job loss 

4909 of over 150,000 handlers in the agricultural industry. As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.9), this 

4910 may not be direct job losses, but rather the loss of higher-paid positions. Less expensive options, 

4911 such as simple outdoor showers with privacy screens, might be used. But such options are even 

4912 less likely to be used by an employee than a more complete facility.
133

4913

4914 The additional training content for handlers that is proposed in TRAIN-14, including take-home 

4915 exposure information to protect the children and families of workers, along with the proposed 

4916 clarification to the eye-rinsing requirements in SUPPLY-05 were also considered in comparing 

4917 the relative costs and benefits of requiring showers for handlers. These provisions can 

4918 effectively achieve similar benefits at a lower cost.

4919

4920 4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing

4921

4922 The current rule requires employers to provide water to handlers for use in case of an ocular 

4923 exposure to a pesticide when the pesticide label calls for eye protection. Stakeholders have 

4924 indicated that, even with protective eyewear, handlers, particularly those mixing and loading 

4925 pesticides, can be exposed from splashes that enter the eye. This can result in serious injury to 

4926 the eye.

4927

4928 For similar ocular risks in industrial situations, OSHA establishes eyeflush requirements that 

4929 specify the length of flushing and flow rate. EPA proposes, under SUPPLY-05, to adopt these 

4930 requirements for establishments with permanent pesticide mixing sites. As discussed in Section 

4931 3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no cost since these sites would typically have a 

4932 source of water.

4933

4934 An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would be to require portable eyewash stations that could be moved 

4935 to temporary sites, i.e., fields to be treated. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.2), however, 

4936 there are some drawbacks to the use of portable stations. According to state field personnel, they 

4937 are difficult to maintain, especially to keep clean and of a temperature safe to use in the eye. It is 

4938 also not clear that they are substantially more effective than the traditional water bottle in rinsing 

4939 the eyes. Moreover, they are expensive. EPA estimates the cost to be about $13.6 million per 

4940 year nationally, or over $55 per year per farm or CPHE. The stations cost about $280 

4941 (Gempler’s, 2008) and EPA assumes that maintenance costs are ten percent of the purchase 

4942 price. The cost estimate also assumes that the stations last ten years, which may overestimate 

4943 their durability.

4944

4945 4.8 Emergency Assistance Options

4946

4947 The current WPS requires the agricultural or handler employee to provide “prompt” 

4948 transportation to a health care facility in the event of a pesticide exposure emergency. The term 

4949 “prompt” lacks specificity and any delay in seeking medical attention during an emergency may 

4950 endanger the exposed worker or handler. The time between an accident and receipt of medical 

4951 care may be critical in treating a person with pesticide poisoning.

4952

4953 OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive medical treatment, clarifying the 

4954 requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if the injury is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not 

4955 life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). Based on the physical differences between a WPS 

4956 establishment and typical industrial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow 
134

4957 agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker 

4958 and to provide transportation.

4959

4960 EPA proposes EMERG-01 and EMERG-03, which would require employers to begin transport 

4961 for workers and handlers to a medical facility within thirty minutes of learning of an exposure. 

4962 The employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable 

4963 information, to the treating medical personnel (see HAZCOM-02). EPA also considered 

4964 requiring agricultural and handler employers to provide transportation to workers and handlers 

4965 within one hour in the event of an exposure emergency (EMERG-02 and 04). A shorter time 

4966 frame is clearly preferable. Neither time frame is expected to impose measurable costs, 

4967 particularly as cell phones become more readily available and service becomes more reliable.

4968
135

4969 Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule

4970

4971 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the worker protection 

4972 standards. EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed rule to be between $62.1 and 

4973 $72.9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates 

4974 for farms and farm labor estimated from a longer series of data that show slower declines over 

4975 time (see Chapter 3), the cost of the proposed rule is to be $63.0 to $73.8 million per year. Using 

4976 a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $61.2 and $73.6 million per 

4977 year. The range of costs reflects the difference of a two year delay in the implementation of the 

4978 proposed training and notification requirements versus immediate implementation. A major 

4979 driver of the total cost is the large number of establishments that are covered by the WPS, nearly 

4980 400,000 farms, not counting those eligible for the immediate family exemption, and over 40,000 

4981 commercial pesticide application firms including self-employed commercial applicators. Given 

4982 a three percent discount rate, the cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of 

4983 $750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $340 and $400 per year. The incremental cost to 

4984 small WPS farms is estimated to be between $130 and $150 per year. For small farms, the cost 

4985 represents 0.1 percent of average annual sales. As noted in Chapter 1, the farms impacted by the 

4986 WPS are those agricultural establishments, including crop farms, livestock operations with crop 

4987 production, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides. The impact on family 

4988 farms is limited to changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost less than 

4989 $40 per year, on average, to approximately 9,000 farms out of about 500,000 family farms that 

4990 use pesticides. Commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected by the 

4991 WPS, with an annual incremental cost between $170 and $190, although self-employed 

4992 commercial applicators will face costs of only about $80 per year. Forestry operations are also 

4993 covered by WPS, but we lack the data on co-occurrence of pesticide use and covered activities 

4994 (hand labor) on these establishments to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. 

4995 Pesticide use in forestry operations is likely to be widely separated from worker activities in both 

4996 time and space, with the exception of seedling nurseries.

4997

4998 These costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $25 to $30 per year per 

4999 employee, not including self-employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family 

5000 farms) who benefit from some of the revisions.

5001

5002 The national incremental costs presented in this chapter should be considered an upper bound for 

5003 two reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impact of 

5004 individual requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we 

5005 have assumed that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, 

5006 farms that do not need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide 

5007 safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the 

5008 farm throughout the growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify all workers of 

5009 all applications at the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed 

5010 temporarily for certain peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers 

5011 will only need to notify those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications 

5012 to specific fields) and can do at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated 

5013 assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crops and all employees of 
136

5014 those farms. In reality, most WPS requirements cover farmworkers who engage in hand labor 

5015 activities associated with crop production.

5016

5017 A more realistic estimate would consider that much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and that 

5018 workers are not involved in hand labor activities. For example, the primarily livestock 

5019 operations that also produce crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like corn and soybean 

5020 that are highly mechanized. Since they are not engaged in hand labor activities, employers and 

5021 employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. Only the handler 

5022 requirements would apply. They would be required to:

5023  Conduct handler pesticide safety training;

5024  Maintain records of pesticide applications;

5025  Provide handler pesticide safety training;

5026  Provide handler safety displays and decontamination supplies;

5027  Comply with minimum age requirements for pesticide handlers; and

5028  Comply with all PPE requirements.

5029 However, farms without fieldworkers engaged in hand labor activities would not be required to:

5030  Conduct worker pesticide safety training;

5031  Provide worker pesticide safety displays;

5032  Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor

5033  Provide notification of REIs, either orally or by posting.

5034 If we separate the 153,000 primarily livestock farms from the 242,000 primarily crop farms and 

5035 their 1.8 million workers, and assume that only the latter represent the farms with hand labor 

5036 activities, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to $59.2 million 

5037 per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively

5038 conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requirements and includes many crop 

5039 farms that will not be using hand labor in production.

5040

5041 A lower bound estimate would include the 157,000 farms producing field crops, such as grains, 

5042 oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, in the same category as the predominantly livestock operations. 

5043 Production of these crops is highly mechanized and such farms may have pesticide handlers, but 

5044 not fieldworkers of the kind covered by the WPS. In this scenario, which assumes over 84,000 

5045 farms with 1.3 million, fully covered, workers and 310,000 farms with handlers only, total 

5046 incremental costs are estimated to be between $39.1 and $43.7 million annually. It is difficult to 

5047 assess the extent of bias in this estimate. It maintains the conservative assumptions about the 

5048 individual requirements, but many farms that mainly produce field crops will also produce fruit 

5049 and vegetable crops that utilize hand labor. On the other hand, some farms that primarily 

5050 produce fruit and vegetable crops will also produce field crops and some portion of their work 

5051 force may not be covered by the WPS. Further, within the covered farms we include nearly 

5052 11,000 farms that primarily produce cotton and/or tobacco as our categorization of the data does 

5053 not allow us to separate farms of these types. Cotton is highly mechanized, but tobacco 

5054 production often entails hand labor activities, so we include them in the covered farms.

5055

5056 It should be noted that, as the scenarios focus on a subset of farms, the estimated per-farm 

5057 impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ 

5058 more workers per farm than do livestock operations. If we consider the livestock operations to 

5059 be ‘handler only’ farms, the impacts on them is much smaller, on average, than to crop farms. 
137

5060 Large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $180 to $190 per year, on average, 

5061 while the estimated average impact to small ‘handler only’ farms is less than $50 per year. Large 

5062 crop farms, in contrast, are estimated to bear additional cost of $375 to $440 per year, on 

5063 average, which is slightly higher than the range presented in this chapter. The estimated 

5064 incremental cost to small crop farms is $140 to $160 per year, very close to that associated with 

5065 the upper bound of the national incremental cost.

5066

5067 This chapter provides the costs of the suite of revisions to the WPS that were selected on the 

5068 basis of the costs, estimated in Chapter 3, and benefits, described in Chapter 2, as well as other 

5069 considerations explained in the NPRM. It does not provide costs of alternative packages of 

5070 revisions as this would not contribute additional information to the decision-making process. 

5071 The relative net benefits of the options for the individual requirements, discussed in Chapter 4,

5072 are largely, although not entirely, independent of each other. For example, the relative net 

5073 benefits of annual to biennial training (TRAIN-03 and 04, see Section 4.1.2) would not be 

5074 substantially altered if paired with written information about a pesticide if entering a field under 

5075 a REI (NOTIFY-11) instead of oral information (NOTIFY-10) (see Section 4.3.6). Pesticide 

5076 safety training provides workers with generic information about potential effects of pesticides 

5077 and how to reduce exposure, but people tend to forget such lessons over time. Providing specific 

5078 information at the time of potential exposure makes the training lessons actionable, but merely 

5079 making the specific information more tangible will not make two-year old generic lessons more 

5080 memorable. Thus, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed package of selected 

5081 revisions to alternative packages of the rejected options would be redundant.

5082

5083 To formalize this mathematically, let the net benefits of Option A be designated NB(A). Then, if

5084

5085 NB(A) > NB(B) for Component 1, and

5086

5087 NB(C) > NB(D) for Component 2, then

5088

5089 NB(A & C) > NB(B & D) or any other combination for the two components.

5090

5091 Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, that is, the option of making no 

5092 changes to existing requirements.

5093

5094 This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 explains the methodology used to estimate the 

5095 cost of the proposed revisions. Section 5.2 presents the estimation where Section 5.2.1 addresses 

5096 the proposed training component, Section 5.2.2 presents the costs of the proposed hazard 

5097 communication and notification components, Section 5.2.3 summarizes the cost of proposed 

5098 minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements, and Section 5.2.4 addresses the 

5099 proposed decontamination supply and emergency response requirements. Section 5.2.5 sums up 

5100 the components and presents the total estimated cost of the proposed rule. Section 5.3 then 

5101 discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section 5.4 presents the analysis of small 

5102 business impacts.

5103

5104 5.1 General Methodology

5105
138

5106 The most straightforward approach to estimating the cost of the proposed rule is to sum the costs 

5107 of the individual regulations contained therein. While largely independent of each other, the cost 

5108 of a suite of regulations is not necessarily the sum of the costs of individual regulations, 

5109 however. In some cases, there is duplication as, for example, in the documentation of 

5110 application information. Agricultural employers are required to have the information available 

5111 for employees and to retain the information in their records, but the same document can be used 

5112 for both purposes. For these cases, EPA identifies the duplication and subtracts those costs from 

5113 the total.

5114

5115 In other cases, there is overlap without complete duplication as, for example, when one 

5116 regulation requires additional content on a sign, which increases the material cost, and another 

5117 regulation requires more frequent use of signs. These cases require a more complicated 

5118 adjustment in which common costs are subtracted (e.g., the cost for the lower number of signs), 

5119 but additional costs must be included (e.g., the higher cost of the signs). In the case of worker 

5120 and handler training, the interactions between increased frequency and increased content 

5121 (duration) are particularly complex and the simplest approach is to re-estimate the incremental 

5122 costs for a subset of the regulations before summing them with the other regulations.

5123

5124 That said, the simple sum of the proposed revisions is $65.1 million dollars, which is within the 

5125 estimated range of the total cost.

5126

5127 The general methodology for estimating the cost of a suite of individual requirements is similar 

5128 to that for the potential requirements. We begin by estimating the cost per actor of the suite of 

5129 requirements by summing over the regulations included in the regulatory option and adjusting 

5130 for any common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this 

5131 is done for the proposed requirements and for the baseline accounting for state requirements that 

5132 may be more stringent than the current federal standard. Actors, again, are the various 

5133 establishments, i.e., farms and commercial pesticide handling establishments, and their 

5134 employees.

5135

5136 Step 1. Calculate the expected cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements 

5137 within a protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs.

5138

5139

where costR,a

X 5140 t is the expected annual cost for the proposed requirements in protective category 

5141 R = training, notification, age, entry, PPE, emergency preparedness, and decontamination supply. 

5142 All other variables are as previously identified. The superscript X designates P, proposed, and B, 

5143 baseline, and s∈r indicates that the activity or material required in regulation s is also an element 

5144 in regulation r, which duplicates or adds to the costs in r. Duplicate costs arise when different 

5145 regulations require the same activity or material, e.g., a document or a sign. Additional costs 

5146 arise if different regulations increase costs in different ways, e.g., requiring more information in 

5147 one regulation and more frequent dissemination in another.

5148
139

5149 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted

5150 per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors.

5151

5152

5153 for X = P and B. National level compliance costs may be estimated by summing across regions.

5154

5155

5156 Step 3. Calculate the present value (PV) of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. As with 

5157 the individual requirements, we use a ten-year time horizon.

5158

5159

5160

5161 Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs.

5162

5163

5164 National incremental cost, PV(NICR), is calculated the same way.

5165

5166 Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

5167

5168

5169 where AICR is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as

5170 previously defined.

5171

5172 Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule.

5173

5174

5175 Again, this is done for national level cost, as well as for annualized costs.

5176

5177 Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 

5178 number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 

5179 entity.

5180
140

5181

where ECR,e

X 5182 is entity cost, Na,e is the number of actors per entity, and other variables are as 

5183 previously defined. An entity is an establishment, primarily a WPS farm, of a certain size 

5184 category, based on SBA criteria. The actors within an entity include the establishment and the 

5185 workers, by type, in its employ. We then calculate the PV of costs over a ten-year time horizon, 

5186 assuming that the number of workers will not change for a specific entity. Finally, we annualize 

5187 the NPV to arrive at a cost per year. This has the effect of spreading the cost of any required 

5188 investments across the time horizon as a business would in making a capital investment.

5189

5190 Step 8. Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline 

5191 regulations and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective 

5192 categories.

5193

5194

5195 For the purpose of the per-entity analysis, EPA requested a special tabulation from the 2007 

5196 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obtained information on the average number of 

5197 workers employed by various types and sizes of operations. Size is based on annual revenues, 

5198 where a small farm makes less than $750,000 in gross sales and a small feedlot makes less than 

5199 $2.5 million in gross sales. This corresponds to the SBA definition of small business for the 

5200 agricultural sector (SBA, 2008). Table 5.1-1 presents the characteristics used for the per-entity 

5201 analysis.

5202

5203 Table 5.1-1. Average Number of Workers and Handlers per WPS Farm by Farm Size.

Farm Size 1 Annual Revenue Workers Handlers

Large ≥ $750,000 20.0 2

Small < $750,000 3.6 0.41

Large-Small ≥ $100,000 and < $750,000 4.7 1

Medium-Small ≥ $10,000 and < $100,000 3.2 0

Small-Small < $10,000 2.5 0

1 5204 Feedlots are considered large if annual revenue is more than $2.5 million. EPA divides small feedlots 

5205 into large-small entities with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million, medium-small 

5206 entities with annual revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and small-small entities with annual 

5207 revenue less than $50,000.

5208

5209 Large WPS farms employ a substantially greater number of workers than do small farms. This 

5210 distinction holds for nearly all types of farms, except for farms producing oilseeds and grains 

5211 where even large farms employ, on average, fewer than five workers. Greenhouses employ the 

5212 largest number of workers. Vegetable, fruit, and nut producers and nurseries also employ a large 

5213 number of workers, although some are likely temporary workers employed at harvest or for 

5214 certain seasons. Temporary workers also likely explain how small-small farms, with annual 

5215 sales of less than $10,000, still employ between two and three workers, on average. Certain 
141

5216 provisions, especially the notification requirements, only apply if the worker is on the 

5217 establishment during application, REI, or within 30 days of expiration of the REI.

5218

5219 EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pesticides, but assume that large 

5220 farms employ two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Throughout 

5221 this analysis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on average, 20 pesticide applications per 

5222 year. Most, but not all, would occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that 

5223 applications are made slightly less than once per week, on average. It seems reasonable that one 

5224 or two handlers could make or assist in this number of applications, especially as the employer is 

5225 likely to be an applicator and as commercial applicators are likely to be hired for applications of 

5226 some of the more hazardous pesticides such as soil fumigants.

5227

5228 5.2 Cost Estimation

5229

5230 This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We begin with a fairly 

5231 detailed presentation of the estimation of the training component. The results of other 

5232 components are presented in more summary fashion. Details of the estimation can be found in 

5233 Appendix B.

5234

5235 5.2.1 Training Component

5236

5237 As an example, we explain the estimation of costs associated with training requirements in some 

5238 detail.

5239

5240 The proposed changes to the training requirements consist of several options pertaining to 

5241 worker training: TRAIN-02, Elimination of the grace period before training with exceptions; 

5242 TRAIN-03, Annual worker training; TRAIN-06, Expanded worker training content (increased 

5243 duration of 15 minutes); TRAIN-08, Stricter requirements for worker trainers; and TRAIN-10, 

5244 Record keeping for two years. It also includes several options pertaining to handler training: 

5245 TRAIN-12, Annual handler training; TRAIN-14, Expanded handler training content (increased 

5246 duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN-16, Record keeping for two years. EPA is also proposing 

5247 to require employers to provide verification of training, i.e., a copy of the training register, to 

5248 their employees, TRAIN-20.

5249

5250 Step 1. Calculate the cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a 

5251 protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs.

5252

5253

5254 for X = proposed and baseline.

5255

5256 Table 5.2-1 presents the baseline unit costs for establishments for the proposed training 

5257 regulations for all regions except California. To better understand the distribution of impacts 
142

5258 across farms, we modify the baseline for TRAIN-03, Annual Training, along the lines of that 

5259 shown in Appendix A, Table A.1.a-21. Otherwise, there are clearly common baselines for the 

5260 differing worker training and handler training elements. The proposed requirements merely 

5261 extend current practices in different ways, e.g., in the content, which determines the duration of 

5262 the training, and in the frequency with which workers are trained. TRAIN-02, 03, 06, and 08 all 

5263 represent the same baseline for WPS establishments, which entail the provision of worker 

5264 training. Thus, the baseline costs for the last three proposed requirements are subtracted from 

5265 the total. Similarly, TRAIN-12 and 14 represent the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide 

5266 handlers and the cost of TRAIN-14 is simply subtracted from the total.

5267

5268 Table 5.2-1. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5269 (WPS Farms), Year 1

Requirement Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

Other Small 

WPS Farms

CPHE

TRAIN-02 15.29 15.29 15.29 0.00

TRAIN-03 36.15 11.97 11.97 0.00

TRAIN-06 15.29 15.29 15.29 0.00

TRAIN-08 15.29 15.29 15.29 0.00

TRAIN-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN-14 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sum 106.06 69.10 57.84 48.18

Duplicate Costs

TRAIN-02, 06, 08

duplicate TRAIN-03

45.87 45.87 45.87 0.00

TRAIN-14 duplicate 

of TRAIN-12

12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

costTRAIN,a

B 48.17 17.60 11.97 24.09

costTRAIN,a

B

Cal 81.14 35.71 17.95 44.70

5270 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5271

5272 The last row of Table 5.2-1 presents the total for the California baseline. California already 

5273 requires an extended training for both workers and handlers, hence the baseline is based on the 

5274 cost of proposed requirements. California also requires records to be kept for handler training. 

5275 See Appendix B.1.

5276

5277 Table 5.2-2 presents the baseline costs pertaining to WPS and CPHE employees. For simplicity, 

5278 we present the common baseline for multiple requirements, rather than repeat them. The main 

5279 difference between regions is participation in the voluntary training verification program 

5280 (TRAIN-18) and the extended training required in California.

5281

5282 Table 5.2-2. Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5283 (Employees)
143

Requirement WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler

South, Southwest

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.53 0.35 0.37

costTRAIN,a

B 3.92 5.48 5.32

California

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 5.04 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN-20 0.53 1.08 1.13

costTRAIN,a

B 5.56 22.46 21.80

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.26 0.26 0.28

costTRAIN,a

B 3.66 5.39 5.22

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00

costTRAIN,a

B 3.40 5.12 4.94

5284 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5285

5286 The same process applies to the cost of complying with the proposed regulations, although for 

5287 ease, EPA firsts re-estimates the per-actor cost for worker training, covered by TRAIN-02, 03, 

5288 06, and 08, and for handler training covered by TRAIN-12 and 14. The proposed worker 

5289 training requirements include immediate training with limited exceptions, annual training, 

5290 increased training content (duration), and heightened standard for trainers. Because of the 

5291 requirement for annual training and reduced flexibility to delay the training of newly hired 

5292 employees, EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct an average of 3.3 trainings per 

5293 year, in lieu of 2.4 sessions in the baseline, and a small WPS farm will conduct an average of 

5294 1.21 trainings per year, up from 0.8 sessions in the baseline. As for TRAIN-08 individually, 

5295 EPA assumes that 85 percent of worker trainings will be conducted by a trainer of handlers and 

5296 15 percent by people who have completed a Train-the-Trainer program. These percentages are 

5297 multiplied by the average number of trainings per year to obtain the annual frequency or 

5298 probability that a given training will be conducted by one of the two required trainers. The per5299 farm cost for the revised worker training is estimated to be about $95 per year for large farms 

5300 and $34 per year for small farms (Table 5.2-3). Record keeping costs, TRAIN-10, are similarly 

5301 adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm sizes.

5302
144

5303 Table 5.2-3. Per-WPS farm Costs for proposed worker training requirements.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Large WPS Farm

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 2.827 $ 80.31

Training by Train-theTrainer$37.87/hr 45 min 0.499 $ 14.17

costTRAIN,a

P $ 94.48

Small WPS Farm

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 1.028 $ 29.19

Training by Train-theTrainer$37.87/hr 45 min 0.181 $ 5.15

costTRAIN,a

P $ 34.34

5304 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5305

5306 The per-worker unit cost is similarly estimated to be $9.43, as shown in Table 5.2-4. 

5307 Considering the expanded content and annual training requirement, workers will spend 45 

5308 minutes of time in training every year. EPA estimates that 90.3 percent of workers will be 

5309 trained each year, accounting for returning handlers and those who fall under the exception to 

5310 immediate training and leave employment after two days or less. In addition, EPA assumes that 

5311 about five percent of workers will fall under the exception, although most will receive full 

5312 training within a couple of days. Those not immediately trained will receive written and oral 

5313 safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis.

5314

5315 Table 5.2-4. Per-worker Costs for proposed worker training requirements.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 45 min 0.903 9.09

Receive Safety Information 

(delayed training) $13.43/hr 10 min 0.048 0.11

Provide Safety Information $28.21/hr 10 min 0.048 0.23

Written Information 0.09/page 1 page 0.048 0.00

costTRAIN,a

P $ 9.43

5316 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5317

5318 Similarly, the combined handler training revisions increase the content and frequency of the 

5319 trainings. The combined costs are shown in Table 5.2-5 for WPS farms, depending on size. As 

5320 noted in Chapter 3.3, the training cost borne by the establishment will depend on the number of 

5321 handlers employed. The probability that a WPS farm holds a training session will increase in 

5322 comparison to the baseline, but there will be some sharing of resources. Thus, EPA assumes that 

5323 there will be four handler trainings for every five large WPS farms and one handler training for 

5324 every two large-small WPS farms. The annual frequency of training is then weighted by the 

5325 probability the training is led by a particular category of trainer, which is unchanged from the 

5326 baseline.

5327
145

5328 Table 5.2-5. Per-Establishment Costs for proposed handler training.

Action/Material wage/price unit 

time/quantity

probability cost

Large WPS Establishments

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.112 $ 4.24

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.080 $ 3.03

Training by Certified 

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.608 $17.15

costr,a

P $24.43

Large-small Establishments

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.070 $ 2.65

Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.050 $ 1.89

Training by Certified 

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.380 $ 10.72

costr,a

P $ 15.27

5329 Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5330

5331 The combined effect of the handler training will result in per-firm costs of $41.75 for CPHEs, 

5332 assuming the firms conduct 1.3 trainings per year, on average. The per-handler unit costs are 

5333 estimated to be $20.83 for WPS handlers and $20.10 for CPHE handlers, which is simply the 

5334 wage for one hour spent in training.

5335

5336 Table 5.2-6 presents the per-establishment unit costs and their sum, given the new unit costs 

5337 estimated for the combined worker training requirements and the combined handler training 

5338 requirements.

5339

5340 Table 5.2-6. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5341 (Establishments)

Regulation Large WPS 

Farm

Large-Small 

WPS Farm

Other Small 

WPS Farms

CPHE

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 94.48 34.34 34.34 0.00

TRAIN-10 11.45 4.29 4.29 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 24.43 15.27 0.00 41.75

TRAIN-16 2.49 2.49 0.00 2.65

TRAIN-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

costTRAIN,a

P 132.84 56.38 38.63 44.40

5342 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5343

5344 Finally, Table 5.2-7 presents the compliance costs per employee for the proposed requirements. 

5345 Compared to the individual requirements, higher costs for record keeping arise because more 

5346 frequent trainings are required by TRAIN-03 for workers and TRAIN-10 for handlers.

5347
146

5348 Table 5.2-7. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 

5349 (Employees)

Regulation WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 9.43 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-10 0.13 0.00 0.00

TRAIN-12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN-16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN-20 0.37 0.34 0.36

costTRAIN,a

P 9.93 21.73 21.03

5350 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5351

5352 These estimates are for immediate implementation of all requirements. Some elements will be 

5353 delayed to allow for the development of new training material and so that sufficient qualified 

5354 trainers can be trained. For simplicity, rather than develop estimates for each year during the 

5355 implementation period that account for all interactions, we evaluate the costs given immediate 

5356 implementation of all requirements and then given a two-year delay in the implementation of all 

5357 requirements. The true estimate will lie in between these bounds.

5358

5359 These estimates also assume that all WPS farms provide workers with training whether or not a 

5360 pesticide application is made. That is, EPA assumes that WPS farms find it more cost-effective 

5361 to prepare workers in advance rather than attempt to bring everyone into compliance at the 

5362 moment a pesticide application is made. As a sensitivity analysis, we consider two alternative 

5363 scenarios. In the first, the WPS farm, as a cost-minimizing agent, will delay training until a 

5364 pesticide application is necessary, thus saving the cost of training if pesticides are not needed 

5365 during the year. This involves adjusting the probabilities used to estimate the expected cost to 

5366 account for the farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. In the second alternative, we 

5367 assume that WPS farms could delay training in the baseline, but that under the proposal, 

5368 especially the stricter requirements for immediate training and on trainer qualifications, delaying 

5369 training may prove costly because workers cannot be brought into compliance with sufficient 

5370 speed. Under this scenario, only the probabilities in the baseline are adjusted to account for 

5371 farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. As explained later, the cost estimates are 

5372 similar across these three scenarios.

5373

5374 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted

5375 per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors.

5376

5377

5378 for X = P and B. 

5379

5380 Table 5.2-8 presents this calculation for the baseline. Costs per actor are given in the row 

5381 immediately below the region(s) followed by the number of actors in each region. The sum of 

5382 the products is given in the right-hand column. EPA estimates that, nationally, current 

5383 regulations cost about $18.3 million annually. If training is provided only if a WPS farm uses 

5384 pesticides, the national cost is estimated to be $15.7 million annually.
147

5385

5386 Table 5.2-8. Regional Baseline Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only)

Region

Large 

WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall 

WPS 

Farm

Other 

Small 

WPS 

Farms

CPHE WPS 

Worker

WPS 

Handler

CPHE 

Handler

RCRi

B

1

($1,000)

South, Southwest

costTRAIN,a

B $48.17 $17.60 $11.97 $24.09 $ 3.92 $ 5.48 $ 5.32

Na,South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $2,414

Na,Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 597

California

costTRAIN,a

B $81.14 $35.71 $17.95 $44.70 $ 5.56 $22.46 $21.80

Na,California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $3,378

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

costTRAIN,a

B $48.17 $17.60 $11.97 $24.09 $ 3.66 $ 5.39 $ 5.22

Na,Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 632

Na,Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $1,943

Na,Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1,786

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

costTRAIN,a

B $48.17 $17.60 $11.97 $24.09 $ 3.40 $ 5.12 $ 4.94

Na,Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $2,947

Na,Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3,253

Na,Texas 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $1,725

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $18,675

5387 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5388

5389 Table 5.2-9 presents the estimates of regional costs under the proposed training regulations. 

5390 Summing the per-farm/firm and per-employee costs results in an estimate of $50.9 million 

5391 dollars for the first year, assuming full implementation and all WPS farms conducting training. 

5392 If WPS farms can delay training until necessitated by a pesticide application, the cost is 

5393 estimated to be $43.4 million.

5394
148

5395 Table 5.2-9. Regulatory Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only)

Large 

WPS 

Farm

LargeSmall 

WPS 

Farm

Other 

Small 

WPS 

Farms

CPHE WPS 

Worker

WPS 

Handler

CPHE 

Handler

UCo

P

a $132.84 $56.38 $38.63 $44.40 $9.93 $21.73 $21.03 RCoi

P

t=1

Region N ($1,000) i at

South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $6,997

California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $5,700

Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $1,702

Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $1,824

Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $9,203

Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $5,723

Ohio 

Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $10,135

Texas/Mt 

West 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $5,375

Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $5,101

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $51,761

5396 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5397

5398 Step 3. Calculate the PV of regional costs for the baseline and proposal.

5399

5400

5401 Costs may vary over time because a few requirements will not be implemented immediately. As 

5402 noted above, for simplicity we estimate upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes 

5403 all requirements are implemented immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are 

5404 delayed two years. Further, the number of entities and workers is expected to change over time, 

5405 as discussed in Chapter 3.3.2.

5406

5407 Table 5.2-10 presents the PV of regional costs for the baselines and for compliance with the 

5408 proposed package of training regulations. Over ten years, the PV of the national cost in the 

5409 baseline is estimated to be about $153 million and the estimate for the proposed requirements is 

5410 $425 million.

5411
149

5412 Table 5.2-10. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN 

5413 only)

Region PV(RCo

P

i) PV(RCo

B

i) PV(RICo i) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 58,725 20,185 38,540 4,386

California 46,821 27,828 18,993 2,162

Southwest 14,215 4,968 9,247 1,052

Subtropical 15,075 5,208 9,867 1,123

Midwest 77,592 24,823 52,769 6,006

Northeast 47,711 16,153 31,557 3,592

Ohio Valley 85,315 27,353 57,962 6,597

Texas/Mountain West 45,254 14,506 30,749 3,500

Northwest 41,943 14,651 27,292 3,106

National 432,652 155,675 276,976 31,524

5414 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5415

5416 Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs.

5417

5418

5419 The final two columns of Table 5.2-10 present the expected regional level incremental costs, i.e., 

5420 the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs for the training 

5421 components. Regional costs range from a low of $9.2 million over 10 years for the Southwest, 

5422 which consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 

5423 Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes, to a high of $58.0 million in the 

5424 Ohio Valley, consisting of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and 

5425 Wisconsin. The primary reason for the regional variation is the differing number of farm and 

5426 commercial pesticide operations and differing numbers of agricultural workers and pesticide 

5427 handlers. The exception is California, which incurs relatively low incremental costs because its 

5428 training standards are higher than current federal requirements.

5429

5430 Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements.

5431

5432

5433 where AICR is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 

5434 previously defined.

5435

5436 The right-hand column of Table 5.2-10 shows regional and national annualized incremental 

5437 costs. For the training requirements, the proposed regulations are expected to cost the 

5438 agricultural industry between $24.1 and $31.5 million annually, given a 3% discount rate. The 

5439 range stems from the implementation schedule, where some requirements will be phased in over 

5440 two years. For reference, the sum of the incremental costs estimated in Chapter 3 is $22.2 

5441 million per year.
150

5442

5443 The assumption that all WPS farms conduct training before determining that a pesticide 

5444 application is necessary does not have a major effect on the estimated cost of the proposed 

5445 revisions. If WPS farms only conduct training when necessary, the incremental cost is estimated 

5446 to be between $20.5 and $26.7 million, given that some requirements will be phased in over two 

5447 years. If WPS farms are currently able to wait until a pesticide application is needed but will not 

5448 risk delays under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $26.7 and $34.1 million 

5449 per year. The ranges of cost under alternative assumptions overlap the range of EPA’s best 

5450 estimate.

5451

5452 Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule.

5453

5454

5455 This step will be done after estimating the costs of the proposed requirements in the other 

5456 categories.

5457

5458 Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 

5459 number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 

5460 entity.

5461

5462

5463 Initially, we will simply examine regional variation in cost-per-entity for farms in general, 

5464 distinguishing between large and small farms. Large farms are defined as those with annual 

5465 sales of more than $750,000 or feedlots with annual sales of more than $2.5 million. In Section 

5466 5.4, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely.

5467

5468 Step 8. We calculate the PV of per-entity costs before taking the difference between the baseline 

5469 and proposed scenarios to determine the incremental cost per farm or firm. There are no data to 

5470 indicate whether the number of employees per farm is changing over time and we assume it is 

5471 constant for an individual farm. Large farms are assumed to employ two handlers and, according 

5472 to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), large farms employ 20.0 workers, 

5473 on average. Small farms employ 3.6 workers, on average (NASS, 2008b). Small farms also 

5474 employ an average of 0.41 handlers, based on the assumption that large-small farms employ one 

5475 and other small farms employ none.

5476

5477 Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline regulations 

5478 and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective categories.

5479

5480
151

5481 Table 5.2-11 presents the annualized per-entity costs associated with the training requirements

5482 for the average large WPS farm, with 20 workers, and the average small farm, with 3.6 workers. 

5483 California is the only region that varies significantly from the other regions. The incremental 

5484 cost per establishment, assuming immediate implementation, is shown in the final column. If all 

5485 requirements were delayed two years, the annualized incremental costs would be about $200 per 

5486 year for large farms and $55 for small farms. The annualized cost to CHPEs would be around 

5487 $84.

5488

5489 Table 5.2-11. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

5490 (TRAIN only)

Farm size/Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

California 375 237 137

All Other Regions 375 132 243

SMALL WPS FARMS

California 91 55 36

All Other Regions 91 30 61

CPHE 173 63 110

5491 Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate.

5492

5493 5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components

5494

5495 The rule changes that EPA is proposing include several requirements designed to improve 

5496 information exchange (hazard communication and notification) to employees and between WPS 

5497 farms and CPHEs. Proposed hazard communication requirements include making application 

5498 information available (HAZCOM-01), augmenting the application information with copies of the 

5499 label and SDS (HAZCOM-02), and maintaining a record of the information for two years 

5500 (HAZCOM-05). General notification requirements are: NOTIFY-01, Post field warning signs 

5501 if the REI is greater than 48 hours, NOTIFY-03, Allow oral notification of greenhouse workers if 

5502 the REI is four hours or less, NOTIFY-06, Revise the content on warning signs (phased-in over 

5503 two years to allow farms to replace existing warning signs), and NOTIFY-08, specify that 

5504 warning signs must be posted if the treated field is within 100 feet of worker housing. For 

5505 workers entering fields during the REI, revisions include NOTIFY-10, Provide additional 

5506 information about the pesticide orally, and NOTIFY-12, Keep records of information provided 

5507 for two years. EPA is proposing to revise the content of safety posters, NOTIFY-14, which will 

5508 be phased in over two years. EPA is also proposing to require additional safety posters: 

5509 NOTIFY-15, additional safety poster at worker decontamination location and, in NOTIFY-16, at 

5510 handler decontamination locations. Finally, EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to 

5511 when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm employer with information about a pesticide 

5512 application, NOTIFY-18.

5513

5514 These two components can be addressed separately because there are no overlapping 

5515 requirements between the two or between the training requirements. Overlap only occurs 
152

5516 between elements within the components, consisting, for example, of the same signs or posters 

5517 adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements.

5518

5519 We present the results of the estimation. Details showing the calculations are available in 

5520 Appendix B.

5521

5522 Hazard Communication

5523

5524 Table 5.2-12 presents the annualized cost and the NPV of regional costs for the proposed and 

5525 regional baselines for hazard communication requirements. All requirements are imposed 

5526 immediately. The proposed revisions are expected to cost about $8.0 million per year, 

5527 accounting for the cost savings from eliminating the central posting requirement (HAZCOM-01). 

5528 On a regional basis, the states in the South and the Ohio Valley are expected to bear the majority 

5529 of these costs, in part because of the large number of WPS farms in these regions. Costs are also 

5530 somewhat lower in many other regions because representative states already impose some of the 

5531 requirements or require that SDS be available from pesticide distributors, which will facilitate 

5532 compliance. Texas already meets the proposed requirements so farms there, and in states with 

5533 similar regulations, may see a reduction in costs due the elimination of the central posting 

5534 requirement.

5535

5536 Table 5.2-12. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. 

5537 (HAZCOM only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 46,645 30,088 16,557 1,885

California 19,409 18,351 1,058 120

Southwest 10,018 6,462 3,556 405

Subtropical 7,826 7,092 735 84

Midwest 67,933 61,554 6,379 726

Northeast 32,245 20,799 11,446 1,303

Ohio Valley 72,316 46,646 25,670 2,922

Texas/Mountain West 38,506 40,083 -1,577 -180

Northwest 18,157 11,712 6,445 734

National 313,055 242,787 70,269 7,998

5538 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5539

5540 Table 5.2-13 presents the per-entity costs of the hazard communication proposals and baseline. 

5541 Several states have requirements that are similar to the proposals and the impacts will be small, 

5542 ranging from negative in Texas to less than $10 per year in Florida and Iowa. Other regions may 

5543 face higher incremental costs to obtain the required information. EPA does not anticipate a 

5544 distinct difference in costs between large and small farms. The cost of complying with the 

5545 hazard communication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products 

5546 used on a WPS farm, not the number of employees or revenue. However, small farms are less 

5547 likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any year is lower for 

5548 small than for large farms.

5549
153

5550 Table 5.2-13. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

5551 (HAZCOM only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

CA, Subtropics, Midwest, 

TX/Mountain West 108 102 5

All Other Regions 108 69 38

SMALL WPS FARMS

CA, Subtropics, Midwest, 

TX/Mountain West 90 85 4

All Other Regions 90 58 32

5552 Source: EPA estimates.

5553

5554 Notification

5555

5556 The regional, incremental, and annualized costs of the proposed notification requirements are 

5557 shown in Table 5.2-14. The estimated annual costs of $15.1 million are somewhat overestimated 

5558 since some requirements will be phased in over a two-year period. EPA also estimated costs if 

5559 all requirements were phased in, which would somewhat underestimate the costs, at $11.7

5560 million per year. The simple sum of the proposed costs is $14.6 million per year.

5561

5562 Table 5.2-14. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY 

5563 only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 65,885 45,413 20,471 2,330

California 42,690 37,062 5,629 641

Southwest 15,244 11,050 4,194 477

Subtropical 14,618 11,843 2,774 316

Midwest 90,539 59,721 30,818 3,508

Northeast 50,400 37,149 13,251 1,508

Ohio Valley 98,234 65,772 32,462 3,695

Texas/Mountain 

West 52,188 34,882 17,307 1,970

Northwest 38,669 33,114 5,555 632

National 468,466 336,006 132,460 15,076

5564 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5565

5566 The final two columns of Table 3.5-14 present the expected regional level incremental costs, the 

5567 difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs. The regional incremental 

5568 costs are a function of the number of WPS farms and CPHEs in the region.

5569

5570 Results of the per-entity analysis are shown in Table 5.2-15. Large WPS farms are relatively less 

5571 impacted by the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to 
154

5572 save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs by posting because it is more efficient than orally 

5573 informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relatively higher due to the increased 

5574 posting requirements for REIs and for worker and handler safety displays. Costs may be 

5575 overstated, however, because small farms may rely more on temporary workers who will not be 

5576 on farm when some applications are made or during the REI and thus will have relatively fewer 

5577 posting events over time.

5578

5579 Table 5.2-15. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 

5580 (NOTIFY only)

Farm size ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 272 254 18

SMALL WPS FARMS 120 78 42

5581 Source: EPA estimates.

5582

5583 Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirements

5584 because revisions codify existing interpretations of applicable requirements.

5585

5586 5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE

5587

5588 The proposed rule includes several categories of regulations that are intended to better protect 

5589 workers and handlers. EPA is proposing AGE-01, Minimum age of 16 for workers entering 

5590 fields during the REI, and AGE-03, Minimum age of 16 for handlers. The proposed entry 

5591 requirements consist of ENTRY-01, Expand the restricted area during application; ENTRY-02, 

5592 Limit worker time in fields during the REI; ENTRY-03, Halt applications if workers enter the 

5593 restricted area; and ENTRY-05, Codify exception to REIs. Regarding PPE, EPA is proposing 

5594 PPE-01, Require respirator fit test; PPE-02, Eliminate exemptions for WPS employees acting as 

5595 CCAs; PPE-03, Eliminate exemptions for employees of CCAs; PPE-04, Revising standards for 

5596 closed mixing and loading systems, PPE-05, Simplifying enclosed cab substitutions for PPE, and 

5597 PPE-06, Clarifying disposal of contaminated PPE.

5598

5599 None of the requirements within these categories overlap with any other proposed category of 

5600 regulation.

5601

5602 Age

5603

5604 The two proposed age requirements do not interact with any other regulations. In this case, the 

5605 regulatory costs can simply be summed. Table 5.2-16 presents the NPV for the baseline and 

5606 proposed costs. As explained in Section 3.3.5, the impacts are estimated as an increase in labor 

5607 costs, not compliance costs.

5608
155

5609 Table 5.2-16. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 7,568 6,788 780 89

California 4,447 3,948 498 57

Southwest 1,718 1,538 180 20

Subtropical 1,572 1,470 102 12

Midwest 10,561 9,487 1,074 122

Northeast 5,644 5,049 594 68

Ohio Valley 11,400 10,236 1,165 133

Texas/Mountain West 6,060 5,441 619 70

Northwest 4,052 3,600 452 51

National 53,023 47,558 5,465 622

5610 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5611

5612 The annual cost of the age restrictions on handlers and on workers involved in early entry events 

5613 is estimated to be $620,000. Annual per-entity costs are provided in Table 5.2-17. CPHEs are 

5614 not expected to be impacted because few commercial establishments would employ adolescents 

5615 under 16 years of age to handle pesticides.

5616

5617 Table 5.2-17. Annual Per-Entity Baseline and Proposed Labor Costs, Incremental Costs. 

5618 (AGE only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS 41.20 26.90 14.30

SMALL FARMS 7.95 6.90 1.05

CPHE 470 470 0

5619 Source: EPA estimates.

5620

5621

5622

5623 Entry

5624

5625 The proposed entry restrictions are largely definitional. As explained in Section 3.3.6, there are 

5626 no measureable costs to the individual regulations. The total cost of the entry component is, 

5627 therefore, also near zero.

5628

5629 PPE

5630

5631 There could be some overlap between reporting requirements in the PPE category, but the effect 

5632 on costs is minimal. Table 5.2-18 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten-year time 

5633 horizon, at the regional and national levels. Annually, the new PPE regulations are expected to 

5634 cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million.

5635
156

5636 Table 5.2-18. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only)

Region

RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 41,429 18,913 22,515 2,563

California 18,860 16,899 1,962 223

Southwest 11,284 6,073 5,211 593

Subtropical 6,775 3,025 3,750 427

Midwest 96,435 57,979 38,456 4,377

Northeast 42,680 24,896 17,784 2,024

Ohio Valley 69,585 33,886 35,700 4,063

Texas/Mountain West 34,791 16,099 18,692 2,127

Northwest 30,174 19,186 10,988 1,251

National 352,013 196,955 155,058 17,648

5637 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5638

5639 Table 5.2-19 presents the per-entity cost of the PPE requirements. The cost for small WPS farms 

5640 represents the average cost over all small farms, including the medium- and small-small WPS

5641 farms that would generally not employ handlers. California’s requirements are similar to those 

5642 proposed, with the exception of some record keeping, so costs to farms will be substantially 

5643 lower than in other regions. CPHEs will bear some costs, primarily to upgrade closed mixing 

5644 and loading systems, with self-employed commercial applicators facing a smaller incremental 

5645 cost than enterprises with multiple employees.

5646

5647 Table 5.2-19. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS

California 284 254 30

All Other Regions 281 163 118

SMALL FARMS

California 45 39 6

All Other Regions 49 19 30

CPHE, multiple handlers 656 574 82

CPHE (‘self-employed’) 245 167 78

5648 Source: EPA estimates.

5649

5650 5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance
157

5651

5652 Certain provisions of the WPS are intended to reduce the effects of any accidental exposure that 

5653 occurs. In terms of supplies, the proposed rule includes two requirements when workers enter a 

5654 recently treated field: SUPPLY-01, Water requirements for routine decontamination, and 

5655 SUPPLY-02, Water requirements for decontamination during early entry (i.e., if the REI is still 

5656 in effect). The proposal also includes two requirements for handlers: SUPPLY-03, Water 

5657 requirements for routine decontamination, and SUPPLY-05, Water flow requirement for 

5658 eyeflushing. EPA is also proposing to define “prompt” emergency assistance to be 30 minutes 

5659 for worker emergencies, EMERG-01, and handler emergencies, EMERG-03. 

5660

5661 There are no overlapping requirements for any of these regulations, so the total cost for each of 

5662 these categories is the simple sum of the individual items.

5663

5664 Supply

5665

5666 The revisions to the requirements for supplies for routine and emergency decontamination 

5667 largely codify existing guidance. However, one provision, SUPPLY-02, will increase the 

5668 amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers when entering a field under 

5669 a REI. EPA estimates the costs to be about $2,500 annually, as shown in Table 5.2-20.

5670

5671 Table 5.2-20. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 383 381 2.6 0.3

California 164 160 3.8 0.4

Southwest 83 82 0.8 0.1

Subtropical 65 64 1.1 0.1

Midwest 557 554 2.9 0.3

Northeast 266 264 2.7 0.3

Ohio Valley 593 590 3.4 0.4

Texas/Mountain West 316 314 1.8 0.2

Northwest 153 149 3.3 0.4

National 2,580 2,558 22 2.5

5672 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5673

5674 The per-entity costs of these requirements are negligible. Table 5.2-21 presents the estimated 

5675 baseline and proposed costs per year. Costs are largely proportional to the number of employees. 

5676 The per-handler costs for the water flow requirement are negligible, as can be seen by the 

5677 estimated incremental cost to a CPHE, because running water is typically available at mixing and 

5678 loading sites so that concentrated forms of pesticides can be diluted.

5679

5680 Table 5.2-21. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY 

5681 only)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)
158

LARGE FARMS

All Regions 2.25 2.20 0.02

SMALL FARMS

All Regions 0.46 0.45 0.01

CPHE 7.50 7.50 0.00

5682 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Rows may not sum due 

5683 to rounding.

5684

5685 Emergency Assistance

5686

5687 The new regulations dealing with emergency assistance are all definitional in nature and EPA 

5688 does not anticipate measureable impacts. See Section 3.3.8.

5689

5690 5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule

5691

5692 Having accounted for the overlap between the individual components of the proposed rule, the 

5693 total cost can be estimated by summing the costs of the eight components. Table 5.2-22 presents 

5694 the NPV of the baseline and proposed regulatory costs, assuming all elements are implemented 

5695 immediately. Nationally, the proposed rule is estimated to increase the cost of complying with 

5696 the worker protection standard by $636 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three 

5697 percent discount rate and assuming all requirements are implemented immediately. The annual 

5698 incremental cost under this assumption is estimated to be about $72.4 million. If implementation 

5699 of all the training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 years, the 10 year cost is 

5700 estimated to be $544 million and the annual incremental cost is estimated to be about $61.9

5701 million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed 

5702 regulations is estimated to be between $60.1 and $73.1 million.

5703

5704 Table 5.2-22. PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total)

Region RCo

P

i RCo

B

i RICo i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 229,461 130,594 98,867 11,253

California 136,051 107,908 28,143 3,203

Southwest 54,559 32,171 22,389 2,548

Subtropical 47,403 30,174 17,229 1,961

Midwest 358,643 229,144 129,499 14,739

Northeast 185,163 110,527 74,636 8,495

Ohio Valley 353,557 200,596 152,962 17,409

Texas/Mountain 

West 183,883 118,093 65,791 7,488

Northwest 136,588 85,853 50,735 5,774

U.S. 1,685,308 1,045,058 640,250 72,871

5705 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate.

5706

5707 Figure 5.2-1 shows the contribution of the eight categories of the proposed rule to the total 

5708 incremental cost. The informational regulations, i.e., the training, hazard communication, and 
159

5709 notification requirements, make up almost three-fourths of the total incremental costs. The 

5710 protective regulations (minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of 

5711 the remaining cost, with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly one-fourth of the total 

5712 incremental cost. The requirements focused on mitigation are largely definitional in nature and

5713 contribute less than one percent of the cost.

5714

5715 Figure 5.2-1. Contribution of components of the proposed Worker Protection Standard to 

5716 total annualized incremental cost, $72.9 million.

5717

5718

5719

5720 Average per-entity costs are presented in Table 5.2-23. As explained above, these costs are 

5721 calculated by taking the per-farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per-worker and handler 

5722 costs, multiplying by the average number of workers and handlers given the type and size of the 

5723 operation. Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations, but often only 

5724 slightly. We present California and the Texas/Mountain West regions, where the per-entity costs

5725 are below the national average, and the regions where per-entity cost is highest. The cost 

5726 estimates assume that all requirements become effective immediately and that the WPS farms 

5727 make pesticide applications every year over the ten year time horizon, which overstates the 

5728 expected cost of the proposal. Incremental costs for large farms are expected to average just 

5729 over $400 per year, ranging from an additional $200 per year in California to about $430 per 

5730 year in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley. Small farms are likely to face 

5731 impacts of under $150 per year, on average, ranging from $90 per year in California to $170 per 

5732 year in the Ohio Valley. If implementation of all training and notification requirements is 

5733 delayed for 2 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $345 for large farms and $130

5734 for small farms. In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely.

5735

Training

43%

HazCom

11%

Notification

21%

Age

1%

Entry

0%

PPE

24%

Supply

0%

Emergency

0%

Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$24.1 - 31.5 million

$11.7 - 15.1 million

$620,000

$17.6 million

$2,500

$8.0 million
160

5736 Table 5.2-23. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs by Region. 

5737 (Total)

Region ECo

P

i ECo

B

i EICo i

($)

LARGE FARMS

 California 1,080 880 210

 Ohio Valley 1,080 650 430

 Texas/Mountain West 1,080 680 400

 National 1,080 670 410

SMALL FARMS

 California 350 260 90

 Ohio Valley 360 190 170

 Texas/Mountain West 360 220 140

 National 360 210 150

CPHE, multiple 

handlers 1,310 1,120 190

CPHE (‘self-employed’) 250 175 80

5738 Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Row calculations 

5739 subject to rounding.

5740

5741 The incremental cost to CPHEs with multiple handlers is estimated to be between $170 and $190

5742 per year. The incremental cost for self-employed commercial handlers is low because they will 

5743 already meet the increased training requirements through the applicators certification process.

5744

5745 Table 5.2-23 presents the incremental costs to the average farm in the nation if it were located in 

5746 various regions, given those regions current regulations. Table 5.2-24 presents the costs to the 

5747 average farm in each region, which considers how differences in workers per farm affect the 

5748 results. These results indicate that typical farms in the Ohio Valley will be less impacted than is 

5749 suggested by Table 5.2-23 because farms there have relatively fewer workers than do states like 

5750 Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest.

5751

5752 Table 5.2-24. Average Worker Per-Farm and Incremental Costs by Region. (Total)

Region Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm

workers/farm EICo i workers/farm EICo i

South 15.8 390 2.9 160

California 54.8 360 10.0 90

Southwest 21.2 420 3.9 160

Subtropical 38.3 510 7.0 150

Midwest 11.9 350 2.2 140

Northeast 23.3 440 4.2 170

Ohio Valley 13.1 380 2.4 160

Texas/Mountain 

West 13.0 340 2.4 120

Northwest 51.3 630 9.3 180

U.S. 20.0 390 3.6 150
161

5753 Source: EPA estimates. Row calculations subject to rounding.

5754

5755 A final way to consider the costs of the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is 

5756 the cost per employee covered by the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 

5757 17,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the 

5758 average cost to be between $26.50 and $31.20 per year per employee, including handlers 

5759 employed at CPHEs.

5760

5761 All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many 

5762 current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. EPA has made a number of 

5763 assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state 

5764 regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline 

5765 and the proposed rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While 

5766 assumptions attempt to represent the average or typical farm or CPHE, in practice EPA has 

5767 tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than 

5768 would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is 

5769 unknown.

5770

5771 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment

5772

5773 EPA also calculates the per-employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal 

5774 incremental cost per WPS farm worker (not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is 

5775 estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on 

5776 employment decisions. The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training 

5777 requirements, which are expected to cost about $5.50 per year. This is offset by a reduction in 

5778 the per-worker cost of the notification requirements of $1.20 per year as greater emphasis is 

5779 placed on posting REI information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0.10 per 

5780 year to the cost of employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0.01 per 

5781 year. Table 5.3-1 presents this information.

5782

5783 Table 5.3-1. Annualized Per-Employee Cost of Proposed Requirements

Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler

Training 5.48 15.11 15.03

Hazard Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notification -1.15 0.00 0.00

Age 0.07 1.88 0.00

Entry 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPE 0.00 42.27 0.00

Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4.41 59.26 15.03

5784 Source: EPA estimates.

5785

5786 The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but is still relatively 

5787 minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $15.10 per year to employment costs, but 

5788 the main driver is the PPE category at $42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed 
162

5789 requirement for fit testing respirators. The age restriction may add about $2.00 per year to 

5790 employment costs by restricting farms from using lower-wage adolescents to mix, load, and 

5791 apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around $60 per 

5792 year, assuming the average baseline standards. We estimate that the cost to employers of a 

5793 handler is $20.83 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight hours per day and assuming 

5794 only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $25,000 per year. An increase in cost 

5795 of $60 per year represents about 0.25 percent of the total cost, a marginal increase that would not 

5796 be expected to have an impact on jobs.

5797

5798 The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be about $15 per year, all of which is a 

5799 result of increased training.

5800

5801 5.4 Small Business Impacts

5802

5803 This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the WPS rule may have on 

5804 small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and revenue for small 

5805 WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should 

5806 have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions.

5807

5808 Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 5.4.1, 

5809 and the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in 

5810 September 2008. The current analysis presented here takes into account comments received 

5811 from the panel that influenced the proposed requirements. For example, the requirement for a 

5812 sufficient flow rate at permanent mixing and loading sites was suggested by the panel as an 

5813 alternative to a requirement for portable eyewash stations. Based on the current analysis, EPA 

5814 concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

5815

5816 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

5817 Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of 

5818 regulations on small entities, including businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments. 

5819 When significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, 

5820 agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 

5821 effects on significantly impacted small entities.

5822

5823 The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 

5824 economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 

5825 incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sales as significant, costs less 

5826 than one percent of annual sales as not significant, and costs between one and three percent of 

5827 sales as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA 

5828 considers both the number of affected firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if 

5829 a substantial number of firms will be impacted.

5830

5831 Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008), we use the following 

5832 thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial”:

5833 ♦ Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

5834 30% of all small farms;
163

5835 ♦ Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents 

5836 less than 20% of all small farms; or

5837 ♦ More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 

5838 10% of all small farms.

5839 If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 

5840 substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows:

5841 ♦ Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 

5842 20% of all small farms;

5843 ♦ Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small 

5844 farms; or

5845 ♦ More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5% 

5846 of all small farms.

5847

5848 Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 

5849 incremental costs on a per-company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to 

5850 develop cost-to-sales ratios. 

5851

5852 In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. 

5853 We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA 

5854 estimates that small CPHEs will not face a significant impact as a result of this rule. The 

5855 estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, less than $200 per year, is only 0.10 percent of the 

5856 average annual revenue for small CPHEs, $354,000 per year (D&B, 2010).

5857

5858 In Section 5.4.2, we present the estimated compliance cost by type and size of WPS farms and 

5859 estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a percentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are 

5860 estimated assuming both immediate implementation of the proposal as well as a two-year 

5861 delayed implementation of the training and notification requirements.

5862

5863 5.4.1 Industry Profile

5864

5865 EPA uses data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) to identify the number of 

5866 small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The Census of Agriculture is

5867 conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as well as the people who 

5868 operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, operator characteristics, 

5869 production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas.

5870

5871 EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles 

5872 for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 

5873 greenhouses, and nurseries). Crop producing farms were then separated into two main size 

5874 classifications (large and small) according to the SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined 

5875 as those with annual gross revenue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 

5876 million in annual sales. Table 5.4-1 presents the number of farms, by type, and the proportion of 

5877 the total that are small farms.

5878

5879 Table 5.4-1. Crop-producing farms, by type and size, and average number of employees.

Farm Type Number of Small Farms1 Average Number of Employees
164

Farms (%) Large Farms Small Farms

All Crop Farms 1,564,178 95.7% 16.1 0.8

All Crop Farms using 

pesticides 788,582 92.6% 17.6 1.4

WPS Farms 2 394,658 86.2% 20.0 3.6

WPS Farms 2 using 

pesticides

304,348 83.9% 20.9 3.9

5880 Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b).

1 5881 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue. 

2 5882 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor.

5883

5884 The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests 

5885 and efficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enterprise. 

5886 If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can 

5887 jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of food produced. Similarly, labor 

5888 remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand 

5889 the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms, i.e., 

5890 those with less than $750,000 in annual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 

5891 define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium-small farms 

5892 as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with 

5893 annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.4-2 presents the number of farms, annual 

5894 value of crops sold, and number of workers, by type and size. These categories of farms provide 

5895 the typology we use to characterize the impacts of revisions to the WPS on small farms.

5896

5897 Table 5.4-2. Average annual sales and workers, by Farm type and size.

Type All Small 1 Large-Small 1 Medium-Small 1 Small-Small 1

Farms Producing Crops

 number 1,496,722 264,197 477,699 754,826

 sales $ 66,277 $ 300,043 $ 36,680 $ 3,188

 workers 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.3

Farms Using Pesticides

 number 730,387 221,735 290,611 218,041

 sales $ 109,865 $ 304,107 $ 41,208 $ 3,839

 workers 1.4 2.7 1.1 0.5

WPS Farms 2

 number 340,369 139,237 121,223 79,909

 sales $ 152,986 $ 334,448 $ 42,733 $ 4,055

 workers 3.6 4.7 3.2 2.5

WPS Farms 2 Using Pesticides

 number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880

 sales $181,742 $337,326 $45,587 $4,445

 workers 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.7

5898 Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (2008b).

1 5899 The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three 

5900 subgroups: large-small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per 
165

5901 year; medium-small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small5902 small farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 

5903 those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large-small 

5904 feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium-small feedlots, with 

5905 annual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small-small feedlots, with annual sales less than 

5906 $50,000 per year.

5907 2 EPA defines WPS Farms to be those farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 

5908 WPS provisions, however, do not apply unless a pesticide application is made within a specified time 

5909 and distance from where employees are working.

5910

5911 It is worth noting that small-small WPS farms, defined as those reporting less than $10,000 in 

5912 annual sales, also employ an average of nearly three laborers. It is somewhat difficult to 

5913 reconcile the low revenue with multiple employees. It may be that these employees are very 

5914 temporary and are associated with a few tasks such as harvest that demand relatively high labor 

5915 input over a short period of time. It may also be that these employees are engaged in other 

5916 revenue-generating activities not directly related to the farm's own production.

5917

5918 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

5919

5920 EPA estimates the incremental cost for the various WPS farm sizes according to the 

5921 methodology described in Section 5.1. Per-entity unit cost is added to the per-worker cost times 

5922 the number of workers. Large-small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler, on average, 

5923 while medium-small and small-small WPS farms are assumed to rely on commercial applicators 

5924 or the owner/operator to make pesticide applications.

5925

5926 Table 5.4-3 presents the number of WPS farms, average sales, and estimated annual incremental 

5927 cost of the rule by farm size for all farm types. Annual incremental costs are based on existing 

5928 requirements in most areas of the country except for California. As shown in Section 5.2.5, the 

5929 incremental cost for a small WPS farm in California is substantially less than the national 

5930 average due to the regulatory baseline even accounting for the relatively higher number of 

5931 workers per farm. Despite variation in the number of workers across the different regions of the 

5932 United States, estimated incremental costs are fairly consistent with the Northwest region 

5933 somewhat higher and the Texas/Mountain West region expected to have incremental costs per 

5934 entity less than the national average.

5935

5936 EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue and does not find a 

5937 significant impact from the rule. Overall, the impact of the rule is 0.1 percent of average sales. 

5938 Only the very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $4,500 per year, may face impacts 

5939 above one percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one 

5940 percent of sales could be over 40,000, given the number of small-small establishments. 

5941 However, this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as includes the nearly 

5942 5,000 small-small farms in California that would face impacts well below the national average. 

5943 It also includes over 14,000 farms that are primarily livestock operations and over 13,000 farms 

5944 that are primarily field crop and forage producers whose employees are unlikely to engage in 

5945 hand labor activities that would trigger WPS provisions. These farms are likely to bear little or 

5946 no cost as a result of the proposed revisions.

5947
166

5948 Table 5.4-3. Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms making pesticide applications

All Small WPS 

Farms making 

pesticide 

applications

Large-Small 

WPS Farms

making 

pesticide 

applications

Medium-Small 

WPS Farms

making 

pesticide 

applications

Small-Small 

WPS Farms

making 

pesticide 

applications

Number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880

Average Sales $181,742 $337,326 $ 45,587 $ 4,445

Immediate Implementation

Incremental Cost $ 148 $ 232 $ 111 $ 82

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.8%

Two-Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 126 $ 202 $ 90 $ 67

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5%

5949 Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b); EPA calculations.

1 5950 Training and Notification only.

5951

5952 EPA examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small-small farms in order to 

5953 gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two 

5954 sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small-small WPS farms. First, is whether 

5955 WPS training requirements will apply to small-small farms every year of a ten-year time period, 

5956 which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 5.4-3. Less than 55 percent 

5957 of small-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007 (NASS, 2008b) and if these farms hire 

5958 workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety 

5959 training if an application has been made. Under this scenario, the incremental cost to small5960 small WPS farms would average under $60 per year.

5961

5962 A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small-small farms 

5963 employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary 

5964 basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications 

5965 made well before workers are hired. For small-small farms, the hazard communication and 

5966 notification requirements comprise a large share of the cost at $40 per year, based on 20 

5967 pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. It is likely that small-small 

5968 farms will make fewer applications per year when workers are or will be present and will thus 

5969 have fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small-small farms make only five

5970 applications per year for which hazard communication and notification are required (e.g., in the 

5971 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the proposed rule is 

5972 also less than $60 per year. If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been 

5973 made and only five applications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements, 

5974 the incremental cost of the rule for small-small farms averages only $35 per year.

5975

5976 Given that, for small-small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard 

5977 communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated, EPA concludes that, even for the 

5978 smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the proposed rule will generally be less than one percent of 

5979 the value of annual sales of agricultural products.

5980
167

5981 Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

5982

5983 Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in both acute health effects to workers and 

5984 handlers as well as health problems that occur later; if the proposed rule changes are 

5985 implemented, agricultural workers and pesticide handlers will have better information and 

5986 protections that will enable them to reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to 

5987 improved health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes will 

5988 provide a range of benefits to agricultural farm workers and handlers. The proposed rule 

5989 changes would ensure that workers and handlers have the information needed to best protect 

5990 themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. 

5991

5992 By proposing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the revised rule is expected to 

5993 substantially mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for adverse health effects 

5994 (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include 

5995 requirements intended to reduce exposure by: 

5996 • Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides –The 

5997 proposed rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as 

5998 proposing changes to ensure that the training is more effective. 

5999 • Reducing exposure to pesticides – Among other things, the proposed rule changes and 

6000 clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when 

6001 pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should 

6002 directly reduce exposure to the agricultural workforce. 

6003 • Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur – Accidental exposures are inevitable, 

6004 and the proposed rule increases safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to 

6005 respond to exposures. 

6006

6007 The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to agricultural 

6008 workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals 

6009 considered by the Agency in developing this rule. The preamble to the proposed rule describes in 

6010 detail the proposed requirements, and how they are expected to better inform workers about the 

6011 risks and causes of pesticide exposure, protect them against exposure, and mitigate the effects of 

6012 exposure. This chapter discusses how these three approaches can reduce the health effects of 

6013 exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that exposure can have. The 

6014 proposed changes include proposals for improved training requirements, in terms of the 

6015 frequency of training agricultural workers receive, and the content of that training. Other 

6016 proposed requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in 

6017 combination with training to improve farmworkers’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect 

6018 themselves. There is evidence that training can be an effective tool to increase workplace safety. 

6019 Within agriculture, Barnett et al. (1984) found a pilot education project dramatically increased 

6020 the understanding of routes of exposure, safer storage of pesticides, and a greater understanding 

6021 of how to protect children from take home exposure. Both Strong et al. (2008) and Salvatore et 

6022 al. (2009) report better self-protection practices after safety training for Hispanic farmworkers. 

6023
168

6024 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

6025

6026 EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers 

6027 and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 

6028 families. However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This 

6029 section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced 

6030 acute exposures to workers and handlers) and those that cannot.

6031

6032 Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by:

6033 • avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to farm 

6034 workers and handlers.

6035 • mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents through a 

6036 better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers.

6037 • avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents (e.g., 

6038 developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers.

6039 • reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers, handlers and their families.

6040

6041 Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 

6042 have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these only represent a portion of 

6043 the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 

6044 as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and 

6045 adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to 

6046 appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 

6047 the benefit estimates in this chapter. 

6048

6049 Also, provisions in the proposed rule are designed to clarify emergency response procedures and 

6050 or the amount of decontamination supplies available. These provisions can reduce the severity 

6051 of the accidental poisoning events, and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. 

6052 Because our estimates are based on preventable incidents, the benefits to reduced severity are 

6053 underestimated. There is not enough available information to determine how much severity 

6054 would be reduced in a given incident.

6055

6056 The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, 

6057 are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncertain 

6058 causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore it is 

6059 impossible to quantify many important health effects from reduced pesticide exposure. These 

6060 health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to workers and handlers 

6061 will be discussed in a semi-quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are 

6062 described, but cannot be quantified.

6063

6064 The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticide exposure, followed by a discussion of 

6065 the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 

6066 families. Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 

6067 benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 

6068 from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 

6069 surveillance databases, but are potentially very important to human health, and may be reduced 
169

6070 by the proposed rule. The final section of the chapter presents a break-even analysis that shows 

6071 some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness. 

6072

6073 6.2. Who is at Risk?

6074

6075 6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture 

6076

6077 Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 

6078 large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the 

6079 approximately 2.3 million farm workers (see Table 3.3-4) that are hired by agricultural 

6080 establishments, all of whom are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from 

6081 pesticide exposure (NASS, 2008b). Agricultural workers do not necessarily handle pesticides 

6082 directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticides either through contact with 

6083 residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected 

6084 application. EPA assumes there are nearly 250,000 pesticide handlers, included in the farm 

6085 worker population, that handle pesticides directly; another 72,000 handlers are employed at 

6086 commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2010, See Section 3.3.2). The 

6087 agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues 

6088 and that exposure can pose significant long and short term health risks. It is difficult to quantify 

6089 a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because 

6090 workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with different 

6091 toxicities and risks and are exposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of 

6092 frequencies. However, as a result of an extensive review of the epidemiologic evidence 

6093 published in the peer-reviewed literature there is evidence, which EPA regards as strong, that 

6094 pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health outcomes.

6095

6096 6.2.2. Children and families

6097

6098 Several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 

6099 for children. These include training components designed to minimize exposure to family 

6100 members to pesticides that get taken home; measures that reduce exposure to workers and 

6101 handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits for certain 

6102 worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are 

6103 particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn 

6104 children are particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different 

6105 exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects 

6106 into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems 

6107 are still developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et 

6108 al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are 

6109 exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pesticide 

6110 exposure. 

6111

6112 Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for 

6113 chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 

6114 means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 
170

6115 lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 

6116 continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 

6117 developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and chemicals differently than adults 

6118 metabolize pesticides and other chemicals. The proposed changes to the WPS also include 

6119 restrictions on allowing adolescents to serve as pesticide handlers. These changes are important 

6120 because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, which is also 

6121 discussed below.

6122

6123 Take Home Exposure

6124

6125 Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 

6126 exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al., (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 

6127 urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a 

6128 sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary 

6129 sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 

6130 Bradman et al. (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different 

6131 pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, 

6132 and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al. (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 

6133 non-farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 

6134 significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 

6135 farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher 

6136 levels in the worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 

6137 transported home on farmers clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 

6138 pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the take home exposure 

6139 pathway, Vida et al. (2007), reported results that indicate that take home exposure is an 

6140 important source of exposure for children. The studies cited above consistently found higher 

6141 levels of pesticides in the agricultural households compared to non-agricultural households, and 

6142 that levels of Organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultural activity. The highest 

6143 levels of azinphos-methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a 

6144 farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al., 2004, Coronado et al., 2006). Curl et 

6145 al., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which 

6146 suggest the take home pathway is the source for the residues. Exposure studies on 

6147 organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home 

6148 pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007;

6149 Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

6150

6151 Research has shown that agricultural workers are generally unaware that occupational exposure 

6152 to pesticides can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al., 2009 conducted 

6153 interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several 

6154 misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed 

6155 through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less 

6156 harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to 

6157 work quickly, and, as the article states “previous research has [shown] that farmworkers often 

6158 report delaying showering for over an hour after work in order to allow their bodies to cool fully 

6159 for fear of developing arthritis or other health problems.” Quandt et al. (1998) found that 

6160 farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target, and that acute 
171

6161 (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al., 2007). Other exposure 

6162 routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, 

6163 or when children are taken to where their parents are working. Prenatal exposures (discussed 

6164 below) may be particularly important for long-term development. 

6165

6166 Occupational Exposure to Adolescents

6167

6168 Young pesticide handlers face more risks from pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by 

6169 proposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is evidence that adolescents and children 

6170 do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 

6171 to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 

6172 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 

6173 context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 

6174 risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 

6175 risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during 

6176 worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al., 1998). As reported in Reed et al. (2006), “young 

6177 agricultural production workers were 3 times more likely to die on the job than their 

6178 nonagricultural counterparts.” This statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and 

6179 suggests that younger workers take more risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older 

6180 workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and 

6181 Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and 

6182 symptoms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al., 2006). When teens were asked 

6183 whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self-reported frequency for use of 

6184 respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 

6185 was required. According to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 

6186 teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 

6187 attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 

6188 leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al., 2006).

6189

6190 The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 

6191 risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through 

6192 these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 

6193 risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al., 2010). In an international 

6194 setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, 

6195 neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 

6196 applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 

6197 in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high 

6198 levels.

6199

6200 Salazar et al. (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 

6201 teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 

6202 among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to 

6203 be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In the focus group, when asked whether they 

6204 washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, participants responded that they did 

6205 not have the time and/or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, 

6206 participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they 
172

6207 appeared to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it 

6208 was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss 

6209 machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et 

6210 al., 2004).

6211

6212 According to Calvert et al.(2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 

6213 youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed 

6214 to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The

6215 literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. 

6216 Therefore it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 

6217 decisions. It is not certain why risky behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a 

6218 consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors 

6219 and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, 

6220 but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al., 2010). The 

6221 cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which 

6222 indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking 

6223 process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that 

6224 more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, will not 

6225 protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk adolescents do 

6226 not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, such as the 

6227 establishment of minimum age for certain activities (with an exception for adolescents covered 

6228 by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety.

6229

6230 6.3.What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families

6231

6232 This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 

6233 exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposures to workers and handlers and their families, 

6234 including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of 

6235 these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of 

6236 developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic 

6237 occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 6.6 and Section 

6238 6.8. 

6239

6240 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects

6241

6242 The use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 

6243 narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a 

6244 broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many 

6245 ways, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al., 2010). 

6246 Exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute 

6247 symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irritation to more 

6248 severe effects. Severity of symptoms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure. 

6249 Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and 

6250 dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al., 1997). 

6251 Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness 
173

6252 (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. 

6253 These are just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide 

6254 exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 

6255 different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure 

6256 (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers 

6257 and handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including 

6258 several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 

6259

6260 Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide-related 

6261 illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and 

6262 handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 

6263 reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 

6264 Calvert, et al. (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture 

6265 industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning 

6266 incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates 

6267 varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order

6268 of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the 

6269 sample)). Das et al. (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers 

6270 for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et 

6271 al. found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California 

6272 surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the 

6273 poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms 

6274 were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), 

6275 and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye 

6276 contact. 

6277

6278 Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 

6279 high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 

6280 period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high severity, with 

6281 one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 

6282 is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 

6283 can reflect significant morbidity, with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss 

6284 of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at 

6285 least two post-exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health-care professional. 

6286 Symptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 

6287 and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 

up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases4 6288 . 

6289 The impact on the financial situation of a low-income farmworker can be dramatic.

6290

6291 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

6292

6293 This section discusses reproductive and other risks to children of workers and handlers. These

6294 are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm families; 

6295 many others, including some cancers also have an association with pesticide exposure. The 

 4 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf
174

6296 discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 6.6, because 

6297 most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides and cancer has been based 

6298 on occupational exposure. 

6299

6300 Reproductive Risks 

6301

6302 Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 

6303 reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al. (2007) found 59 studies that examined the relationship 

6304 between pesticides and reproductive outcomes and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. 

6305 A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 

Table 6.3-1. Summary of Findings on Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al., 2007

Outcome Examined

Number of 

Papers Found

Number of Papers Found that 

Display an Association Between 

the Outcome Examined and 

Pesticide Exposure* 

Birth Defect 15 14 (+)

Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+)

Fertility** 14 7 (-)

Altered Growth 10 7 (+)

Fetal Death 11 9 (+)

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

*The direction of the association is shown in parentheses.

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and 

infertility. 

6306

6307 As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 

6308 between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 

6309 defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 

6310 nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 

6311 studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death which includes 

6312 “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 

6313 preconception exposure was associated with early first-trimester abortions and post-conception 

6314 exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al., 2007). For most 

6315 effects, half or more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 

6316 exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 

6317 the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 

6318 publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 

6319 suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 

6320

6321 Potential Health Effects in Children

6322

6323 There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 

6324 pregnant women may affect children. Pre-natal exposure may have particularly important 
175

6325 effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al. (2009) studies 

6326 have found an association between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood 

6327 leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 

6328 of developmental toxicity (i.e., structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth 

6329 and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 

6330 pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 

6331 Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain 

6332 tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes 

6333 often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 

6334 occur, for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an 

6335 application or through drift of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field. 

6336

6337 Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 

6338 exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 

6339 the systems in adults. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than those of 

6340 younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood.. In 

6341 particular brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through 

6342 synaptic pruning and myelination, an important physiological process that reduces excess neuron 

6343 connections in the brain and encloses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases

6344 the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 

6345 during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 

6346 particularly harmful (Golub, 2000). In addition, occupational exposure beginning in adolescence 

6347 gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves 

6348 over a full lifetime. 

6349

6350 Several studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and 

6351 development are on-going. Three key cohorts, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 

6352 are looking at pre- and post-natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth 

6353 outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long-term childhood neurobehavioral and 

6354 neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are: 

6355

6356 • The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and 

6357 Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord 

6358 blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental 

6359 outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 

6360 pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 

6361 comparisons between pre- and post-cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 

6362 • Mount Sinai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, 

6363 African American, and Caucasian. This team has associated urinary metabolites (TCP 

6364 and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The enrollment of the 

6365 Mt. Sinai cohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpyrifos. 

6366 However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase-out of residential 

6367 uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their publications. 

6368 • The CHAMACOS cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in 

6369 the Salinas Valley, California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This 

6370 cohort is exposed to many pesticides from multiple pathways such as occupational 
176

6371 exposures and take-home exposures. This team has, however, associated urinary 

6372 metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. 

6373

6374 The cohort most relevant to the WPS rule is the cohort associated with the Center for Health 

6375 Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS). The CHAMACOS cohort, 

6376 being studied by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily 

6377 Latina women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from 

6378 this cohort, several studies have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during 

6379 pregnancy on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi 

6380 et al., 1999; Bradman et al., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and their

6381 children (Bradman et al., 2005; Eskenazi et al., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2004; 

6382 Young and Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al., 2007). These 

6383 studies have investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 

6384 fetal growth and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al., 2004), and the relationship between 

6385 prenatal and child organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s 

6386 neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et al., 2007). 

6387

6388 The published exposure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic 

6389 organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as 

6390 well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos 

6391 (TCP), and parathion (4-nitrophenol) metabolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 

6392 commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children 

6393 (Bradman et al., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al., 2004, 2007).

6394

6395 The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young children in a farmworker community are exposed 

6396 to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated 

6397 with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al., 2007), abnormal 

6398 reflexes (Young et al., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al., 2004). 

6399

6400 Similar research in other cohorts is being conducted by both Columbia University and the Mt. 

6401 Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban women and their children, so the 

6402 pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are 

6403 exposed are smaller, but these studies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three 

6404 cohorts report delayed mental development associated with an increased exposure to OP 

6405 pesticides (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 2006, Engel et al., 2007). The CHAMACOS and 

6406 Mt. Sinai cohorts both report positive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes 

6407 in children (Engel et al., 2007, Young et al., 2005). Increased developmental disorders were 

6408 reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al., 2007, Rauh et al., 

6409 2006, Lovasi, et al., 2011, Engel et al., 2011).

6410

6411 Several recent studies have shown an association between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and 

6412 the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 

6413 hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded 

6414 that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were 

6415 associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al., 2010). Similar 

6416 associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, 
177

6417 chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 

6418 pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al., 2006, Levasi, et al., 

6419 2011, Engel et al., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al. (2010), 

6420 found an association between OP metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to 

6421 children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median 

6422 had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors.

6423

6424 The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 

6425 epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 

6426 However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 

6427 between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 

6428 that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro-developmental and 

6429 neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures. 

6430

6431 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

6432

6433 In the next section, a quantified estimate of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 

6434 these quantified estimates are based only on the value of reduced illness from acute pesticide 

6435 exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 

6436 sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. 

6437 The estimates, however, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for 

6438 which sufficient data are not available to quantify these benefits. 

6439

6440 The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section, 

6441 when they are not acute exposure to a worker or handler that is easily observed and reported. 

6442 Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will 

6443 result from the WPS, and dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value of 

6444 reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is impossible to 

6445 quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to 

6446 families can result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in children, 

6447 and it is impossible to quantify the benefits from the proposed WPS rule changes that may 

6448 reduce these effects. 

6449

6450 The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non-quantifiable 

6451 benefits from chronic exposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 6.8, based on 

6452 the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 6.6. 

6453

6454 6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

6455

6456 EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by further protecting workers 

6457 and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 

6458 families. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute pesticide exposure to be $11.3 

6459 million annually, although important non-quantifiable benefits are discussed later in the chapter. 

6460 This section quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 

6461 handlers associated with acute pesticide exposure.
178

6462

6463 6.5.1. Methodology and Data

6464

6465 We use a two-step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through 

6466 avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents 

6467 that will be avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of 

6468 pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines 

6469 whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of 

6470 pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of 

6471 reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 

6472 6.5.2, underreporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated 

6473 benefits. This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of underreporting was known. 

6474 A discussion of underreporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at the end of 

6475 Section 6.5. 

6476

6477 The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. 

6478 The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will 

6479 underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 

6480 valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL).

6481

6482 For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use two complementary databases: 

6483 one that gathers sufficient detail on the exposures that led to the incident report but lacks national 

6484 representation (NIOSH’ Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure, 

6485 SENSOR), and one that is nationally representative, but lacks the necessary exposure detail 

6486 (American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Poison Data System, NPDS). Data

6487 for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for 

6488 Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

6489 and Health. SENSOR is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to 

6490 pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a three-year period, 2003 to 2005, during which time 

6491 nine states (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and 

6492 Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Data from California were submitted in 2003 and 

6493 2004. SENSOR reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide 

6494 involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to 

6495 estimate the proportion of incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule.

6496

6497 Because of the limited geographic coverage of the SENSOR data, EPA relies on data from the 

6498 National Poison Data System (NPDS) to estimate the annual number of pesticide incidents in the 

6499 United States. Illness from pesticide exposure is a poisoning event, and the NPDS tracks 

6500 occupational pesticide poisonings. NPDS is a comprehensive surveillance system developed in 

6501 1983 and maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) to track 

6502 acute illness and injury related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information system 

6503 with geographically specific and near real-time reporting. The system contains detailed 

6504 toxicological information on poison exposures reported to poison centers around the country, 

6505 capturing an estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison centers in the 

6506 United States. The NPDS data does not have sufficient information to determine whether a 

6507 reported incident could be prevented. NPDS data are also used to estimate the distribution of 
179

6508 effects, including death, resulting from pesticide incidents. This is explained in more detail in 

6509 Section 6.5.4. 

6510

6511 The value of avoided incidents is measured as avoided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 

6512 Information on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the 

6513 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 

6514 related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and 

6515 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). HCUP databases bring 

6516 together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data 

6517 organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patient6518 level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 

6519 the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 

6520 costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 

6521 for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 

6522 services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals.

6523

6524 Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 

6525 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4.

6526

6527 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

6528

6529 There is concern that pesticide incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 

6530 particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before an occupational pesticide6531 related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they have 

6532 treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 

6533 the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the physician or the injured person must report 

6534 the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide 

6535 related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being 

6536 tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al., 2001).

6537

6538 (1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 

6539 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 

6540 uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 

6541 rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 

6542 common pesticides results in flu-like or cold-like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 

6543 dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory 

6544 problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 

6545 exposure to poison ivy. Many farmworkers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to 

6546 pesticide exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and 

6547 may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues.

6548

6549 (2) Workers and handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life-threatening emergencies, 

6550 many pesticide-related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical 

6551 intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, 

6552 causes some of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this 

6553 inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of 
180

6554 exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will 

6555 gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many 

6556 agricultural workers with treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of 

6557 California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance system showed that in 

6558 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment 

6559 (Das et al., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. 

6560

6561 Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handlers’ access to medical care is poor. A report on 

6562 migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 

6563 20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 

6564 reduced health care access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005).

6565

6566 The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low-income persons. 

6567 Although low-income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or 

6568 have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs:

6569 • Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significant 

6570 barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to non6571 disabled low-income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 

6572 immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 

6573 five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, 

6574 some states use monthly budgeting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it 

6575 difficult for low-income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for 

6576 employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify. 

6577 • Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. 

6578 Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are eligible for Medicaid may have difficulty 

6579 completing the application and enrollment process. Given their limited English skills, 

6580 it can be very difficult for them to complete long application forms or meet extensive 

6581 verification requirements, particularly if there is limited availability of language 

6582 assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and 

6583 Shin, 2005). 

6584

6585 A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeking medical care for 

6586 agricultural workers, including the loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through 

6587 retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington 

6588 State Department of Health, 2003). 

6589

6590 Many agricultural workers average 6-day work weeks during their peak work season. Without 

6591 sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 

6592 miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek 

6593 medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their 

6594 medical bills would be covered by workers compensation and feared employer disapproval if it 

6595 were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm 

6596 (Washington State Department of Health, 2003). 

6597

6598 (3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 

6599 treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specifically diagnose the illness or 
181

6600 injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 

6601 such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 

6602 drawn. Like their patients, physicians and other healthcare providers often have difficulty in 

6603 ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 

6604 those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 

6605 poisonings for other causes, but physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide 

6606 poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a 

6607 pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide 

6608 exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming 

6609 the causes. 

6610

6611 (4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 

6612 recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under6613 reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 

6614 Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 

6615 compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 

6616 difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work-related." (Washington, 1991) 

6617

6618 Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 

6619 requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 

6620 bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 

6621 completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al., 2002, Baker et al., 1998). For 

6622 example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 

6623 healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 

6624 becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they might have to defend 

6625 an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 

6626 statement" (Arizona, 1990).

6627

6628 If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 

6629 not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 

6630 literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, are underreported, 

6631 although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 

6632 to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute 

6633 symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms which may occur 

6634 many years after exposure, as discussed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate 

6635 symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is 

6636 common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of 

6637 underreporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5-1. 

6638
182

Table 6.5-1 Summary of Results from Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990

Treated vs. Reported Toxic 

Exposures: Discrepancies 

Between a Poison Control 

Center and a Member 

Hospital (Harchelroad et al., 

1990)

Compare poison control center 

reports to actual toxic 

exposures presented to an 

urban area hospital

74%a

1983

Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of 

a Regional Poison 

Information Center (ChafeeBahamon et al., 1983)

Observing usage patterns of a 

poison information center by 

hospital staff over a two-year 

period

“Sufficiently Large”b

1987

Interpretation and Uses of 

Data Collected in Poison 

Control Centers in the United 

States (Veltri et al., 1987)

Identifying the strengths and 

weaknesses of the American 

Association of Poison Control 

Centers National Data 

Collection System

67%

2008

Hidden Tragedy: 

Underreporting of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses (US 

House of Representatives, 

2008)

Identifying issues involving the 

inclusiveness of reported 

workplace injuries and 

illnesses

69%

2008

Examining Evidence on 

Whether BLS Undercounts 

Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses (Ruser 2008)

Identifying underreporting for 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

and how they can be corrected.

20-70%c

Notes: 

a The EMD evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCC; resulting in underreport of 74%

b

“Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the 

hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS

6639

6640 The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 

6641 (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser estimates that 

6642 the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent 

6643 (Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII 

6644 omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers 

6645 are not recorded in the SOII. Work-related deaths are also unaccounted for within the survey. 

6646 The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused 

6647 by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some 

6648 correlation may exist.

6649

6650 The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 

6651 injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 

6652 According to experts, a major cause of underreporting may be due to the fact that employers may 

6653 have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and 

6654 illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

6655 (OSHA). 

6656
183

6657 There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each 

6658 focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control with those poisonings 

6659 for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial 

6660 underreporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting 

6661 by physicians (i.e., Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – poisoned people 

6662 not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these 

6663 studies.

6664

6665 Harchelroad et al. (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 

6666 toxic exposure results documented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 

6667 470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26% were ever 

6668 documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 

6669 exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non-reporting. 

6670

6671 Chafee-Bahamon et al. (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 

6672 similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 

6673 among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 

6674 hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 

6675 hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 

6676 poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases.

6677

6678 The third study, by Veltri et al. (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 

6679 illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may 

6680 occur. In this case, only about one-third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center 

6681 could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and 

6682 injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 

6683 poisonings may be consistently low

6684

6685 There are several reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 

6686 OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 

6687 incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 

6688 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include

6689

6690 • The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents;

6691 • No central reporting point for all incidents;

6692 • Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes;

6693 • Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects;

6694 • Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 

6695 effects;

6696 • Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects;

6697 • Reluctance or inability to report by physicians;

6698 • Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases.

6699

6700 There are good reasons to think that underreporting is at least as significant in the agricultural 

6701 sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the characteristics of 

6702 the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) describes the hired farmworker population as “... 
184

6703 younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign-born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized 

6704 to work in the United States.” These attributes point toward a relatively disadvantaged 

6705 workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or report pesticide incidents to 

6706 their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and immigration status 

6707 described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek medical care, which 

6708 would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and available to be counted in 

6709 poisoning databases. USDA research based on NAWS data also reports that farmworkers have 

6710 difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for 

6711 two-thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to 

6712 receiving care. The problem is more severe among unauthorized workers (NASS, 2008a).

6713

6714 Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a 

6715 population that does not have a lot of resources to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to interact 

6716 with health workers because of their immigration status, or have difficulty communicating with 

6717 health workers when they do seek medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure. 

6718

6719 The limited available data for pesticide poisonings of farmworkers are consistent with the 

6720 conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to 

6721 medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of acute benefits from 

6722 avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 

6723 underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5.

6724

6725 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

6726

6727 EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 

6728 for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 

6729 annual average of 2,170. EPA reviewed all pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR from 

6730 2003-2005 and identified a total of 460 occupational cases of which 263 of the cases, 57 percent,

6731 occurred in agricultural settings where WPS is applicable. Thus, of all occupational pesticide 

6732 incidents found in NPDS, EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 incidents occur on farms, 

6733 nurseries, and greenhouses annually. 

6734

6735 The review of the SENSOR data identified 63 cases that would likely have been avoided under 

6736 the proposed revisions to the WPS, as explained below. Another 84 cases might possibly have 

6737 been avoided. Thus, EPA concludes that 24 to 56 percent of agricultural incidents, or 14 to 32 

6738 percent of all occupational cases, would be likely or at least possibly avoidable through the 

6739 proposed changes. Given the number of occupational incidents reported in NPDS, EPA 

6740 estimates that 297 to 693 acute incidents would be prevented annually under this rule, before any 

6741 adjustment is made for under-reporting. 

6742

6743 By reviewing the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR, EPA was able to identify the 

6744 proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident. EPA then reviewed these cases for the 

6745 cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 

6746 the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “likely”, “possible” or “not 

6747 likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following 

6748 guidelines:
185

6749

6750 • Likely: 

6751 o A technical proposed requirement, such as respirator fit testing or training, field 

6752 posting, or extension of the entry –restricted area to forests and fields could 

6753 mitigate the exposure. If the details of the case were not robust, the case was 

6754 downgraded to “possible.”

6755 • Possible:

6756 o More frequent or more comprehensive training could mitigate the exposure.

6757 • Unlikely

6758 o The exposure was caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a gust of wind

6759 o The incident was dermatitis caused by dust exposure

6760 o The exposure was to the neck of a handler as a result of application to row ends in 

6761 orchards

6762 o The exposure was caused by malfunctioning equipment.

6763 o Consensus of the reviewers was not achieved in the review

6764 o The information in the case report was insufficient to determine if the changes 

6765 would mitigate the exposure.

6766

6767

6768 EPA did not use all the available cases for this determination. Certain pesticides, identified as 

6769 Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be applied by certified applicators or applicators under 

6770 their direct supervision and these applicators are subject to separate regulations, which are also 

6771 being revised. Although WPS training could be a factor in avoiding or mitigating incidents 

6772 involving RUPs, EPA excludes them from consideration here so as not to double count avoided 

6773 incidents. The incidents that remain here are those that involve farmworkers or handlers that 

6774 were not applying RUPs. 

6775

6776 Cases deemed “likely” to be avoided were used to calculate the low-end ratio of acute exposure 

6777 cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents. The combination of cases deemed “likely” and 

6778 “possible” to be avoided was used to calculate the high-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 

6779 unintentional pesticide incidents. 

6780

6781 The grey box below provides examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis. 

6782
186

The following are examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis:

“Likely” Cases

Event ID FL00589: In 2003, a farmworker was exposed to Sevin (Carbaryl) while picking oranges. The report 

indicated that the supervisor was not trained to train the workers and therefore, the workers were not 

trained. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS 

rules given the new requirements for worker training as well as more stringent requirements for individuals 

performing the worker training sessions. 

Event ID WA01520: In 2005, a handler on an apple farm developed neurological and gastrointestinal 

symptoms while spraying a tank mix of Imidan 70-WP Agricultural Insecticide. In using the ground sprayer, 

he felt the spray on his rubber suit and could see the mist through his full face respirator. While his 

supervisor had instructed him to change the filter every 3 days, he indicated changing the filter whenever 

he smelled pesticides. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed 

changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for increased worker and handler training as well as 

the new requirement of a proper fit test and training in the use of handler respirators.

Event ID WA00898: In 2003, a handler on an apple orchard developed ocular symptoms after rubbing his 

eyes while hanging pheromone (Isomate-C Pheromone) strips. He was provided gloves and goggles, but 

chose not to wear them. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed 

changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for increased worker training with expanded 

content.

“Possibly” Cases

Event ID MI00382: In 2005, a handler was mixing fungicide (Oxidate Broad Spectrum Bactericide/Fungicide) 

from noon to 9:00 pm on a truck and rested his arm on an area with a small spill. The report indicates that 

while the worker was wearing a rubber apron, gloves and glasses, he or she should have worn coveralls 

over a long-sleeved shirt and boots. Also, he or she did not check the label for PPE requirements. We 

assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS rules 

given the increased frequency of training and expanded training content for handlers. 

Event ID WA01523: In 2005, an apple applicator suffered an occupational exposure as the pesticide he was 

mixing, Enviro Micro Sulf Micronized Wettable Sulfur, splashed into his right eye. The report indicates the 

individual was wearing safety goggles. We assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by 

the proposed changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for handler training, which would 

cause the handler to be more careful when mixing pesticides. 

Event ID LA01935: In 2005, a handler spilled the soil fumigant K-Pam 540 on his foot soaking through the 

boot. While the exposed individual was wearing PPE, the report indicates no further actions were taken 

once the boot was soaked. We assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by the 

proposed changes to the WPS rules given more frequent training emphasizing the importance of 

decontamination procedures. 

“Not Likely” Cases

Event ID WA01120: In 2003, an applicator developed ocular and dermal symptoms, but has a long standing 

history of allergic symptoms particularly when around pesticides. We assume that this case is not likely to 

be avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS rules, which do not specifically target people particularly 

prone to allergic reactions. 

Event ID WA01217: In 2004, an apple thinner developed dermal and respiratory symptoms while working. 

He reported dust on the trees, but records show a ground application was made two weeks prior to onset; 

the restricted entry interval for the product, Procure 50W is only 12 hours. Without further details 

concerning the use of PPE, we assume this case is not likely to be avoided by the proposed changes to the 

WPS rules. In this case the entry was well after the restricted entry interval and there is no evidence that 

the dust reported was pesticide residue. 
187

6783

6784 Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation 

6785 of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 24% and 56% of pesticide poisonings where the 

6786 WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases 

6787 similar to those deemed “likely” to be avoided due to the proposed changes, as discussed above. 

6788 The higher estimate is based on those cases in addition to those deemed as “possible” 

6789 preventions after the proposed changes. Some of those “possible” cases may not be prevented by 

6790 the rule changes (for example, if any were intentional exposures). 

6791

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR Cases Avoided under the Proposed Changes for the 

Worker Protection Standard 

Likelihood of being avoided by 

Proposed Rules

Number 

of Cases 

Avoided

Percent of Cases 

where WPS is 

Applicable

(263 Cases)

Percent of 

Occupational 

Cases

(460 Cases)

Likely 63 24% 14%

Possible 84 32% 18%

Both Possible and Likely 147 56% 32%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR data. 

6792

6793 To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents that would be avoided by this rule, 

6794 EPA multiplies the percentages in Table 6.5-2 by the annual number of incidents obtained from 

6795 the NPDS data, or an annual average of 2,170 occupational incidents. Given that 14 to 32 

6796 percent of comparable SENSOR cases, i.e., all occupational cases, are likely and/or possibly 

6797 avoided by revisions to the WPS, EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS can 

6798 prevent between 297 and 693 incidents annually (See Table 6.5-4). This estimate accounts only 

6799 for reported incidents, which likely make up less than 20 percent of all incidents occurring on 

6800 WPS farms.

6801

6802 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

6803

6804 As explained in Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 

6805 medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 

6806 These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are 

6807 discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the 

6808 effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 

6809 require more treatment, including hospitalization. Workers and handlers suffering from more 

6810 severe effects are more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, one would expect that a more 

6811 severe effect would result in a longer period of recovery during which the victim is unable to 

6812 work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute 

6813 incident will prove fatal in order to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality.

6814

6815 Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 

6816 given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by

6817
188

6818

where Vi

Av 6819 is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti] is the expected medical cost for the 

6820 case, and VPLi is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We identify four severity 

6821 levels as described below: No Effect, Minor Effect, Moderate Effect, and Major Effect.

6822

6823 The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as

6824

6825

6826 Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 

6827 severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 

6828 InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self6829 treatments.

6830

6831 The value of lost productivity is

6832

6833 VPLi= (ωw∙work + ωH∙housekeeping + ωL·leisure)·DURi

6834

6835 where VPL is the value of productivity, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time 

6836 spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, 

6837 and DUR is the duration of the effect.

6838

6839 The value of a reduction in premature mortality, the fifth possible outcome of exposure, is 

6840 simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value 

6841 of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates are 

6842 derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For 

6843 example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, 

6844 then the value of saving one statistical life equals $500 times 10,000—or $5 million. Note that 

6845 this does not mean that any identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate 

6846 value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical 

6847 case. This analysis uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This 

6848 value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL, and then adjusted 

6849 from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010a).

6850

6851 Probability of Effect

6852

6853 EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 

6854 for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 

6855 annual average of 2,170. As shown in Table 6.5-3, about 14 percent of the acute cases 

6856 considered resulted in “no health effects,” 65 percent in “minor effects,” about 20 percent in 

6857 “moderate effects,” fewer than 1 percent in “major health effects,” and about 0.05 percent of 

6858 cases per year result in “death.” The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of minor 

6859 or moderate effects. 

6860
189

Table 6.5-3: Average Annual Estimate of Annual Pesticide Related Poisoning Incidents 

based on NPDS Data

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

No Clinically 

Observable Symptoms1 309 14.2%

Minor 1,416 65.3%

Moderate 429 19.8%

Major 15 0.7%

Death 1 0.05%

Total 2,170 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from a special tabulation of NPDS data from AAPCC 1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

6861

6862 The five severity categories in the NPDS data are defined as follows (American Association of 

6863 Poison Control Centers, undated): 

6864

• No effect: The patient did not develop any signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure5 6865 .

6866 • Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure, 

6867 but they were minimally bothersome and generally resolved rapidly with no residual 

6868 disability or disfigurement. A minor effect is often limited to the skin or mucus 

6869 membranes (nausea, diarrhea, drowsiness, skin irritation, first-degree dermal burn, sinus 

6870 tachycardia without hypotension, and transient cough are all examples of minor effects).

6871 • Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that 

6872 were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more systemic in nature than minor 

6873 symptoms. Usually, some form of treatment is indicated. Symptoms were not life6874 threatening, and the patient had no residual disability or disfigurement (corneal abrasion, 

6875 acid-base disturbance, high fever, disorientation, hypotension that is rapidly responsive to 

6876 treatment, and isolated brief seizures that respond readily to treatment are all examples of 

6877 moderate effects).

6878 • Major effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were 

6879 life-threatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement (e.g., 

6880 repeated seizures or status epilepticus, respiratory compromise requiring intubation, 

6881 ventricular tachycardia with hypotension, cardiac or respiratory arrest, esophageal 

6882 stricture, and disseminated intravascular coagulation).

6883 • Death: The patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the 

6884 exposure (NPDS annual report terminology, undated).

6885

6886 Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 

6887 the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the distribution of 

6888 cases across the five severity levels. As shown in Table 6.5-4, the estimated number of national 

 5 Cases categorized as “No Effect” do not have clinically observable symptoms, and correspond to that category in 

the tables. 
190

6889 incidents that may be prevented with the rule are between 297 and 693. The estimates, except 

6890 for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 

6891

Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of Cases 

Prevented Annually

Clinical Effect Share of Total

Low End Estimate 

(13.6%)

High End 

Estimate 

(20.1%)

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms1 14.2% 42 99

Minor 65.3% 193 453

Moderate 19.8% 59 137

Major 0.7% 2 5

Death 0.05% 0.14 0.32

Total 100.0% 297 693

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3.

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers, except for “Death.”

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

6892

6893 Valuation of Effect

6894

6895 The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10). The 

6896 estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons. First, the estimated 

6897 number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is 

6898 likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed Section 6.5.2. 

6899

6900 Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those 

6901 affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 

6902 illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 

6903 for a variety of reasons (EPA, 2010a). In particular, these estimate do not: (1) address the value 

6904 of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness (i.e., 

6905 defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 

6906 consider ex ante values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment 

6907 returns individuals to their original health state (i.e., is equivalent to avoiding the illness 

6908 entirely).

6909

6910 It is also important to recognize that the financial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 

6911 farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 

6912 paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 

6913 jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a 

6914 greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 

6915 because agricultural work is often seasonal.

6916
191

6917 In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 

6918 rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 

6919 are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 

6920 hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each severity level except 

6921 “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 

6922 sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost 

6923 productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 

6924 illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 

6925 For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 

6926 work, household activities, and leisure.

6927

6928 Direct Medical Costs

6929

6930 As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by

6931

6932

6933 Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 

6934 treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 

6935

6936 In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 

6937 utilized the NPDS data for 2000-2005, which has information on whether cases were treated at 

6938 health care facilities. Table 6.5-5 presents the number of NPDS cases that were seen at a health 

6939 care facility (1,307 cases), the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each 

6940 category’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the 

6941 probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i), we use the share of cases from 

6942 NPDS that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-5.

6943

Table 6.5-5: Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide-Related Acute 

Exposures, NPDS 2000-2005.

Clinical Effect

Cases Seen at 

Health Care 

Facility Total Cases

Share of Cases Seen at Health 

Care Facility

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms1 107 309 34.6%

Minor 826 1416 58.3%

Moderate 359 429 83.7%

Major 14 15 93.3%

Source: NPDS data, 2000 – 2005 1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

6944

6945 Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 

6946 specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3 – Hospital Inpatient Statistics, 2007. For 

6947 Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non-medical substances) the average charges 

6948 reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $23,101 in 2007. 
192

6949

6950 Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from physician visit benchmark fees for 

6951 evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 

6952 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 

medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals) 6 6953 . 

6954 Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 

6955 established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 

6956 describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 

6957 2007, the average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category 

6958 was $42.48 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $67.60 for new patients. 

6959 Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the 

6960 average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $55.10. That cost seems low, but the data 

6961 reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services, 

6962 payments that reflect the care that low income patients receive. This may be an underestimate, 

6963 especially for moderate cases, where some treatment is required, which would imply that the 

6964 outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 

6965

6966 Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 

6967 treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-6. 

6968

Table 6.5-6 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF|i)

Outpatient 

Cost

Inpatient 

Cost

Expected Medical 

Cost 1

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms2 34.6% $55.10 $0 $19.08

Minor 58.3% $55.10 $0 $32.14

Moderate 83.7% $55.10 $0 $46.11

Major 93.3% $55.10 $23,101 $21,612.36

Source: EPA estimation. 1

Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

2

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

6969

6970 The Value of Lost Productivity

6971

6972 The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is 

6973 typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 

6974 As noted above, we calculate this value as

6975

6976

6977 Where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 

6978 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 

6979 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.asp
193

6980

6981 BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 

6982 leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2007b), 

6983 an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a seven6984 day week. The National Agricultural Workers Survey reports the average workweek for 

6985 farmworkers to be similar, at 42 hour per week (DoL, 2005). We use the BLS figure here 

6986 because it corresponds to the BLS Time of Use Survey discussed in the next paragraph. The 

6987 estimates are not sensitive to this assumption, because leisure and household activities also have 

6988 a value in our analysis. 

6989

6990 Time spent in housekeeping activities varies considerably by gender. According to the American 

6991 Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2007c), employed males aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 

hours per day in household activities7 6992 and employed females aged 16 and over engage in 2.94 

6993 hours per day of household activities. There are 78.25 million men employed in the United 

6994 States and 67.79 million women (BLS, 2007a). Thus, the weighted average of time spent in 

6995 housekeeping is 2.31 hours per day.

6996

6997 Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 7.46 

6998 hours per day.

6999

7000 The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and 

7001 handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $10.01 per hour. This analysis 

7002 assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. For farmworkers, this may be an underestimate, 

7003 but the results are not sensitive to this assumption, because we are also measuring the value of 

7004 lost leisure and housekeeping time. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for 

7005 a personal/home care aide, $9.50 (BLS, 2007a). This labor category was chosen as most closely 

7006 representative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an 

7007 injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the 

7008 after-tax wage rate for workers, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work 

7009 and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 30.8 percent (Tax 

7010 Foundation, 2008), which leaves an after-tax return of $6.93 per hour.

7011

7012 Table 6.5-7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 

7013 in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 

7014 Table 6.5-7 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day 

7015 week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 

7016 estimated to be $135.69 per day.

7017

 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 $10.01c $56.07

Housekeeping 2.94 a $9.50d $27.93

Leisure 7.46 b $6.93e $51.69

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $135.69

Sources:

a BLS, 2007, Current Population Survey (CPS) b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times 7 days per week and subtracting the weekly time known for work 

and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep 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

Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (30.8%). 

7018

7019 The duration of illness by medical outcome/severity is derived from severity definitions for the 

7020 NPDS data. The NPDS data report the duration of clinical effects for minor, moderate and major 

7021 severity levels as a range, such as “greater than 8 hours and less than or equal to 24 hours.” For 

7022 the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basically a 

7023 weighted average of the possible durations in the NPDS data. The weights are the share of cases 

7024 reported in the NPDS that have that duration for each severity level. For example, for moderate 

7025 clinical effects, 6.1% of patients have duration of effects for less than two hours, while 28% have 

7026 durations between 2 and 8 hours, etc. 

7027

7028 Since exposure durations by clinical effect were reported with the NPDS 2006 Annual Report as 

7029 a range of time (e.g., > 8 hours, <= 24 hours), we created a low-end and high-end scenario for 

7030 each duration category. The low-end scenario uses either the low-end estimate if an exact 

7031 duration range was given (e.g., > 24 hours, <= 3 days; the low-end is 1 day) or if the range is 

7032 one-sided (e.g., < 2 hours), then the midpoint was used (e.g., for < 2 hours; the low-end is 1 

7033 hour). The high-end scenario uses the high-end of the duration range given (e.g., > 8 hours, <= 

7034 24 hours; the high-end is 1 day). For this analysis, one month was assumed to be 30 days; a 

7035 duration of greater than 1 month was assumed to be 1-3 months, with one month for the low 

7036 estimate, and 3 for the high estimate; anticipated permanent was assumed to be 1 year at the high 

7037 end. The unknown duration was excluded from the analysis. 

7038

7039 There are no data available on the duration of clinical effects for “no effect.” However, people 

7040 who visited a health care facility for “no effect” (34.6%) were assumed to experience reduced 

7041 productivity for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low-end duration of one hour (about 

7042 .04 days) and the high-end duration is 2 hours (about 0.08 days). Because only 34.6% of cases 

7043 with “no effect” visited a health care facility, the average duration for no effect is 34.6% of .04 

7044 days for the low end (0.014 days) and 34.6% of .08 days for the high end (0.029 days).

7045

7046 Table 6.5-8 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 

7047 with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 
195

7048 days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($135.69) to yield high and low 

7049 estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 

7050

Table 6.5-8: Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by Clinical 

Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario

Average Duration 

of Clinical Effect 

(Days)a

E[VPLi] c

No Clinically Observable 

Symptoms1

Low-End 0.014 b $1.96

High-end 0.029b $3.92

Minor Low-End 0.52 $70.39

High-end 1.78 $242.07

Moderate Low-End 1.05 $141.99

High-end 3.39 $460.23

Major Low-End 3.95 $535.72

High-end 14.41 $1,954.97

Sources: 

a With the exception of no effect, the average duration in days was calculated as the weighted average of duration 

estimates for each severity level, with the weights given by the share of patients with that duration. As a simple 

example, 31.9% of patients with a clinical effect level of “moderate” had a duration of 8 – 24 hours, so the weight 

on 8 – 24 hours is 0.319 for the moderate effect level. b The average duration for no effect was assumed to be the shortest duration group presented (< 2 hours); so the 

low-end duration is the midpoint of 1 hour or 0.04 days and the high-end duration is 2 hours or 0.08 days, scaled 

by 34.6%, the percentage of cases that sought care.

c With the exception of no effect, the unit cost for lost productivity day by scenario and clinical effect was 

calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity 

($135.69). 1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

7051

7052 The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 

7053

7054 The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA 

7055 (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 

7056 reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 

7057 resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 

7058 productivity is included in the VSL.

7059

7060 Annual Average Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents

7061

7062 The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10. For each 

7063 level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of 

7064 premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity 

7065 levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5-9 shows the low end estimates, 

7066 which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the number of 

7067 prevented cases, while Table 6.5-10 shows the high end estimates. 

7068
196

Table 6.5-9: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to 

the WPS

Clinical 

Effect

Avoided 

Cases 

per Year

Medical 

Costs per 

Case

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case

Premature 

Mortality per 

Case

Average Annual 

Total Cost

Avoided

No Clinically 

Observable 

Symptoms1

42 $19.08 $1.96 $0 $900

Minor 193 $32.14 $70.39 $0 $19,900

Moderate 59 $46.11 $141.99 $0 $11,100

Major 2 $21,612 $535.72 $0 $45,500

Death 0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $1,082,000

Total 296 $1,159,400

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded. 

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

7069

7070

Table 6.5-10: “High-End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed 

Changes to the WPS

Clinical 

Effect

Avoided 

Cases 

per Year

Medical 

Costs per 

Case

Lost 

Productivity 

per Case

Premature 

Mortality per 

Case

Average Annual 

Total Cost

Avoided

No 

Clinically 

Observable 

Symptoms1

99 $19.08 $3.92 $0 $2,300

Minor 453 $32.14 $242.07 $0 $124,200

Moderate 137 $46.11 $460.23 $0 $69,400

Major 5 $21,612 $1,954.97 $0 $117,800

Death 0.32 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $2,524,600

Total 693 $2,838,300

Source: EPA Calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

1

“No Clinically Observable Symptoms” corresponds to the NPDS category of “No effect.”

7071

7072 The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 

7073 to 2.8 million. Over a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is between 

7074 $10.2 million and $24.9 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $8.7 

7075 million and $21.3 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied. 

7076
197

7077 There are limitations to these estimates. As discussed above we expect that a large proportion of 

7078 accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning of workers and handlers never get reported to a national 

7079 poisoning center for various reasons. Migrant farm workers and handlers may be less likely to 

7080 report acute poisoning cases to poison control centers. Other workers with incomplete 

7081 information on the requirements of the WPS may also not report poisoning cases for fear of 

7082 reprisal. All indications are that underreporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore 

7083 not included in the NPDS or SENSOR databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. This 

7084 underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward. 

7085

7086 In Table 6.5-11, we show the effect of under-reporting at different rates on our monetized 

7087 estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% underreporting), 

7088 then the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is 

7089 underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5-11 shows a range 

7090 of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 

7091 10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about 

7092 underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and underreporting is equally 

7093 likely in all poisoning cases, then the high-end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due 

7094 to the rule would be over $28 million per year, substantially higher than those reported above, 

7095 which assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these 

7096 unreported acute exposures of workers and handlers are also not known. If reporting rates vary 

7097 by severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, 

7098 then the effects of underreporting would be correspondingly lower. For example, if deaths were 

7099 never under-reported, but all other severity levels of illness were under-reported, the high-end 

7100 estimate of the value of prevented poisonings with only 10% reporting would be about $5.7

7101 million per year. This is because the value of a statistical life is so high, the results change 

7102 dramatically with changes in the estimated number of deaths prevented. Later in this chapter we 

7103 will use of $11.4 million as our estimate of acute benefits after adjusting for underreporting, 

7104 which corresponds to a reporting rate of 25%, which is a plausible estimate based on the 

7105 underreporting studies discussed in Section 6.5.2. 

7106

Table 6.5-11. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions 

about Underreporting

Share of Cases 

Reported

Low-End 

Estimate of 

Prevented Cases

Low-End 

Estimate of 

Benefits

High-End 

Estimate of 

Prevented Cases

High-End 

estimate of 

Benefits

100% 296 $1,159,400 693 $2,838,400

50% 592 $2,318,800 1,386 $5,677,800

25% 1,184 $4,637,600 2,772 $11,353,600

20% 1,480 $5,797,000 3,465 $14,192,000

10% 2,960 $11,594,000 6,930 $28,384,000

Source: EPA Calculations

7107

7108

7109 All estimates presented in this chapter include only the effects of reduced illness from acute 

7110 exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section. There is no attempt 
198

7111 to measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be substantial; we 

7112 calculate only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. 

7113

7114 It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesses are borne primarily by 

7115 farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the members of our society with the least ability to 

7116 absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) 

7117 farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 

7118 a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relatively 

7119 greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families are 

7120 below the poverty line. Average individual income is between $10,000 - $12,499 per year, and 

7121 average family income is $15,000 -$17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can 

7122 consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005).

7123

7124 Some of the proposed requirements will be implemented later than others. Most requirements 

7125 have an effective date 90 days after the rule is signed; some proposals will be effective two years 

7126 after signature. The delayed requirements include the changes to training topics and materials, 

7127 requirements on who can train workers, changes to the content of warning signs, and the 

7128 requirement that a handler suspend or cease application if a person enters the treated area. The 

7129 quantified benefit estimates presented in this section are not adjusted for this change. This is 

7130 because most of the delayed changes, such as training materials on how to safeguard the families 

7131 of workers and handlers are unlikely to show up data used for estimating illnesses, as discussed 

7132 in that section. Of the cases that were used to generate the estimates of illnesses prevented, only 

7133 six would possibly have been prevented by the individual items that are required two years after 

7134 signature of the rule. In all cases the relevant provision is that an application be suspended if a 

7135 person enters the treated area. In at least three of these six cases, other provisions of the 

7136 proposed rule would likely have protected against the exposure. If all six cases are classified as 

7137 unlikely to be prevented until year three, the quantified estimates of benefits change slightly. 

7138 They are reduced, because some exposures will not be prevented for two years. The change in 

7139 estimates is relatively small, however; annualized benefit estimates are reduced between $12,000 

7140 and $30,000 per year, depending on the discount rate and whether the high or low end estimates 

7141 are used.

7142

7143 The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 

7144 families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 

7145

7146 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers 

7147 and Handlers 

7148

7149 In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 

7150 presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties 

7151 reflected in the estimates, e.g., potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 

7152 are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. 

7153 EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health 

7154 effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning 

7155 surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects 

7156 to farmworkers, pesticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this 
199

7157 section, EPA presents a semi-quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break-even analysis”) 

7158 to chronic health conditions, i.e., chronic cases avoided due to the rule. 

7159

7160 It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 

7161 outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a 

7162 causal link between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information linking 

7163 pesticide exposure and illness is compelling enough to suggest some of the statistical 

7164 associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall 

7165 pesticide exposure reduction through WPS may have substantial benefits that cannot be 

7166 quantified at this time.

7167

7168 While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 

7169 pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 

7170 evidence of well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

7171 non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically several 

7172 epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within 

7173 different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before 

7174 researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. The 

7175 environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapidly in terms of both quantity and quality of 

7176 pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA believes additional causal links between pesticide 

7177 exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time.

7178

7179 Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real 

7180 world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposure7181 chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 

7182 the scientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 

7183 collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 

7184 issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency 

7185 for Research in Cancer (IARC) currently lists dioxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite 

7186 carcinogens, and several other pesticides are listed as probable carcinogens. Research is 

7187 underway to determine if other pesticides are also carcinogenic. There is a large body of 

7188 epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (such as cancer, 

7189 neurological, respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result 

7190 from pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yields few causal relationships to 

7191 specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. 

7192

7193 There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by federal governments in the U.S. 

7194 and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest several plausible hypotheses to link 

7195 pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is 

7196 the Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute 

7197 of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other 

7198 collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, 

7199 including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses, investigating a broad 

7200 array of potential illnesses. A cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 

7201 links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al., 1996, 

7202 Nordby et al., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between 
200

7203 agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al., 2006). The Korean 

7204 Multi-Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 

7205 as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 

7206 (Yoo et al., 2002). The National Cancer Institute recently initiated a collaborative effort, 

7207 AGRICOH, which is designed to encourage international collaboration. It encompasses 22 

7208 cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from 

7209 pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al., 2011). 

7210

7211 Studying chronic health effects of long-term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is 

7212 complicated by many factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals, not just pesticides;

7213 exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e., intermittent or sustained; and 

7214 multiple routes of exposure, e.g., dermal and inhalation. Many epidemiologic studies that include 

7215 certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 

7216 other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely result from appropriate, label use 

7217 of pesticides, however, misuse does occur (Bell et al., 2006). These certified applicators that 

7218 form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural 

7219 workers and handlers. 

7220

7221 Another complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 

7222 implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 

7223 protective equipment, revised re-entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide 

7224 products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 

7225 contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 

7226 necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g., if the pesticide was already cancelled or 

7227 withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 

7228 and other factors have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several 

7229 decades, which is the relevant period for investigating chronic effects with typically long latency 

7230 periods such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be 

7231 interpreted with caution when applied to current regulatory questions.

7232

7233 Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 

7234 linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early exposures may occur from pesticides 

7235 that are on the bodies or clothes of workers and handlers. A number of studies have shown the 

7236 potential for “take home” exposures, where an agricultural worker brings pesticide residues 

7237 home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). Because one of the changes in the rule is an 

7238 increased focus on training about the take home pathway, this type of exposure should be 

7239 reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including 

7240 children.

7241

7242 These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be 

7243 evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long-term health 

7244 impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 

7245 pesticides, but these reviews indicate there is cause for concern over generalized pesticide 

7246 exposure, and in some instances shows the importance of exposure mitigation for individual 

7247 pesticides. The proposed WPS rule changes are designed to protect against agricultural worker 
201

7248 or handler exposures when the current state of the science does not support action on individual 

7249 chemicals.

7250

7251 Later in this section, EPA summarizes some of the research on chronic health effects from 

7252 pesticide exposure that have shown possible links to blood and prostate cancers, neurological 

7253 effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fertility effects like 

7254 impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes, and respiratory problems like asthma. Although 

7255 several other associations have been measured in the literature, these are selected for discussion 

7256 here due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of 

7257 studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular 

7258 pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests that the long term health of 

7259 agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific 

7260 research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, quantitative benefits are not possible to 

7261 estimate. A discussion of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from 

7262 reduced chronic exposure is presented in Section 6.8.

7263

7264 6.6.1. Cancer Risks

7265

7266 Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 

7267 various peer-review bodies, there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 

7268 associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in 

7269 experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has 

7270 only identified two classes of pesticides to be human carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides 

7271 and those with dioxin contaminants), but classifies non-arsenical pesticides as probable human 

7272 carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999). However, many studies have evaluated other possible links 

7273 between pesticide exposure and cancer. 

7274

7275 Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 

7276 articles and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide 

7277 exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 

7278 specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 

7279 cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 

7280 exposure (Bassil et al., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al., 2010a; Van Maele 

7281 et al., 2011, Wigle et al., 2009, Turner et al., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et 

7282 al., 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 

7283 pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 

7284

7285 Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 

7286 agricultural populations. They report that meta-analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 

7287 excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 

7288 and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 

7289 cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 

7290 of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 

7291 to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 

7292 pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 

7293 engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009).
202

7294

7295 Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 

7296 lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researchers (for 

7297 example, Alavanja et al., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al., 

7298 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 

7299 stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang, 2009). 

7300

7301 Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 

7302

7303 Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 

7304 example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 

7305 exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al., 1997). 

7306 Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973 -1990, a time period 

7307 coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 

7308 et al., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair

7309 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 

7310 as a result of pesticide exposure; however this is not known with certainty at this time. 

7311 Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general 

7312 population, Koutros, et al. (2010a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 

7313 lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 

7314 population-based case-control study in Sweden, including increased risks for users of glyphosate 

7315 (Eriksson et al., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers, 

7316 however additional research is necessary to understand whether the link is causal in nature, and 

7317 the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the 

7318 risk of these cancers.

7319

7320 In a review by Bassil et al. (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 

7321 leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies 

7322 with statistically significant results. Several case-control studies looked at children that had been 

7323 exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia whose parents used 

7324 insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant 

7325 (Bassil et al., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the 

7326 systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether population bias was a factor in 

7327 the results of this review. 

7328

7329 In the Bassil et al. review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 

7330 examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 

7331 the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 

7332 associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 

7333 pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 

7334 pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 

7335 postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 

7336 risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassil et al., 2007).

7337

7338 Wigle et al. (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 

7339 exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers’ children. They found no evidence of a direct 
203

7340 link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report an 

7341 association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides and 

7342 their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other 

7343 significant related exposures.

7344

7345 Prostate Cancer 

7346

7347 For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 

7348 are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 

7349 disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al., 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 

7350 prostate cancer which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 

7351 non-farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 

7352 members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 

7353 increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al., 2010a). Case-control analysis within the AHS 

7354 suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 

7355 only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al.. 2003). Additional follow7356 up within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al., 2006 and 2007; 

7357 Christensen et al., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure 

7358 varies by family history of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 

7359 that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 

7360 not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic 

7361 variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 

7362 and prostate cancer (Koutros et al., 2010b). Although these genetic variations do not fully 

7363 explain the cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environmental exposures may 

7364 play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, 

7365 possibly due to differing study designs used. 

7366

7367 In investigations of farmworker populations, prostate cancer associations have also been found. 

7368 For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in 

7369 California, and concluded that high levels of exposure to various types of pesticides left Hispanic 

7370 workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer.

7371

7372 Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 

7373 this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al. 2012). For the 

7374 purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 

7375 outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 

7376 a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 

7377 among those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. 

7378 This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 

7379 and prostate cancer. It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the 

7380 aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 

7381 slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 

7382 to distinguish clear causal pathways. However the study is supportive of previous work

7383 concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 

7384 the AHS.

7385
204

7386 Lung Cancer

7387

7388 There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al.

7389 (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 

7390 AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in 

7391 the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the 

7392 population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung 

7393 cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; (Lee et al., 2004).

7394

7395 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects

7396

7397 Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide 

7398 exposure, however none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 

7399 investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are 

7400 preliminary investigations other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 

7401 However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 

7402 and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general 

7403 neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the proposed changes to WPS rules 

7404 reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these chronic health 

7405 effects as well.

7406

7407 Neurological Function

7408

7409 The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 

7410 spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al., (2007), investigated the 

7411 hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Study participants included licensed 

7412 private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 

7413 contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of 

7414 PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those 

7415 who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a dose7416 response relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no 

7417 association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has 

7418 recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant self7419 reporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if 

7420 participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al., 2011).

7421

7422 In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al. (2007) 

7423 evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 

7424 and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude 

7425 that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 

7426 exposures of pesticides on the job.”

7427

7428 Sanborn et al. (2007) examined the non-cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found 

7429 most (39/41) studies displayed a positive increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 

7430 association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 
205

7431 preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 

7432 depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al., 2007). Kamel et al., 

7433 (2007a), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime 

7434 pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides.

7435

7436 In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nonagricultural Hispanic 

7437 workers, Rothlein et al., (2006) examined the possible neurobehavioral effects of low-level 

7438 chronic organophosphate pesticide exposure. Residues of these pesticides were found in a 

7439 substantial portion of workers’ homes. A significant correlation was observed between urinary 

7440 metabolite levels and total organophosphate house dust levels. Poor performance on five 

7441 neurobehavioral tests was associated with higher levels of the average combined thiomethyl 

7442 metabolites in adult farmworkers. According to the authors, the correlation found between 

7443 environmental contamination and levels of urinary metabolites further demonstrates the take7444 home pathway of pesticide exposure and the need for better home hygiene practices. 

7445

7446 Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies 

7447 (Rauh et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2011; and Bouchard et al., 2011) have investigated the 

7448 relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 

7449 neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 

7450 al., 2011), reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides 

7451 and adverse neurological symptoms. The authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data 

7452 at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of 

7453 action, among other study characteristics. 

7454

7455 Respiratory Function

7456

7457 Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 

7458 effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 

7459 trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 

7460 asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 

7461 several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et 

7462 al., (2008) reported an association between pesticide exposure to a range of pesticides and 

7463 asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of 

7464 asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an 

7465 important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworkers, 

7466 rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as 

7467 well. Salam et al., (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among 

7468 those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children 

7469 with early onset asthma. An international study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 

7470 (Salameh et al., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms.

7471

7472 Studies have also reported an association between pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 

7473 inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 

7474 a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes 

7475 it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 

7476 Hoppin et al. (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and 
206

7477 chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an association that was stronger among those with a 

7478 high pesticide exposure event.

7479

7480 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

7481

7482 Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause-effect relation 

7483 between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes. However, the totality 

7484 of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with 

7485 plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic 

7486 adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 

7487 and standards. 

7488

7489 6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

7490

7491 The proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides, 

7492 as well as reduce the non-occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There 

7493 is sufficient evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure 

7494 would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In 

7495 general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, 

7496 the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for 

7497 use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed WPS changes are a 

7498 way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to occupational 

7499 health. 

7500

7501 The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 

7502 effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 

7503 illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 

7504 by family members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those 

7505 stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by 

7506 tremors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, instability and falling, all of which result in difficulty 

7507 performing everyday functions (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation). Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is 

7508 a cancer that starts in the immune system, with symptoms of swollen lymph nodes, weight loss, 

7509 fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment for NHL, has 

7510 a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National Cancer Institute, 

7511 2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is often fatal. The 

7512 five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of people diagnosed 

7513 with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011).

7514

7515 Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore 

7516 prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 

7517 pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 

7518 disease are great, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 

7519 paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have 

7520 been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 

7521 estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower-
207

7522 growing NHL (Kutikova, et al.) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half 

7523 years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al.). These costs are very high, especially so 

7524 relative to the income for workers and handlers, and the value of reducing these illnesses is likely 

7525 to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs, which is likely an under-estimate of 

7526 the true cost of illness. 

7527

7528 The next section details the break-even analysis methodology, which considers the value of 

7529 potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness-to-pay to avoid 

7530 illness or death. 

7531

7532 6.8. Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

7533

7534 In this section, EPA presents a “break-even” analysis. This analysis shows that preventing a 

7535 very small number of illnesses potentially associated with pesticide exposure could result in 

7536 benefits to human health equal to or greater than the difference between the quantified benefits 

7537 and the estimated costs of the rule. As described below, preventing only a few pesticide-related 

7538 illnesses annually, less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate 

7539 enough in benefits to close the gap between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the 

7540 quantified estimate of benefits from reduced acute exposures. The break-even number of cases 

7541 is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist over 

7542 a long period of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we consider non7543 Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma 

7544 to demonstrate the potential benefits in the proposed rule from reducing exposures to chronic 

7545 illnesses. These are the illnesses for which there is evidence of an association with pesticide 

7546 exposure and for which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer-reviewed literature 

7547 or may be transferred. 

7548 6.8.1. Background

7549

7550 The break-even approach uses EPA’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute 

7551 exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the proposed rule. 

7552 The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from 

7553 reduced chronic exposure would need to be for the total annual benefits of chronic illness 

7554 reduction to equal costs. A break-even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data are 

7555 lacking (OMB, 2003). Although we cannot quantify net benefits of chronic disease avoided, we 

7556 can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes to cause the 

7557 net benefits to become positive. This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also 

7558 be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures to 

7559 pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits. 

7560

7561 Break-even analyses have been used by EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all benefits 

7562 could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water 

7563 used this approach to highlight benefits that could not be quantified (EPA, 2011; EPA, 2010b;

7564 EPA, 2006c; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break-even analyses were based on prevented 

7565 illness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to 

7566 what is done here. These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known 
208

7567 causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g., gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial 

7568 contamination of water. The break-even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide 

7569 exposure and chronic disease, where causal links are considered in the peer-reviewed literature 

7570 (see Section 6.7). 

7571

7572 The costs of environmental regulations are traditionally much simpler to quantify than benefits to 

7573 health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily 

7574 estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are often difficult to quantify due 

7575 to data limitations, as noted above, or the non-pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as 

7576 noted in Section 6.5 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide 

7577 exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will 

7578 likely accrue as a result of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS.

7579

7580 Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the public health benefit of pesticide exposure 

7581 reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are 

7582 unable to quantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While 

7583 exposure reduction is an anticipated outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the 

7584 magnitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are indirect, i.e., they influence 

7585 behavior associated with pesticide safety practices. Similarly, while statistical associations have 

7586 been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic 

7587 health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 6.5, the causal nature of these associations 

7588 have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic 

7589 health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this 

7590 time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease 

7591 outcomes in the population (i.e., there is a multi-factorial web of disease causation), however it is 

7592 plausible that some instances of disease (specific cases) could be attributable to pesticide 

7593 exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 

7594 and their families. Relative to other studies of the effects of occupational exposure to chemicals, 

7595 studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to 

7596 specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied 

7597 by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 

7598 also difficult with this mobile population, making it harder to identify exposure based on 

7599 available application data (Zahm et al., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993).

7600

7601 The break-even analysis is meant for illustrative purposes. The analysis is designed to 

7602 demonstrate the magnitude of potential health risk reduction which would be necessary to 

7603 equilibrate the total WPS costs using traditional and conservative assumptions from the 

7604 environmental economics peer-reviewed literature. 

7605

7606 In Section 6.6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors report 

7607 observations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. Included in that 

7608 discussion is information on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort 

7609 study of about 90,000 farmers and their spouses initiated in the early 1990’s. The study is 

7610 recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that have been extensively 

7611 validated. Because of these characteristics and strengths, it is appropriate to use the results and 

7612 findings of this study in evaluating pesticide risks. OPP has been systematically evaluating this 
209

7613 study in collaborative projects with the AHS investigators with respect to algorithms, exposure 

7614 assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting 

7615 epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound 

7616 scientific principles and use of Bradford Hill criteria for evidence of causation. The work 

7617 products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent 

7618 Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform hazard identification and 

7619 characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that 

7620 past and current exposures differ from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while 

7621 studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard characterization, additional information outside of 

7622 any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real-world exposure potential. The 

7623 putative associations suggested in epidemiology studies like the AHS can help in evaluating 

7624 potential health outcomes associated with exposures and assist in conducting an economic 

7625 evaluation of possible benefits from reducing exposure through an enhanced worker protection 

7626 standard.

7627

7628 6.8.2. Method

7629

7630 For the acute estimates earlier in this chapter, the number of cases prevented was found by 

7631 evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break-even 

7632 analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end 

7633 of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be prevented for the benefits 

7634 to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the 

7635 farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 

7636 reduction for all diseases and their fatal effects, if any, although it is likely that different 

7637 exposure-response profiles exist for specific pesticide-chronic health effect association. 

7638

7639 As discussed in Section 6.6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, 

7640 non-specific pesticide exposure. For this break-even exercise, however, we will consider only a 

7641 few illnesses associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 

7642 cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma. Numerous 

7643 observational studies have been performed evaluating pesticide exposure in association with 

7644 these human health outcomes. While scientific consensus has not established these associations 

7645 as causal in nature, evidence is suggestive of an association. For illustrative purposes, these 

7646 health outcomes are identified for the break-even analysis. 

7647

7648 It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) 

7649 included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic 

7650 exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have 

7651 shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may 

7652 not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to challenges of performing 

7653 observational studies in the farm worker population. 

7654

7655 To estimate the break-even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on 

7656 disease incidence, which describes how many cases of disease can be expected to be diagnosed 

7657 each year. 

7658
210

7659 Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use 

7660 an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US 

7661 Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure 

7662 consists of four components:

7663

7664 • “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness;

7665 • “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication;

7666 • Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 

7667 activities; and

7668 • Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering.

7669

7670 WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to receive the 

7671 benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 

7672 excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 

7673 health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 

7674 value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they 

7675 are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 

7676 the WTP estimates presented here. 

7677

7678 Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 

7679 consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subjects. For 

7680 example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 

7681 non-fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use 

7682 benefits transfer to find estimates. This involves applying available estimates of WTP for 

7683 preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 

7684

7685 For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 

7686 EPA currently recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 million (in 

7687 2008 dollars) to value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a 

7688 distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 

7689

7690 The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simply the sum across illnesses of the value of 

7691 prevention times the number of prevented cases, which are the prevented share (PrevShare) 

7692 times the number of cases:

7693 where ωi can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the 

7694 break-even analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater 

7695 than or equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute 

7696 benefits. The break-even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between the 

7697 estimated cost (Cost) and the estimated acute benefits (Acute):

7698
211

7699 The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to 

the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, ChronicBE 7700 . A simplifying 

7701 assumption is that PrevSharei is equal for all diseases, which means that the percentage 

7702 reduction in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary 

7703 cause of lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with 

7704 tobacco smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have 

7705 little effect on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShareLung 

7706 Cancer is 10% of the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the 

7707 estimated 10 – 15% of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al., 2008).

7708

7709 6.8.3. Data

7710

7711 To perform the break-even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 

7712 the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 

7713 The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 5 and the quantified acute benefits of the rule were 

7714 estimated in Section 6.5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly 

7715 available. Estimates of WTP are from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 

7716 and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate 

7717 for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used 

7718 in the analysis are summarized in Table 6.8-1.

7719

7720 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

7721

7722 The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 

7723 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 

7724 21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al., 2011). An 

7725 estimate of the WTP for reducing a case of non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million was derived in 

7726 the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

7727 (EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al. (1996), from which it was determined that 

7728 the median risk-risk trade-off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 

7729 58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non-fatal lymphoma was 

7730 calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the current estimate of VSL of $7.9 million, we 

7731 estimate a mean WTP for non-fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million (VSL × 58.3%).

7732

7733 Prostate Cancer

7734

7735 Prostate cancer is a common cancer among American men and the second leading cause of 

7736 cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003 – 2007 (U.S. Cancer 

7737 Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were about 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, 

7738 on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases 

7739 reported in 2007. The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 

7740 cases in 2012. In addition, CDC reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer 

7741 on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 

7742 2010). For this analysis, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non-fatal 

7743 cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 
212

7744 overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the 

7745 incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 

7746 al., 2003; Koutros et al., 2010a).

7747

7748 An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 

7749 Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 

7750 is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is 

7751 appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 

7752 lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al. (2006) 

7753 estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 

7754 Kutikova et al. (2006), the treatment costs for indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 

7755 under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non7756 Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 

7757 yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $780,000. 

7758

7759 This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer that 

7760 may be low, considering several new treatment and drug regimes that are very expensive. 

7761 Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more 

7762 aggressive and require more expensive treatment than those found in elderly men.

7763

7764 Chronic Bronchitis

7765

7766 Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which 

7767 bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long-term cough, shortness of breath, 

7768 excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 

7769 life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 

7770

7771 Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year (Centers for Disease 

7772 Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per year (639 from the same source). These figures 

7773 are misleading, because the CDC criterion for a diagnosis is that a patient has been identified 

7774 within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million 

7775 diagnoses are more likely to reflect the number of patients with the disease, rather than new 

7776 cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the 

7777 incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using the prevalence would be misleading, so for this 

7778 analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This is disappointing, because reduced lung 

7779 function can have important impacts on quality of life, and past EPA economic analysis has 

7780 provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic Analysis for the 

7781 Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide 

7782 estimates of the WTP of $800,000 to avoid chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991).

7783

7784 Parkinson’s Disease

7785

7786 Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually 

7787 (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 2010). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than 

the general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14th 7788 leading cause of 
213

death in the United States8 7789 , but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. 

7790 The progressive neurological effects of Parkinson’s, such as swallowing problems which lead to 

7791 undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s 

7792 Disease Foundation 2010 and University of Maryland Medical Center 2009). Because of these 

7793 complications, we take a conservative approach in this break-even analysis, and ignore the 

7794 fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, there was no available estimate of WTP to avoid 

7795 Parkinson’s disease. We propose to use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for 

7796 Parkinson’s disease, because in some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted 

7797 mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. The WTP to avoid chronic 

7798 bronchitis is $800,000, which we will use for Parkinson’s disease. 

7799

7800 There are reasons to think this value is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, 

7801 and sometimes cured, while Parkinson’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, 

7802 there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma 

7803 above was based on a study by Magat et al. (1996), which compared risk-risk tradeoffs for 

7804 curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a non7805 cancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 

7806 nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 

7807 reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA used for estimating WTP for 

7808 avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about 

7809 $3 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $800,000 here. Moreover, possible 

7810 fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis.

7811

7812 Lung Cancer

7813

7814 Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most 

7815 common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States 

7816 Cancer Statistics, 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects about 226,000 new cases of lung cancer to 

7817 be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate 

7818 of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from 

7819 lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (National Cancer Institute, 2012). 

7820 Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few 

7821 years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned above (Section 6.8.2), we will assume that 

7822 lung cancer preventions happen at 10% of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which 

7823 roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer among non-smokers. This is because changes to 

7824 the WPS are not expected to have large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, 

7825 which is smoking.

7826

7827 There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer7828 reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the 

7829 analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 

7830 and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non-fatal 

7831 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

7832 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 7833 .

7834

7835 Asthma

7836

7837 Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic 

7838 difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al., 2012) , is another common 

7839 respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin et al., 2008)). 

7840 Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 

7841 Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and 

7842 asthma does not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. CDC 

7843 estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for 

7844 Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 

7845 478,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001 – 2009 divided by nine 

7846 years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal – in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma 

7847 (Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this 

7848 analysis. 

7849

7850 The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount 

7851 rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $2,200 to a perpetuity to represent preventing 

7852 development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $73,000 per 

case10 7853 . 

7854

 7 Cameron, DeShazo and Johnson (2009) provides estimates for reducing risks of lung cancer, both immediately 

fatal (called “sudden death” in the paper) and with a 10 year latency period for 3 different age groups. WTP for 

sudden death from lung cancer ranges from $220,000 to $950,000 and for the latent disease the estimates range 

from $40,000 to $2.36 million. This study is not yet published and therefore the results are used here for 

illustrative purposes only. Hammitt and Liu (2004) provide estimates for WTP to reduce lung cancer risk in a 

Taiwanese population. Estimates are $1.5 to $1.6 million for latent illness and $2.1 to $2.2 million for acute. 

Because the estimates are for a non-US population they are also used here for illustrative purposes only. Finally, 

Itaoka, et al. (2007) provide estimates for reducing lung cancer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working 

paper and therefore illustrative only. 10 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Blomquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (2011) provide more recent 

estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP. 
215

7855 Table 6.8-1. Information for Calculating Break-Even Number of Cases Avoided

Disease

WTP to Avoid 

Disease, ωi

($1000) Annual Cases

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 4,606 49,000

Fatal NHL 7,900 21,000

Curable Prostate Cancer 780 223,000

Fatal Prostate Cancer 7,900 29,000

Parkinson’s Disease 800 60,000

Curable Lung Cancer 800 36,000

Fatal Lung Cancer 7,900 190,000

Fatal Bronchitis 7,900 640

Asthma 73 480,000

Fatal Asthma 7,900 3,400

Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2010); 

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); Centers for Disease Control, 

(2012a, 2012c); O’Conor and Blumquist (1997); EPA calculations

7856

7857 6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation

7858

7859 In Chapter 5, the costs of proposed WPS changes were estimated to be between $62.1 million 

7860 and $72.9 million per year. To find the break-even point, we need to find the reduction in illness 

7861 that closes the gap between the estimated costs and the quantified acute benefits. For this 

7862 analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates benefits of at least the difference 

7863 between the high value of the estimated costs ($72.9 million) and estimated acute benefits of 

7864 $11.4 million, for a difference between estimated costs and quantified benefits of $61.5 million. 

7865

7866 Reducing the national rate of these illnesses by 0.006% (and the rate of lung cancer by 0.0006%)

7867 is more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that close the high estimate 

7868 of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness would have an 

7869 estimated benefit of $64.6 million dollars annually. The results here obviously change based on 

7870 assumptions about under-reporting of acute pesticide incidents, because that changes the estimate 

7871 of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits 

7872 estimate would be about $2.8 million (See Table 6.5 –11). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% 

7873 (0.0007% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $75.3 million in benefits is more 

7874 than the total high-end costs estimate of $72.9 million.. The reduction to break-even with only 

7875 $2.8 million in acute benefits is about 0.0065%, and about 0.0059% to break even with a gap of 

7876 $61.5 million.

7877

7878 Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.006% would reduce the 

7879 number of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases by an average of 2.94 non-fatal and 1.26 fatal cases 

7880 per year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 13.38 non-fatal and 1.74 fatal

7881 cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.6 per year; reduce the number of fatal 

7882 bronchitis cases by 0.04 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 28.8 cases, and fatal 

7883 asthma cases by 0.20 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the 
216

7884 reduction in other diseases, or 0.0006%, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average 

7885 of 0.22 non-fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per year.

7886

7887 Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases 

7888 nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a much smaller population, farmworkers 

7889 and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break-even chronic benefits 

7890 will not change, they will represent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population, 

7891 which we describe below. 

7892

7893 It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural 

7894 community than the general public, because of the associations between pesticide exposure and 

7895 disease described above and in Section 6.5. However, we do not make that assumption here. 

7896 Instead, we assume that the worker/handler face illness equal to their share of the population. 

7897 The share is about 0.75%, based on the 2,323,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 

7898 308,700,000 (Census Bureau, 2011). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers 

7899 required to reach the break-even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases. 

7900 A reduction in these illnesses of just under 0.8% (0.08% for lung cancer), will generate $64.8

7901 million in benefits, more than required to reach the break-even point. Across all diseases, the 

7902 reduction is about 53 cases annually out of over 8,000 cases that might occur. Table 6.8-2 shows 

7903 the calculations for farmworker cases. The estimated farmworker cases are 0.75% of the annual 

7904 cases for the United States, and the break-even cases are the number of cases that prevented to 

7905 reach the breakeven point. In dollar terms the $64.8 million per year to break even represents an 

7906 annual WTP per farmworker of less than $28. 

7907

7908 Table 6.8-2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break-Even” Analysis

Disease

Annual 

Cases

Incidence

(per 

100,000) 1

Annual Cases 

Farmworkers2

“Break-Even” 

Avoided Cases

Curable Non-Hodgkin’s 

Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.95

Fatal NHL 21,000 6.8 158 1.26

Curable Prostate Cancer 223,000 72.2 1,678 13.42

Fatal Prostate Cancer 29,000 9.4 218 1.75

Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 451 3.61

Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 271 0.223

Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1,430 1.143

Fatal Bronchitis 640 3,207.0 5 0.04

Asthma 480,000 5,507.0 3,611 28.89

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 26 0.21

Source: EPA calculations.

1 Calculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census 

Bureau, 2011). 2 Based on incidence rates for farmworkers being equal to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence 

rates may be higher; see the text. 

3 Rate of Reduction for lung cancer is only 10% of the reduction rate for other illnesses; in this case a 

reduction of 0.08% for lung cancer and 0.8% for the other diseases

7909
217

7910 It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break-even analysis is 

7911 plausible. As discussed above Table 6.8-2, the number of cases needed to reach the break-even 

7912 point is small relative to the number of cases we estimate in the farmworker population, even 

7913 when we assume that their rate of disease is equal to the population at large. As discussed in 

7914 Section 6.6, there is a possible association between the diseases discussed here and pesticide 

7915 exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likely to develop these diseases. 

7916 The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach the break-even 

7917 point, even if rates for farmworkers are not reduced to the level of the general population. For 

7918 this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three diseases, based on the AHS. 

7919 The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide applicators and their spouses. This cohort is 

7920 healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. Although 

7921 farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to 

7922 pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite different: farmworkers may be more likely to be 

7923 exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. Pesticide 

7924 handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to certified 

7925 applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be exposed than 

7926 are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against pesticide 

7927 exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of these 

7928 differences in occupational exposure, it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher or 

7929 lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates 

7930 implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these 

7931 estimates. 

7932

7933 For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al. (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized 

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the AHS cohort with a confidence interval of 1.05 to 1.2411 7934 . Using 

7935 the 1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more likely than the general 

7936 population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the 

7937 AHS population. 

7938

7939 If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 

7940 likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 

7941 rates shown in Table 6.8-2 by dividing the number of cases per year by the U.S. population; for 

7942 prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a year that are treatable, and 29,000 that result in death. 

7943 Because only males get prostate cancer, the incidence rate among males is twice as high, with 

7944 223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for 

7945 farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100,000. At the higher rate, we should expect 

7946 about 1,913 cases annually in the farmworker population, even if we assume that only half of 

7947 farmworkers are men, which is an underestimate. 

7948

7949 The break-even number of cases of non-fatal prostate cancer with a 0.8% reduction among

7950 farmworkers is 13.42 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the 

7951 risk only slightly. To reach the reduction of 13.42 cases annually would require a reduction in 

7952 the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163.55, still well above the general population level. 

7953

 11 Slightly higher incidence ratios have been found in more recent studies (Koutros, et al., 2010a), but we use the 

more conservative figures from Alavanja et al. here.
218

7954 A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The incidence rate for the general 

7955 population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farmworkers have a rate 14% higher, their rate 

7956 would be about 21.4 per 100,000, resulting in about 249 cases per year. The break-even number 

7957 of cases is about 1.75 annually. To reach the high-end reduction the incidence rate among 

7958 farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21.3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the

7959 diseases considered here: all of the reductions in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, 

7960 and with the exception of lung cancer and possibly chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence 

7961 rates remain higher than the general population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010a) report a 

7962 standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We 

7963 estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 

7964 procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incidence among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would 

7965 be about 18.6 per 100,000. To reach the reduction of 2.95 cases annually would change the 

7966 incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.44 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 

7967 among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.90 per 100,000, 

7968 still well above the rate we estimate for the general population of 6.8 per 100,000. For 

7969 Parkinson’s disease, van der Markl et al. (2011) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS 

7970 cohort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That 

7971 corresponds to an incidence rate of about 31.5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19.5

7972 among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to the break-even point 

7973 among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31.3 per 100,000. Among farm 

7974 women in the AHS, Hoppin et al. (2008) reported an incidence rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for

7975 those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence 

7976 rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per 

7977 100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be 

7978 about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 

7979 population. Reducing cases to the break-even point among farmworkers would reduce the 

7980 estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 to about 226 per 100,000, while the fatal asthma 

7981 incidence rate would remain unchanged at 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other diseases described 

7982 above, even after reductions in cases among farmworkers to reach the break-even point, the rate 

7983 of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for the general 

7984 population.

7985

7986 As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are 

7987 higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break-even point. The two 

7988 exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to 

7989 determine the correct rate among non-smokers. Valcin et al., (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 

7990 among non-smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in 

7991 association with six specific pesticides, and 58% higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, 

7992 but does not compare them to a non-agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports an odds 

7993 ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide 

7994 exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those are may not reflect the 

7995 low-level chronic exposure relevant for the break-even analysis. However, if we assume the 

7996 farmworker rate is even 1% higher than the general population we see the same pattern: the 

7997 number of cases among farmworkers can be reduced to the breakeven point, yet the incidence 

7998 rate is the same as the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other 

7999 diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate 
219

8000 of the general population (Alavanja et al., 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are

8001 generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 

8002 If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.08% (only 10% of the reduction for 

8003 other diseases), the change in the estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 

8004 to 5.12 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.03 per 100,000 for fatal 

8005 lung cancer. 

8006

8007 In general, the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and 

8008 quantified acute benefits from the rule are small. The reduction in cases relative to the 

8009 farmworker population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to 

8010 farmworkers. 

8011

8012 There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break-even analysis is necessary. 

8013 Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break-even 

8014 point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 

8015 cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred. 

8016 These diseases discussed here are chronic conditions that may have long latency periods of 5-15 

8017 years, i.e., a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. 

8018 Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate 

8019 means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.7% to 0.98%. At a 7% discount rate, 

8020 the reduction to reach the break-even point would reach 1.20%.

8021

8022 6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions

8023

8024 The break-even analysis does show that preventing only a very small number of chronic illnesses 

8025 can have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis 

8026 demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 53 pesticide-related chronic illnesses per year 

8027 across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that is required to 

8028 ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS. 

8029
220

8030 Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden

8031

8032 Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork 

8033 burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of 

8034 complying with regulations that require firms or individuals to file reports, maintain records, or 

8035 otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources 

8036 expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 

8037 Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and 

8038 Notification (Proposed Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, in 

8039 conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic 

8040 Analysis. See Appendix B.

8041

8042 The total estimated annual respondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 8,355,847

8043 hours. This is an increase of 6,579,716 from the 1,776,131 total burden hours in the ICR

8044 approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. The increase in burden is due to both 

8045 program changes and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and 

8046 frequency of required information exchange. The program changes include modifications to 

8047 restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard 

8048 communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); increased posting of 

8049 pesticide application information; provisions for information during emergency assistance; 

8050 recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. 

8051 Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made where appropriate, due to better information 

8052 available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates. 

8053

8054 The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all proposed 

8055 revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated 

8056 incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions. 

8057

8058 Respondent records are not required to be submitted to the Agency. They are to be retained on 

8059 the establishment and accessible for inspection.

8060

8061 There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor proposed 

8062 rule imposes any requirements on the Agency. 

8063
221

8064 Accounting Statement

8065

8066 Rule Title: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

Category Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate Source

BENEFITS

Monetized Benefits

• Monetized Benefits from 

Avoided acute pesticide 

incidents

$5 – 14 million/year $1.2 million/year $28 million/year EA Chapter 6.5

• Qualitative Benefits

• Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost 

of treatment and loss of productivity.

• Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.

• Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers, 

handlers, and farmworker families.

EA Chapter 6

• Break-even analysis of the 

reduced effects of chronic 

pesticide exposure

• Annual chronic benefits necessary to break-even $61.5 million.

• Annual risk reduction needed to achieve break-even point: less than 0.8%

among farmworkers.

• Annual break-even WTP per farmworker: less than $28.

EA Chapter 6.8

COSTS

Monetized Costs

• $546 – 640 million 

over 10 years at 3% 

discount rate

• $62 – 73 million/year

$39 million/year $75 million/year EA Chapter 5.2

Quantified Costs

Qualitative Costs

TRANSFERS none

8067
222

Category Effects Source

State, local, and/or tribal 

governments

None. State and tribal governments responsible for enforcement but 

revisions will not change level of effort.

Small business

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

• The rule will affect over 200,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses 

and several hundred small commercial entities that are contracted to apply 

pesticides.

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

average small entity. Highest anticipated impact less than 1% of annual 

sales.

EA Chapter 5.4

Impact on Jobs

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

• The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase $5/year.

• The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to 

increase by $60, but this is about 0.25 percent of the cost of a part-time 

employee.

EA Chapter 5.3

8068
223

References

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C Bailey, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu. 2012. 

Trends in asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality in the United States, 2001–

2010. NCHS data brief, no 94. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. 

At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf.

Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubin, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP 

Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the 

agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85.

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A 

Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 

Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide 

applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 

January 15, 2013. 

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, 

Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and 

prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 

1;157(9):800-14.

American Association of Poison Control Centers, undated. NPDS Annual Report 

Terminology, http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/NewsMediaResources/NPDSA

nnualReportTerminology.aspx,

Andreotti G, L Beane-Freeman, L Hou, J Coble, J Rusiecki, JA Hoppin. 2009. Agricultural 

pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort. Int J 

Cancer 124:2495–2500.

Arcury TA, JG Grzywacz, DB Barr, J Tapia, H Chen, and SA Quandt. 2007. Pesticide Urinary 

Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern North Carolina Farmworker Households. 

Environ Health Perspect 115:1254-1260. 

Arcury, T A, JG Grzywacz, JW Talton, H Chen, QM Vallejos, L Galván, DB Barr, and SA 

Quandt. 2010. Repeated pesticide exposure among North Carolina migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53: 802–813. 

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health 

Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness 

surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting.American Journal of Public 

Health, 92: 1421–1429.

Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in 

the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health 

Policy, Summer:9(2).
224

Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Romero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AO 

Wollitzer, and JC Barbaccia. 1984. Educational intervention to prevent pesticideinduced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123-5.

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of 

pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11.

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential 

Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Time Series." Environmental 

International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209.

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al. 2005. 

Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study 

cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070–1079.

Bell EM, DP Sandler, MC Alavanja. 2006. High pesticide exposure events among farmers and 

spouses enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study. J Agric Saf Health. May;12(2):101-

16, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16724787.

Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. 

Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Annals of epidemiology, 

15(4), 279-285.

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural 

Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine. 2009; 14(2): 125–131. 

Blomquist, GC, M Dickie, RM O’Conor. 2011. Willingness to pay for improving fatality risks 

and asthma symptoms: Values for children and adults of all ages, Resource and Energy 

Economics, Volume 33, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages 410-425

BLS. 2010. Employer costs for employee compensation, Historical listing, Table 1. 

Management, professional and related occupations. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ocwc/ect/ececqrtn.pdf.

BLS. 2008. National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oessrci.htm

BLS. 2007a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation- December 2007. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03122008.pdf

BLS. 2007b. Employment Cost Index- December 2007. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/eci_01312008.pdf

BLS. 2007c. National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes_nat.htm

BLS. 2007d. Occupational Employment Statistics NAICS 999200 - State Government, 

excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm.
225

BLS. 2001. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - March 2001. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_032001.pdf

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. 

Pediatrics. Jun;125(6):e1270-7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, 

Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and 

IQ in 7-year-old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189-95.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chevrier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and 

TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary metabolite levels during pregnancy and 

after delivery in women living in an agricultural community. Environ. Health Perspect. 

113 12 1802-1807.

Bradman, A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, B Claus Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB 

Barr, M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, TE Mckone, and B Eskenazi. 2009. 

"Pesticides and Their Metabolites in the Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children 

Living in the Salinas Valley, CA." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental 

Epidemiology 17.4 (2009): 331-49.

Bradman A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, BC Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB Barr, M 

Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, and TE McKone. 2007. Pesticides and their 

metabolites in the homes and urine of farmworker children living in Salinas Valley. J. 

Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiology 17 (4) 331-349,

Bradman, A, DB Barr, BG Clause Henn, T Drumheller, C Curry, and B Eskenazi. 2003. 

Measurement of pestiicdes and other toxicants in amniotic fluid as a potential biomarker 

of prenatal exposure: A valadation study. Environ. Health Perspect. 111,14 1779-1782

Bradman MA, ME Harnly, W Draper, S Seidel, S Teran, and D Wakeham. 1997. “Pesticide 

Exposures to Children from California's Central Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.” J Expo 

Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217-234.

Bronstein J, P Carvey, H Chen, D Cory-Slechta, D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S 

Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G 

Logroscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B 

Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 

2009. Meeting report: consensus statement-Parkinson's disease and the environment: 

collaborative on health and the environment and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE 

PAN) conference 26–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect. 117, 117–121

Calabro, K, K Bright, and K Kouzekanani. 2000. Long-term Effectiveness of Infection Control 

Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1, 

(2000): 1-7.

Calvert GM, WA Alarcon, A Chelminski, MS Crowley, R Barrett, A Correa, S Higgins, H Leon, 

J Correia, A Becker, R Allen, and E Evans. 2007. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers 

Who Gave Birth to Infants with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place—
226

Florida and North Carolina, 2004–2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007): 

787-791.

Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum, C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M 

Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pesticide-related illnesses among working youths, 

1988-1999. Am J Public Health, 93:605-610.

Calvert, G, J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L 

Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga-McHaley. 2008. Acute pesticide 

poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005. American 

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(12): 883-898.

Cameron, TA, JR DeShazo, and EH Johnon. 2009. Willingness to Pay for Health Risk 

Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness, working paper, June 

2009. http://pages.uoregon.edu/cameron/vita/Cameron_DeShazo_Johnson_0619091.pdf.

CDC. 2011. Vital Signs, Asthma in the US. Centers for Disease Control, 

May. http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/index.html

CDC. 2012. United States Cancer Statistics, 2012. Centers for Disease Control. 

At http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/toptencancers.aspx. Accessed September 20, 2012. 

CDC. 2012. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Includes: Chronic Bronchitis 

and Emphysema. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/copd.htm. Accessed September 20, 2012.

CDC. 2012b. Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self-Management 

Education – United States, 2001 - 2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

60(17);547-552. Centers for Disease Control, May 6. 

At http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid=mm6017a4_w

CDC. 2012c. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats, Asthma. Centers for Disease 

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm

Census Bureau. 2006. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2006: NAICS 115112 - Soil Preparation, 

Planting, and Cultivating, United States. U.S. Census Bureau, 

at https://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2006/us/US115112.HTM.

Centers for Disease Control, National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), United States 

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance, 

Subpart A – Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013, 

at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=13.

Chafee-Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 

Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983): 

396-400.

Cherlor Manufacturing Company, Inc. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.cherlor.com. 

Accessed May 8, 2008.
227

Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non-Hodgkin's 

lymphoma. JAgromedicine. 2009;14(2):250-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285; 

PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, 

and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male 

participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives, 

118(1):92-6.

Cooper, SR, SP Cooper, SS Felknor, VS Santana, FM Fischer, EM Shipp, and MS Vela Acosta. 

2005. Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmworker Adolescent Populations: Implications 

for Health Research and Interventions, Public Health Rep. 120(6): 622–629, Nov–Dec.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffith, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and 

exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect

112:142-147.

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work-Related 

Pesticide Poisonings Reported to Poison Control Center. Available here, with more 

recent data available in the 

docket: http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivities/OccupationalHealth/Occupationa

lHealthIndicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 2007. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State 

University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/.

Curl CL, RA Fenske, JC Kissel, JH Shirai, TF Moate, W Griffith, et al. 2002. Evaluation of 

take-home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their 

children. Environ Health Perspect 110:A787-792.

Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Reynolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja.

2005. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes, .J Occup Environ Hyg. 

2(7):357-67, July.

Curwin, B, W Sanderson, S Reynolds, M Hein, and M Alavanja. 2002. Pesticide use and 

practices in an Iowa farm family pesticide exposure study. J Agric Saf Health, 8:423-33.

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, and 

MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and nonfarmers, Environmental Research, Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307-315

Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among 

migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303-312.

Davis, S, et. al. 2006. Letter to Administrator Steve Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency. 

Farmworker Justice. December 15.

Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain 

development, risk-taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology-Paris 

Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279-286. 
228

Dick FD, G De Palma, A Ahmadi, NW Scott, GJ Prescott, J Bennett, et al. 2007. 

Environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism: the Geoparkinson 

study. Occup Environ Med. 64(10):666–672. 

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and 

Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

Duffy, M. 2012. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa. Iowa State University Extension 

and Outreach publication FM-1712, revised 

January. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1-20.pdf.

D&B. 2010. Database of business information maintained by Dun and Bradstreet, 

Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS 

Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and 

performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic 

pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 165(12):1397-404. Epub 2007 Apr 3.

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to 

organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ 

Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182-8. 

EPA. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table. Office 

of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

March. www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler-exposure-table.pdf.

EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b) 

Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821-R-11-002 March 28, 2011. 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf

EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Available 

here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

EPA, 2010b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule. Office of 

Water (4607-M) EPA 815-R-10-001 June 2010. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/Proposed%20RTCR%20EA.pdf

EPA. 2009. WPS Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report 2008. Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 2008. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions to Two Related 

Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available 

here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10-finalrpt.pdf.
229

EPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesticide Container Design and Residue Removal 

Standards. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327-

0024; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327.

EPA. 2006b. How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. 

What Employers Need to Know. EPA/735-B-06-002, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised September 2005, 

Reprinted June 2006.

EPA, 2006c. Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule. Office of Water (4606-M) 

EPA 815-R-06-014 October 2006. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf

EPA, 2005. Economic Analysis for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 

Rule. Office of Water (4606-M) EPA 815-R-06-001 December 

2005, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lt2/upload/2006_03_17_disinfection

_lt2_anaylis_lt2_economic_main.pdf

EPA. 2002. Children Are at Greater Risks from Pesticide Exposure, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2002. 

At http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis. Office of 

Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 

8. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0046-0013.

Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for 

non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer. 

123(7):1657-63 Oct 1.

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzien, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT 

Holland. 2004. Association of in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and fetal 

growth and length of gestation in an agricultural population. Environ. Health Perspect. 

112:1116–1124 

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 

2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in 

young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect. 115:792–798.

Furman, J. 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2007 Final 

Report. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries: Division of Occupational 

Health and Safety. December. 

At http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/DOSH_ChE_Report0

7_Final_010407.pdf.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. 2007. Construction Management Division. Personal 

communication.

Gempler’s. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com. Accessed 2008.
230

Goldman, L, B Eskenazi, A Bradman, and NP Jewell. 2004. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide 

Exposure among Pregnant Women Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas, 

California.” Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 491-499.

Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives, 

Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355-362.

Gorell JM, CC Johnson, BA Rybicki, EL Peterson, and RJ Richardson. 1998. The risk of 

Parkinson’s disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living. 

Neurology. 50:1346–1350. 

Grainger. 2013. Guardian Equipment Emergency 

Shower. http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GUARDIAN-EQUIPMENT-EmergencyShower-4HRJ8?Pid=search. Accessed August, 2013.

Hammitt JK, and J-T Liu. 2004. “Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of 

Mortality Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 73-95.

Hancock DB, ER Martin, GM Mayhew, JM Stajich, R Jewett, MA Stacy, et al. 2008. Pesticide 

exposure and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a family-based case-control study. BMC 

Neurol. 8:6. 

Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic 

exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet 

Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156-9, April.

Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin 

Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?" 

Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706.

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP 

Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the 

Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11-8, Jan 1. 

At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376.

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al. 2007. 

Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am 

J Ind Med 50:969–979.

Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli-Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of 

illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 20(11):1449-54, Nov. 

At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641.

Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers. 

At http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html, accessed February, 

24, 2011. 

Itaoka K, AJ Krupnick, A Saito, and M Akai. 2007. Morbidity Valuation with a Cessation Lag: 

Choice Experiments for Public- and Private-Goods Contexts in Japan, Resources for the 

Future Discussion Paper, July 2007. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-07-07-

REV.pdf.

Jones, A, and L Smith. 2006. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & Worker 

Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue 
231

Paper, "Making the Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor 

Employees & Aerial Apps. On behalf of National Alliance of Independent Crop 

Consultants, Certified Crop Advisors.

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M 

Korell, J Langston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self-reported 

Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study. Am J Epidemiol, 165:364-74.

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report No. 

60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June.

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE 

Beane-Freeman. 2010a. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11):1098-105.

Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K 

Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010b. Pesticide use 

modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate 

cancer. Cancer Res, 70(22):9224-33.

Koutros, S, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, 

JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and 

Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American 

Journal of Epidemiology, 177(1):59-74. Epub 2012 Nov 

21, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882.

Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors 

of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ 

Health. 22(1):14-26, Feb.

Kutikova, L, L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs 

associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States during the first two years 

of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544. 

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the 

Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural 

Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology: Volume 17 - Issue 6 - pp S311-S312, Nov.

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al. 2004. Cancer incidence 

among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J 

Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791.

Lee WJ, DP Sandler, A Blair, C Samanic, AJ Cross, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide use and 

colorectal cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer 121(2):339-46, Jul 

15. 

Leon ME, LE Beane-Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M 

Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Baldi, MA Dalvie, G 

Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, L London, CF Lynch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P 

Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stayner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair.

2011. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public 

Health. 2011 May;8(5):1341-57. Epub 2011 Apr 29. 
232

Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, 

Rundle A., Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as 

determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment, Am J Public Health. 2011 

Jan;101(1):63-70.

Lu, C. RA Fenske, NJ Simcox, and D. Kalman. 2000. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an 

Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home 

Exposure Pathways.” Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290-302.

Machlin, SR, and K Carper. 2007. Expenses for Office-Based Physician Visits by Specialty, 

2004. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Statistical Brief #166. 

At http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st166/stat166.pdf. 

Accessed April 29, 2008.

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. 

Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health 

Perspect, 114:1838-42

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl 

exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 

15;121(8):1799-805.

Marks AR, K Harley, A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 

2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican-American 

children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect. 118(12):1768-74, Dec. 

Mills PK, and R Yang. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ 

Med. 45:249-258.

NAAA. 2008. Elementary Level Curriculum Guide. National Agricultural Aviation 

Association. At http://www.agaviation.org/sites/default/files/elem.pdf.

NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey data for number of farms and 

workers. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed July 2013.

NASS. 2010. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 22. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Updated February 2010. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/.

NASS. 2008a. Farm Labor, February 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available 

here: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2008/FarmLabo-02-15-

2008.pdf.

NASS. 2008b. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 

2008. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php.

NASS. 2007. Farm Labor, November, 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available 

here: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2007/FarmLabo-11-16-

2007.pdf.
233

NASS. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Issued June 

2004. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php.

NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Issued March 

1999. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.php.

National Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National 

Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012. 

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics, 

Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011. 

National Cancer Institute. 2007. What you need to know about non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NIH 

publication 07-1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristensen. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure 

in relation to thyroid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work 

Environ Health. 31(2):89-96, April.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011a) Apple Spray Program. Updated February 

2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49836/Apple_Spray_Program. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011b) Cherry Spray Program. Updated February 

2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49846/Cherry_Spray_Program. 

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011c) Pear Spray Program. February 

2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program. 

Oborain. 2013. Outdoor shower with drainage pan. http://www.oborain.com/. Accessed 

August, 2013.

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using 

a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 

16(6), pages 667-683, December.

OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 

2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.

OMB. (1996) Economic Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Office of Management and 

Budget. January 11. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide.

OSHA. 2004. Supporting Statement for the Information-Collection Requirements of the 

Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134). OMB Control No. 1218-0099. Occupational 

Health & Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor. http://www.osha.gov/Reduction_Act/1218-0099.html#text9. Accessed May 9, 

2008).

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms

Accessed August 4, 2011.

Plog, BA. 1996. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. BA Plog, ed. National Safety Council, 

United States, pp 29-30, Fourth Edition.
234

Quandt, SA, TA Arcury, CK Austin, and RM Saavedra. 1998. Farmworker and farmer 

perceptions of farmworker agricultural chemical exposure in North Carolina. Human 

Organization, 57, 359-368.

Rao, P, SA Quandt, AM Doran, BM Snively, and TA Arcury. 2007. Pesticides in the Homes of 

Farmworkers : Latino Mothers' Perceptions of Risk to Their Children's Health, Health 

Educ Behav 2007 34: 335

Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang, 

and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment 

in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845-e1859

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven-Year 

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common 

Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196–1201.

Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use 

and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of 

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health, 22: 314–320. 

Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 1999. Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Fifth Edition, 

available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare

Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral 

Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, 

Neurotoxicology. 2011 March; 32(2): 268–276.

Rosenbaum, S, and P Shin. 2005. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insurance 

Coverage and Access to Care, Kaiser Family Foundation. Available 

here: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Migrant-and-Seasonal-Farmworkers-HealthInsurance-Coverage-and-Access-to-Care-Report.pdf

Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Lasarev, J Sanatana, and L McCauley. 2006. Organophosphate 

exposure and neurobehavioral performance among agricultural and non-agricultural 

Hispanic workers. Environ. Health Persp. 114:691-696.

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards 

and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health. Special Issue (1):159-169.

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20-32.

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu-Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and 

Children's Health Study, Early-life environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from 

the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760–765.

Salameh PR, I Baldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory 

symptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J. 22(3):507-12, Sept. 

At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143.

Salazar MK, M Napolitano, JA Scherer, and LA McCauley. 2004. Hispanic adolescent 

farmworkers' perceptions associated with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res. 

26(2):146–166. 
235

Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Camacho, J López, G Kavanagh-Baird, M Minkler, and 

B Eskenazi. 2009. A Community-Based Participatory Worksite Intervention to Reduce 

Pesticide Exposures to Farmworkers and Their Families. American Journal of Public 

Health S578-S581, Vol 99, No. S3, Nov.

Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KL Bassil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non-cancer health 

effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam 

Physician 53(10): 1712-20.

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning, 

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97-2505-A.

Smith, R, K Klonsky, and R DeMoura. (2009) Sample costs to produce iceberg lettuce, Central 

Coast Region. University of California Cooperative Extension publication LT-CC-09-

2. http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/lettuceicecc09.pdf.

Snipes SA, B Thompson, K O'Connor, B Shell-Duncan, D King, AP Herrera, and B Navarro. 

2009. "Pesticides protect the fruit, but not the people": using community-based 

ethnography to understand farmworker pesticide-exposure risks. Am J Public Health

99Suppl 3:S616-21, Nov.

Spradley, P. 2007. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. American Association of Pesticide 

Safety Educators. June 7.

Staples. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.staples.com/. Accessed April, 2008.

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive 

Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69-74, Feb.

Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors 

in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249-

272. 

Strong LL, B Thompson, TD Koepsell, and H Meischke. 2008. Factors associated with 

pesticide safety practices in farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 51(1):69-81, Jan.

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok 

GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez 

HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and 

Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866-72.

Thun, MJ, LM Hannan, LL Adams-Campbell, P Boffetta, JE Buring, D Feskanich, WD Flanders 

et al. 2008. "Lung cancer occurrence in never-smokers: an analysis of 13 cohorts and 22 

cancer registry studies." PLoS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008).

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a 

systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41. 

Tuthill. 2008. Product and price lists, Tuthill Corporation at http://tuthill.com. Accessed May 

8, 2008.
236

U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries 

and Illnesses. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government Printing 

Office.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2011. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PubMed 

Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001153/. Accessed September 

20, 2011. 

University of Florida (2008-09) Interactive Budgets, Vegetables. University of 

Florida. http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/iatpc/ibudgets09.php.

Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, MC Alavanja, DP Sandler, 

and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchitis among non-smoking farm women in the 

agricultural health study." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American 

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574.

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P Nijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is 

pesticide use related to Parkinson disease? Some clues to heterogeneity in study results. 

Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 340.

Van Maele-Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Lison. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides 

and childhood leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment 

International. 37(1):280-91, Jan.

Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data 

Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology: 389-97.

Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricultural 

Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289-99. 

Washington State Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health 

Assessments. 2003. Summary Results of Yakima Farmworker Focus Groups about 

Pesticides and Health Care. Available 

here: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/focus_group_summary_030922

final.pdf

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 

childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 117:1505-1513. 

Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in 

human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 11(3-4):242-59, Mar.

Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555 

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody, 

and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer 

Treatments, CANCER; Published Online: December 21.

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 53. 

Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides: Summary of 

Data Reported and Evaluation (1991). Available here: 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf 
237

Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking 

Carbofuran Tolerances. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. EPA.

Yang, RC, and PK Mills. 2009. Proportionate cancer incidence in the Laotian population of 

California, 1988-2006. Cancer Causes Control. 20(6):1011-6, Aug.

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi-center 

Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of 

Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85-92.

Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, L Pedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE 

Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate 

pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199–209

Young, M, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among 

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53.

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1997. Cancer Feasibility Studies Among Migrant Farmworkers, 

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32:301–302 (1997).

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1993. Cancer among migrant and seasonal farmworkers: an 

epidemiologic review and research agenda. Am J Ind Med. 24(6):753-66, Dec. 

Zahm, SH, JS Colt, LS Engel, MC Keifer, AJ Alvarado, K Burau, P Butterfield, S Caldera, SP 

Cooper, D Garcia, C Hanis, E Hendrikson, N Heyer, LM Hunt, M Krauska, N 

MacNaughton, CJ McDonnell, PK Mills, LD Mull, DL Nordstrom, B Outterson, DP 

Slesinger, MA Smith, L Stallones, C Stephens, A Sweeney, K Sweitzer, SW Vernon, and 

A Blair. 2001. Development of a life events/icon calendar questionnaire to ascertain 

occupational histories and other characteristics of migrant farmworkers. Am J Ind Med. 

40(5):490-501, Nov.

Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes 

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33.

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 

Suppl 3:893-908, June.