*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

RIN2070-AJ22_EO12866_AgWPS_NPRM_EA_2013-09-19.docx



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

1 1

2

3

4 

# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE 5 

# PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER 6 

# PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 7

RIN 2070-AJ22 8 Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Prepared by 25

26

BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION 27

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS 28

29

30

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 32 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 33 Washington, DC 20460 34

35

36

37*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

2 38*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

3 

## Table of Contents 39

40

Executive Summary

............................................................................................................................... ........ 1 41

Chapter 1. Introduc tion...................................................................................................................

............. 6 42

1.1 Background

............................................................................................................................... .... 6 43

1.2 Problem Statement

....................................................................................................................... 7 44

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

......................................................................................... 8 45

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

.................................................................................... 11 46

1.2.3 Market Failure

..................................................................................................................... 12 47

1.3 Affected Communities

................................................................................................................ 14 48

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

....................................................................................................... 14 49

1.3.2 Regulated Entities

.............................................................................................................. 15 50

1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation

.............................................................................................. 16 51

1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation

............................................................................................... 17 52

1.4.2 Statutory Authority

............................................................................................................. 18 53

Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS

............................................................................. 19 54

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

......................................................... 20 55

2.1.1 Non

‐ regulatory Approaches

................................................................................................ 20 56

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

....................................................................................................... 21 57

2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

............................................... 22 58

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options

....................................................................................... 22 59

2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options

......................................................................................... 31 60

2.2.3 Notification Options

............................................................................................................ 34 61

2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

.................................................................. 42 62

2.3.1 Minimum Age Options

........................................................................................................ 42 63

2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions

............................................................................................. 43 64

2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment

....................................................................... 47 65

2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

............................................................... 49 66

2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options

....................................................................................... 49 67

2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response

....................................................................................... 51 68

Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options

............................................................................................ 54 69

3.1 Overview

............................................................................................................................... ...... 54 70*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

4 3.2. Regional Groupings

..................................................................................................................... 55 71

3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements

.................................................................................................. 57 72

3.3.1 General Methodology

......................................................................................................... 57 73

3.3.2 General Data

....................................................................................................................... 60 74

3.3.3 Training

............................................................................................................................... 68 75

3.3.4 Hazard Communica tion....................................................................................................... 84 76

3.3.5 Notification

......................................................................................................................... 89 77

3.3.5 Age

............................................................................................................................... ....... 96 78

3.3.6 Entry

............................................................................................................................... ... 100 79

3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

............................................................................... 104 80

3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

................................................................................................ 109 81

3.3.9 Emergency Response

........................................................................................................ 111 82

Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements

...................................................................... 113 83

4.1 Training Options

........................................................................................................................ 114 84

4.1.1 TRAIN

‐ 01 vs TRAIN

‐ 02: Immediate worker training

......................................................... 114 85

4.1.2 TRAIN

‐ 03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN

‐ 12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and handler training

.... 115 86

4.1.3 TRAIN

‐ 06 vs 07 / TRAIN

‐ 14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training

. 116 87

4.1.4 TRAIN

‐ 08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards

.................................... 116 88

4.1.5 TRAIN

‐ 10 vs 11 / TRAIN

‐ 16 vs 17: Record keeping

.......................................................... 117 89

4.1.6 TRAIN

‐ 20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification

................................................................... 117 90

4.2 Hazard Communication Options

............................................................................................... 118 91

4.2.1 HAZCOM

‐ 01: Availability of application

‐ specific information

.......................................... 118 92

4.2.2 HAZCOM

‐ 02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide

‐ specific Hazard Communication Materials............ 119 93

4.2.3 HAZCOM

‐ 05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention

.......................................................... 119 94

4.2.4 HAZCOM

‐ 07: Registrant

‐ produced crop sheets

................................................................ 120 95

4.3 Notification Options

.................................................................................................................. 120 96

4.3.1 NOTIFY

‐ 01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production

........................... 120 97

4.3.2 NOTIFY

‐ 03: Posted Notification Timing

– Enclosed Space Production

............................. 121 98

4.3.3 NOTIFY

‐ 04 and NOTIFY

‐ 05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification

....................................... 121 99

4.3.4 NOTIFY

‐ 06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

....................................................................... 121 100

4.3.4 NOTIFY

‐ 08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

.................................................................... 122 101

4.3.6 NOTIFY

‐ 10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry tasks

............. 122 102*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

5 4.3.7 NOTIFY

‐ 12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks

.................................................... 122 103

4.3.8 NOTIFY

‐ 14: Revise safety display

..................................................................................... 123 104

4.3.9 NOTIFY

‐ 15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays

.................................. 123 105

4.3.10 NOTIFY

‐ 18: Notification by commercial applicators

........................................................ 124 106

4.4 Age Requirement Options

......................................................................................................... 124 107

4.4.1 AGE

‐ 01: Minimum age for early entry activities

.............................................................. 124 108

4.4.2 AGE

‐ 03: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides

................................................ 125 109

4.5 Entry Restriction Options

.......................................................................................................... 125 110

4.5.1 ENTRY

‐ 01 and 02: Entry restricted areas

......................................................................... 125 111

4.5.2 ENTRY

‐ 03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities

.............................................. 126 112

4.5.3 ENTRY

‐ 06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition

...................................................................... 127 113

4.6 PPE Options

............................................................................................................................... 127 114

4.6.1 PPE

‐ 01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator PPE

............... 127 115

4.6.2 PPE

‐ 02 and PPE

‐ 03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting under CCAs

. 128 116

4.6.3 PPE

‐ 04: Standards for closed system exceptions

............................................................. 128 117

4.6.4 PPE

‐ 05: Render contaminated PPE unwearable

.............................................................. 129 118

4.7 Decontamination Supply Options

............................................................................................. 129 119

4.7.1 SUPPLY

‐ 01 and SUPPLY

‐ 02: Decontamination supplies for workers

............................... 129 120

4.7.2 SUPPLY

‐ 03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers

.............................................. 130 121

4.7.3 SUPPLY

‐ 05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing

....................................................................... 131 122

4.8 Emergency Assistance Options

................................................................................................. 131 123

Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule

........................................................................................................... 133 124

5.1 General Methodology

............................................................................................................... 135 125

5.2 Cost Estimation

......................................................................................................................... 139 126

5.2.1 Training Component

......................................................................................................... 139 127

5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components

.................................................... 149 128

5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE

........................................................................ 152 129

5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Assistance

................ 154 130

5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule

.............................................................................................. 156 131

5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment

.............................................................................................. 159 132

5.4 Small Business Impacts

............................................................................................................. 160 133

5.4.1 Industry Profile

.................................................................................................................. 161 134*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

6 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

......................................................................... 163 135

Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

...................................................................................................... 166 136

6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

............................................................................................ 167 137

6.2. Who is at Risk?

.......................................................................................................................... 168 138

6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

................................................................................... 168 139

6.2.2. Children and families

........................................................................................................ 168 140

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

................................. 171 141

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects

............................................................................................. 171 142

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

................................ 172 143

6.4. Non

‐ Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

.................................. 176 144

6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

............................................ 176 145

6.5.1. Methodology and Data

..................................................................................................... 177 146

6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

................................................................... 178 147

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

.............................................................................................. 183 148

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

............................................................................................... 186 149

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

............. 197 150

6.6.1. Cancer Risks

...................................................................................................................... 200 151

6.6.2. Non

‐ Cancer Health Effects

................................................................................................ 203 152

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

.......................................................................... 204 153

6.7. Non

‐ Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

.................................................. 205 154

6.8. Break

‐ Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

............................................. 206 155

6.8.1. Background

....................................................................................................................... 206 156

6.8.2. Method

............................................................................................................................. 208 157

6.8.3. Data

............................................................................................................................... .... 209 158

6.8.4. Break

‐ Even Estimation

...................................................................................................... 214 159

6.8.5. Break

‐ Even Conclusions

.................................................................................................... 218 160

Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden

................................................................................................................. 219 161

Accounting Statement

.............................................................................................................................. 220 162

References

............................................................................................................................... ................. 222 163

164

165*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

1 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TH E PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 166 

## WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 167

168

169 

## Executive Summary 170

171

172 EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 173 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. This 174 document provides an analysis of the costs and the bene fits of the proposed changes to the WPS 175 to meet the requirements of Executive Orde r 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 176 Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory 177 Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Busine sses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The 178

document also discusses the costs and benefits of alternative options considered by EPA in the 179 development of the proposal. 180

181 Pesticides are designed to be toxic and their use is inherent ly risky. Between 2000 and 2009, an 182 average of 2,170 occupational pesticide incidents was reported annually to the National Institute 183 of Occupational Safety and Hea lth, of which over 1,200 occurred on agricultural establishments 184 covered by the WPS. The true number of occupa tional accidents is likely to be significantly 185 more due to lack of reporting. Acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides can range from 186

mild skin irritation to more severe effects su ch as headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, 187 cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness. In rare 188 cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. Occupational incidents are probably 189 indicative of a larger number of cases where pe sticide safety practices are not fully followed 190 resulting in higher levels of pe sticide exposure to ag ricultural workers and pesticide handlers, 191 and possibly bystanders and non-targ et organisms, than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and 192 risk management. Even such minor errors are lik ely to lead to chronic exposure to pesticides, 193 which is associated with long-term health issues that are potentially severe, including 194 neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and several forms of cancer. 195

196 

### Market Failure 197

198 Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: incomplete 199 information and externalities. The former implie s that full information about the consequences 200 of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The la tter implies that some of the 201 consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions; this may result in 202

unintended or undesirable amounts or kinds of use for a given pest icide that resu lt in negative 203 consequences for society and/or th e environment. If the market fails to provide incentives to 204 develop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external 205 effects, there may be a role for government inte rvention to protect workers and handlers from the 206 hazards of excess pesticide exposure. 207

208 In conjunction with various non-regulatory pr ograms, the WPS require ments are intended to 209 reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 210*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

2 to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to 211 (1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers a bout the hazards and risks from pesticides they 212 use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) pr otect workers and handlers from 213 occupational exposure to pesticides and the pot ential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) 214 mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoi dable pesticide exposure, including accidents. 215 Within these categories, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alterna tive requirements and is 216 proposing a set of requirements that, in combinati on, are expected to achieve substantial benefits 217

at minimum cost. 218

219 

### Costs and Benefits 220

221

EPA estimates the incremental cost of all proposed revisions to be between $61.9 and $72.4 222 million annually, using a three percent discount ra te. Using a seven percent discount rate, the 223 rule is estimated to cost between $60.8 and $73.1 million per year. These costs are almost 224 entirely borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouse s that hire labor and use pesticides, which 225 account for about 20 percent of all farms pr oducing crops in the United States. The 226 approximately 2,800 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are contracted to 227 apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremen tal cost between $170 and $190 per year per firm. 228 Minor costs of less than $60 to $80 per year may be faced by family farms that use pesticides 229 and by self-employed commercial applicators, respectively. Thes e costs amount to an average 230 expenditure of about $30 per year per farm worker . Benefits, in terms of reduced exposure to 231 pesticides, will accrue to a br oader population and will likely exceed $75 million per year in 232 terms of avoided costs associated with occupati onal pesticide incidents and with reductions in 233

chronic diseases associated w ith occupational pesticide exposur e. Costs and benefits are 234

summarized in Table 1. 235

236

Estimates of the total incremental costs are c onsidered 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 invol ve 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 propos ed revisions is around $51.2 to 245 $58.8 million per year. 246

247

Costs 248

249 The cost to individual farms will depend on the number and type of employees employed. EPA 250 estimates that large farms, defi ned as those with more than $ 750,000 in sales, will incur costs of 251 $330 to $390 per year, on average, using a 3% disc ount rate. Smaller operations are estimated to 252 incur costs between $125 and $150 per year, on aver age, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent 253 of average annual revenue. EPA, therefore, concl udes that there will not be a significant impact 254

on a substantial number of small entities as a result of the proposed rule. 255

256*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

3 The marginal increase in cost per field worker is estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which 257 would not be expected to have an impact on empl oyment. The marginal increase in cost per 258 pesticide handler employed on a farm is estimated to be less than $60 per year, which represents 259 about 0.25 percent of the total cost of a part-tim e employee, a marginal increase that would not 260 be expected to have an impact on job availability. 261

262 Benefits 263

264 The benefits of the proposed ru le accrue to agricultural wo rkers, pesticid e handlers and, 265 indirectly, to their families. For workers a nd handlers, the revised rule is expected to 266 substantially reduce the potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from 267 occupational exposures to pesticid es, and provide them with info rmation and tools to reduce the 268 transport of pesticide residues home. Self-emp loyed pesticide handlers, including members of 269 farm families who apply pesticides, will also bene fit from reductions in pesticide exposures. 270

271 It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from 272 this rule, because workers and ha ndlers are potentially exposed to su ch a wide range of pesticides 273

with different toxicities and ri sks. However, the proposed cha nges to the WPS are designed to 274 reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer275 reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public 276 health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 277

278 Benefits from Avoiding Occupational Incidents 279

280 Given reported cases, EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide incidents where the WPS 281 applies would have been prevented by the rule . The value of avoided medical and productivity 282 losses of this reduction in incidents is estimated to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million 283 annually. However, this estimate is biased downward by an unknown, but potentially significant 284 degree. First, pesticide incidents, like many illn esses and accidents, are underreported because 285 sufferers may not seek medical care, cases ma y not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly 286 diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting database. Th e effect of underreporting 287 can be significant. If only 25% of poisonings are reported (withi n the range of estimates in the 288 literature), the quantifiable benefits of the rule would be about $11.3 million annually. Second, 289 our approach only measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to 290 avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide expos ure, which could be substantially higher. 291

292 EPA is not able to provide quantitative estimate s of the benefits from reducing chronic exposure 293 to pesticides, but there are well- documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic 294 health effects in the p eer-reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the 295 proposed requirements will result in long term health benefits to the 2.3 million agricultural 296 workers and pesticide handlers. These benefits arise from reduci ng their daily risk of pesticide 297 exposures but also reduced risk of chronic illne ss, resulting in a lower cost of healthcare, a 298 healthier society and bett er quality of life. 299

300 Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure 301

302*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

4 The difference between the estimated cost of th e rule, $75.1 million per year, and the estimated 303 benefits from avoiding acute incidents, $11.4 m illion per year, is $63.7 million per year. EPA 304

estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of six chronic diseases, ranging from asthma to 305 cancer, by only 0.8 percent within the farmworker community would be sufficient to generate 306 total benefits equal to the cost of the rule. In general, farm families with exposure to pesticides 307 show higher incidence rates of these diseases than similar populations with little or no chronic 308 exposure to pesticides. Thus, the slight decreas e in incidence rates is a plausible outcome of 309 revisions to the WPS, which include among other things improved worker safety training, better 310 dissemination of information about pesticides used on-farm, and greater protection from 311 inadvertent exposures such as spray drif t or inadequate pr otective equipment. 312

313 Many of the changes to current WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers 314 to transport pesticide residues home to their families. Thus, the proposed requirements are 315 expected to reduce children’s e xposure to pesticides. The benefits of reduced exposure to 316 children are also impossible to qua ntify, but they may be large. At every lifestage, including the 317 fetal stage, reducing exposure to pesticides c ould translate into fewer sick days, fewer days 318 missed of school, improved capacity to learn, better education, and better long-term 319 health. There are benefits to parents and caregivers as well, because healthier families, means 320 fewer missed workdays, and a better quality of life. 321

322

Table 1. Benefits and Cost s from Revisions to the Wor ker Protection Standard 323
Category Description

Monetized Benefits $75 – 80 million/year

 Avoided acute pesticide

incidents $10 – 15 million/year

 Reduced effects of chronic

pesticide exposure at least $64.8 million/year

Qualitative Benefits  Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost of trea tment and loss of productivity

 Reduced latent effect of a voided acute pesticide exposure

 Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide

exposure to farmworker families
Monetized Costs $62 – 72 million/year

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.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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

 The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to

increase $5/year.

 The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is

expected to increase by $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 percent of the cost of a part-time employee.

324*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

6 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TH E PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 325 

## WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 326

327 

## Chapter 1. Introduction 328

329 EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 330 170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The 331 proposed revisions are expected to reduce the ri sks to workers and handlers from occupational 332 pesticide exposure, and protect farm worker ch ildren and other family members from take-home 333 pesticide exposure. The proposed ch anges represent revisions to the worker protection rule that 334

was first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992. 335

336 This document provides an analys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the 337

WPS as well as for alternatives EPA considered in the development of the proposal. This section 338 provides a brief background to the WPS requireme nts, describes the reasons for EPA’s proposal 339 and the statutory authority for the rule, and identi fies entities that may be affected by the rule. 340 Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in devel oping this proposal and 341 discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different options . Chapter 3 presents the cost 342 estimates for the regulatory options. Chapter 4 discusses the relative co sts and benefits of 343 alternative requirements. Chapters 5 and 6 then examine the proposed requirements as a single 344 unit. Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the propos al, taking into account a ny interactions between 345 the proposed requirements. The ultimate outcome of the rule, in terms avoided adverse health 346 effects resulting from reduced accidental and chr onic exposures to pesticides, which will accrue 347 primarily to agricultural employees and thei r families, are described in Chapter 6. 348

349 This report is intended to m eet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning 350 and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Re gulation and Regulator y Review), and the 351 Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by th e Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement 352 Fairness Act. The remaining regulatory require ments and a full description of the regulatory 353 options EPA is considering in this proposal are addressed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 354 (NPRM) of this rule. This document and the data used in this analysis also serve as input in 355 preparing an analysis required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501-21). 356

357



### 1.1 Background 358

359 The EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implemen tation of two primary 360 regulations. The Certificati on of Pesticide Applicators re gulation, 40 CFR Part 171, requires 361 applicators to meet certa in competency requirements before th ey can purchase, use or supervise 362 the use of restricted use pesticide products. EPA is currently revising the rules governing 363 certification of pesticide app licators through another rulema king. The Worker Protection 364 Standard regulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employe rs and commercial pesticide 365 handler employers to provide spec ific information and protections to agricultural farm workers 366 and pesticide handlers when pestic ides are used in the production of agricultural plants on farms, 367 forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The WPS regul ation is intended to reduce the risks of illness 368 or injury to workers and handlers resulting fr om occupational exposure to pesticides on 369*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

7 agricultural establishmen t. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisi ons are meant to (1) inform farm 370 workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards a nd risks from pesticides they use or to which 371 they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from occupational 372 exposure to pesticides and the potential advers e effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the 373 potential adverse effects of unavoidable pestic ide exposure, including accidents. These two 374 regulations, along with the other components of the Agency’s pest icide worker safety program, 375 are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposu res to pesticides among pesticide applicators, 376 agricultural employees, and th e general public, incl uding vulnerable popul ations, such as 377 children. This economic analysis focuses on the WPS rule. 378

379

The WPS rule is directed toward the worki ng conditions of two types of employees, which, 380 throughout this document, we refer as ‘handler s’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those 381 employees who handle agricultural pesticides (mixing, loading, applying pesticides, and 382 performing other activities linked to pesticide ap plication). These employees may be directly 383 exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and non384 target organisms. In principle, at least, pest icide handlers also know w ith which chemicals they 385

work and have access to label information that ex plains precautions and provides directions for 386 use. Workers are employees who perform tasks related to the cultivat ion and harvesting of 387 plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. Workers are potentially exposed to 388 pesticides through contact with treated plants, re sidues left on other surfaces, or through the air 389 or water on the farm or other operation. On their own, workers may have little information 390 about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be exposed or even if they are exposed. 391

392 Changes to WPS will largely impact two types of employers who are responsible for providing 393 required protections to their employees : agricultural ow ners/employers, ( i.e. , farm owners, 394 greenhouses, nurseries and forest planting), and employers on commercial pesticide handling 395 establishments (CPHEs). Some revisions may also pertain to other commercial agricultural 396 services, including private crop advisors, but impacts appear to be negligible. 397

398 The benefits of the proposed rule accrue primarily to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers, 399 and their families. The proposed changes to th e rule will provide more information about the 400 potential risks of pesticide exposure and ways farmworkers and handlers can minimize those 401

exposures. 402

403



### 1.2 Problem Statement 404

405 EPA imposes requirements on the use of pesticides with the intent to avert unreasonable adverse 406 effects to human health and the environment. These requirements include current worker 407 protection standards and pesticid e-specific use restrict ions found on the product label. However, 408 despite these safeguards, occupati onal pesticide poisonings still occur. The National Institute for 409 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Council of State and Territorial 410 Epidemiologists (CSTE) compile a set of indicator s to monitor occupational health. Indicator 11 411 tracks acute work-related pesticid e poisonings reported to poison control centers. From 2000 to 412 2009, the number of cases reported by this source ranged from 2,827 in 2000 to 2,040 in 2009, 413 with an average number of 2,465 cases reported per year (CSTE, 2011). Reports include all 414 occupational cases, not only those where WPS is a pplicable. An EPA review of another dataset 415*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

8 on occupational exposures (SENSOR-Pesticides, descri bed in more detail in Chapter 6) indicates 416 that about 57 percent of reported occupationa l cases occurred on establishments where WPS 417 requirements apply. If that rate applies to Indicator 11 data, about 1,400 incidents annually 418 would be reported from WPS establishments. Although the number of cases was generally 419 trending down over this period, there remain a subs tantial number of incidents. Many of these 420 poisonings are avoidable and it may be possible to mitigate the adverse effects of exposures 421 when they occur. Moreover, incidents are lik ely to reflect a larger number of cases where 422 employers or employees fail to follow label instru ction or make mistakes in applications, much 423

like traffic accidents at inters ections likely reflect the common practice of rolling through stop 424 signs. But while rolling through a stop sign increases the probability of an accident, lax pesticide 425 safety practices result in highe r levels of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, and 426 possibly bystanders and non-target organisms, even if they do not lead to a clearly defined 427 incident. These minor errors are also likely to lead to more chronic exposure to pesticides. 428

429


### 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure 430

431 Use of pesticides, substances designed to be to xic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 432 narrowly targeted to specific life forms or pr ocesses while others have effects across a broad 433 spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handl ers and workers can be exposed many ways, 434 and workers and handlers can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing 435 season (Arcury et al ., 2010). Some exposures to some pes ticides can result in a wide range of 436 acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from overe xposure to pesticides va ry, and can range from 437

mild skin irritation to more severe effects. Exposures to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for 438 example, can result in headaches, fatigue and di zziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired 439 vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Some pesticides can cau se in seizures, respiratory 440 depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional 441 pesticide exposures result in death. These are ju st a few of the many diverse symptoms that can 442 be caused by pesticide exposure; Reigart and Ro berts (1999) list almost 100 different symptoms 443 that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure. 444

445 While illnesses resulting from pesticide expos ures to workers and handlers are underreported 446 (see the discussion in Section 6.5.1), there are p eer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 447 reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 448 Calvert, et al . (2008), for example, looked at report ed pesticide poisoning incidents among 449 agricultural workers from 1998-2005. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for 450 agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non451 agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 452 486 pesticide illness cases among California fa rmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance 453 program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all pesticide 454

related illness cases in the Calif ornia surveillance system were agricultural workers. Over a 455 quarter of the poisonings were to those mixi ng, loading or applying pesticides. The most 456 common symptoms were derm atological (about 44%), neur ological (about 39%), and 457 gastrointestinal (about 38%), a nd the most common route of expos ure was skin contact, followed 458 by inhalation and eye contact. 459

460*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

9 Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees 461

462 The families of agricultural workers and pesticid e handlers are also exposed to pesticides, and 463 several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 464 to children, both those living in the homes of workers and handlers , as well as those adolescents 465 working on farms. 466

467 Research has shown that agricultural workers’ pe rceptions about pesticide safety can lead to 468 excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al ., (2009) conducted interviews with 99 469 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several misconceptions or practices 470 that might lead to takehome exposure that co uld be changed through training. In particular, 471 respondents believe that dry powde r pesticides are much less harmful than sprays and liquids, 472 PPE is less regularly worn when there is financ ial pressure to work quickly, and farmworkers 473 were delayed washing their hands and bodi es immediately after work. Quandt et al . (1998) 474 found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target and 475 that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al ., 2007). In 476 reality, other exposure routes for pregnant wo men and children may incl ude spray drift from 477 nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working. 478 Prenatal exposures may be particularly important for long-term development effects in children. 479

Children and adolescents at va rious stages in development offer windows of opportunity for 480 chemical exposures to have particularly signifi cant effects on growth and development, which 481 means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 482 lesser health impacts. At various development stages, humans metabolize chemicals differently, 483 such that chemical exposures have more or less effect at different ages. 484

485

Several recent studies have s hown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 486 exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al

. (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 487 urine of farmworker children, with the most co mmon result being four different metabolites in a 488 urine sample. The study concludes that childre n in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary 489 sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 490

Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pestic ide exposure models, found 29 different 491 pesticides in the homes of 20 farmworker child ren in the Salinas Valle y of California, and 492 pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non493 farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside th e homes. They found 494 significantly higher levels of at razine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 495 farm households. The distribution of the samp les in the various room s of the house (higher 496 levels in the worker’s changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 497 transported home on farmer’s clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 498 pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the takehome exposure 499 pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results th at indicate the takehome exposure is an important 500 source of exposure for children. Studies cited by Vida et al. (2007) consistently found higher 501 levels of pesticides in the ag ricultural households and that le vels of OP residues vary by 502 agricultural activity. The highest levels of azi nphos-methyl, for example were associated with 503 thinning activities that a farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al ., 2004, 504

Coronado et al ., 2006). Curl et al ., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home 505 and residues in vehicles, which suggest the takehome pathway is the source for the residues. 506*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

10 Exposure studies on organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, suggest 507 that the takehome pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005, 508 Bradman 2007, Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007). 509

510

Adolescent workers and handlers 511

512 Adolescents working on farms or as handlers can be exposed to pesticides via the same pathways 513 as adult workers and handlers, but they may face higher levels of exposure and greater risks. 514

515

There is evidence that adolescents do not make ri sk management decisions in the way that adults 516 do that make exposure to pesticides more likely. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than 517 the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers betwee n 16 and 19 is four times 518 the rate for all adults (Institu te for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, 519 adolescents working on farms have shown awarene ss of safety issues, rules, and the risks of 520 injury on farms, but they behave according to th eir own perception of risk, and take more risks 521 while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during worktime 522 (Rowntree, Darragh et al. , 1998). The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, 523 particularly in the areas of j udgment, risk-taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). 524 The parts of the brain going through these maturati on processes in adolesce nts are important for 525 perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan 526

et al. , 2010). 527 528
Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group st udying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 529 teens knew of the risk associated with pestic ide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 530 among the group relating to individual suscep tibility, and responses indicated a somewhat 531

cavalier attitude toward health and safety issues (Salazar et al ., 2004). 532

533 According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveilla nce data shows that working 534 youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pestic ide illness, attributed 535 to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity (Calvert 536

et al. , 2003). The literature s hows that adolescents are more like ly to engage in risky behavior 537 than adults. In economic terms, adolescents behave as if they have extremely high discount 538

rates, i.e. , very little beyond the im mediate moment matters. 539

540

Children and adolescents are sti ll going through important developm ental changes, and pesticide 541 exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiological systems. 542 Although adolescents are more fully developed than younger children, there are still important 543 development processes continuing. In particular brain changes sti ll continue, such as the final 544

maturation of the cerebral co rtex through synaptic pruning and myelination (important 545 physiological process that reduce the excess ne uron connections in the brain and enclosing 546 individual neurons in an insulating sheath, wh ich increase the efficiency of information 547 processing) (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These ch anges occur during adolescence, when the 548 effects of toxicants like pesticides on the ner vous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 549 2000). In addition, the earlier occupational exposu re gives more time for any delayed health 550 effects from chronic exposure to manife st themselves over a full lifetime. 551

552*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

11 

### 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure 553

554 In addition to the effects of acute exposure me ntioned above, workers and handlers face risks 555 from chronic exposure to pesticides, as well. Although the children and families may suffer 556 illness from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for this group is exposure to 557 low levels of pesticides over a l onger period of time, either from the agricultural environment or 558 in the home, where pesticides have been trans ported on the clothes of workers and handlers. 559 There are a broad range of illnesse s with a relationship to this type of chronic exposure. 560

561 There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 562 pregnant women may affect children. Pre- natal exposure to pregnant women may have 563 particularly important effects on neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et 564

al . (2009) find an association between prenatal exposure to the mother and future childhood 565 leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 566 of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functi onal deficiencies, altered growth 567 and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 568 pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibili ty of fetal development during pregnancy. 569

570 While only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 571 various peer-review bodies, there is a wide literature demonstr ating statistical associations 572 between pesticide exposure and cance r, with biological plausibility illustrated in experimental 573 toxicology studies. The International Agen cy for Research on Cancer (IARC) has only 574 identified two classes of pesticides to be carci nogens (some arsenical inse cticides and those with 575 dioxin contaminants), but classifi es non-arsenical pesticides as possible human carcinogens. 576 However, many studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and 577

cancer. 578

579 Synthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles 580 and meta-analytic results indicate evidence of an association between va rious pesticide exposure 581 and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); 582 among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in 583

association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticid e occupational exposure (Bassil et 584

al ., 2007; Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010; Van Maele et al ., 2011, Wigle et 585

al ., 2009, Turner et al ., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al ., 2013). 586

587 Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a revi ew of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 588 agricultural populations. They report that meta-a nalyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 589 excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 590 and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 591 cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 592 of studies of individual cancers show the importa nce of identifying specific exposures that lead 593

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these aut hors conclude factors other than 594 pesticide exposures may partially explain th e observed increased risk of cancer among 595 agriculturally exposed occupational gr oups (Blair and Beane-Freeman, 2009). 596

597*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

12 Initial evidence of a possible asso ciation between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 598 lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health 599 Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al ., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al ., 2007 for 600 colon cancer, Andreotti et al ., 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, 601

cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009). 602

603



### 1.2.3 Market Failure 604

605 Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: incomplete 606 information and externalities. The former implie s that full information about the consequences 607 of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The la tter implies that some of the 608 consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, 609 there may be a socially undesirable amount or ki nd of use. If the market fails to provide 610 incentives to develop and dissemina te pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to 611 avoid external effects, there may be a role fo r government intervention to protect workers and 612 handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposur e. This intervention must adapt to changes 613 in industry and, especially, to the advancements of scientific knowle dge about the risks of 614 pesticide exposure. 615

616

Incomplete Information 617

618 Incomplete information may be the most cri tical problem leading to avoidable pesticide 619 exposure. Handlers working directly with pest icides and agricultural workers on farms where 620 pesticides are used may not have complete info rmation about the occupational risks they face or 621 the potential consequences to their families if pe sticide residues are transported to the home. 622 Incomplete information arises in two ways. 623

624 First, there may be barriers to obtaining the information. Many who are employed in agriculture, 625 for example, are not native English speakers; an estimated 44 percent of agricultural employees 626 do not speak English (US Department of Labor, 2005). Many are migrant laborers who could 627 lack access to sources of information, such as familiar extension agents, because they are 628 frequently away from home, but many workers ma y not have access, especially internet access, 629 to convenient, reliable information (US Departme nt of Labor, 2005). These barriers result in 630 high search costs that can deter agricultural work ers and handlers from obtaining information on 631 their own. Finally, information regarding pesticid es and pesticide use may not be available in 632 the time frame that is require d to take appropriate action. 633

634 Second, there may not be incentives for workers and handlers to seek out information about 635 pesticides. Symptoms of pestic ide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, 636 or other factors, especially for workers who ma y not even be aware that they have been in 637 contact with pesticides or in pe sticide-treated areas. Long-term or chronic effects of pesticide 638 exposure do not manifest themselves immediately and employees may not be motivated to learn 639 more about the risks they face given more immedi ate job requirements. These issues can result 640

in workers and handlers with insufficient inform ation to make informed choices about their 641 safety. 642*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

13 643

Externalities 644

645

Another factor that contributes to unnecessary pestic ide exposure is that the party making the 646 application decision does not bear all of the negative e ffects of a pesticide application, including 647

the health effects on others. This is a classic ex ternality that can result in a divergence between 648 the social and private costs of using a pesticide. 649

650 An externality of this type could imply that th ere are fewer protections for workers and handlers 651 than would be socially desirable. Employers may lack the incentive to seek out or act on the 652 information they have on the negative consequences of pesticides or the possible measures that 653 can be taken to avoid negative outcomes. This ma y be particularly true when the adverse effects 654 are not readily observable, but occur due to chronic exposure. Moreover, there are numerous 655 pesticides, many with complex effects on human and environmental systems, which can make it 656 costly for employers to obtain information for th eir employees. Similarly, adequate protections 657 may require specialized knowledge, e.g. , toxicology, that employers simply do not have. 658

659

Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections 660

661 Another concern is the presence of institutional constraints. EPA last revised the WPS 662 requirements in 1992. Some existing requirements ha ve proven to be vague or open to differing 663 interpretations leading to regulatory uncertaint y. Moreover, society’s understanding of exposure 664 and risk has evolved and regulat ory requirements are most useful when they reflect current 665 knowledge. 666

667

Environmental Justice Issues 668

669

There are several reasons that e nvironmental justice considerations are especially important for 670 the agricultural employees covered by the WPS. 671

672

 Because of their occupation, workers and handlers face more potential exposure to 673 pesticides than the general public, and may be subject to multiple exposures of different 674 pesticides over the course of their working life. 675

676

 Language barriers and challenges for this wo rkforce make it difficult for workers and 677 handlers to participate in making decisions abou t the risks they face as they perform their 678 jobs. 679

680

 Workers, handlers and their families may be s ubject to a higher risk of harm than non681 agricultural workers. Children and adolesce nts are especially vul nerable to pesticide 682 exposure, because their body systems are st ill developing. Pove rty, poor nutrition and 683

lack of access to health car e can exacerbate the risks from this exposure. 684

685*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

14  The cumulative effects of occupational pestic ide exposure can have long term impacts on 686

the health of worker and handler communities. See Section 1.2.2. These potential effects 687 are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6. 688

689 According to the National Agricultural Work ers Survey (NAWS), in 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005), 75 690 percent of farmworkers were born in Mexico. Twenty th ree percent were born in the U.S., with a 691 small percentage born in other c ountries. Eighty one percent of the community speaks Spanish 692 as a native language, with a gr owing percentage speaking other languages such as Creole, or 693 Mixteco. Forty-four percent of workers could not speak English “at all” and 53 percent could 694 not read English “at all,” and many workers ha ve received minimal formal education. The 695 NAWS reports that, in 2001-2002, most forei gn-born workers completed the sixth grade, 696 whereas most US-born workers completed the eleven th grade. Forty three percent traveled at 697 least 75 miles in the previous year to find an agricultural job, and are therefore defined as 698 migrant, posing challenges for effective outreach . Twenty one percent live in housing provided 699 by their employer, with 58 percent living in hous ing rented from someone else. The NAWS 700 (DoL, 2005) found that crop workers’ aver age annual income was between $10,000 and $12,499, 701 with total family income averaging between $15,000 and $17,499. Thirty percent of surveyed 702 workers had family incomes below the poverty level. 703

704



### 1.3 Affected Communities 705

706 The primary entities that will be impacted by the proposed change s to the WPS are agricultural 707 employees and their families, agricultural establis hments (which include farms, forests, nurseries 708 and greenhouses) that use pesticid es in the production of agricultu ral plants and hire workers or 709 handlers, and commercial pesticid e handling establishments (CPHEs ). Other affected entities 710 include family farms that use pesticides, fo restry operations, and businesses providing crop 711 advisory services. Under the proposed revisions , state agencies are expected to incur only 712

minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations

. 713

714


### 1.3.1 Agricultural Employees 715

716 WPS offers protections to as many as 2.3 milli on agricultural employees (NASS, 2008b). The 717 current rule is intended to protect workers and handlers on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses 718 from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operations although most 719 workers in forestry would generally not be at substantially more risk than the general public due 720 to pesticide use patterns in forestry. 721

722 Pesticides of one type or another are used on th e majority of farms in the United States, so a 723 large portion of the agricultural workforce is pot entially exposed each year. According to data 724 from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), over 300,000 farms employing over 2.0 725 million workers used pesticides in 2007. EPA es timates that within the farmworker population 726 are almost 250,000 employees who handle pesticides, including those who mix and load 727 pesticides and assist with applic ation as well as those who apply pe sticides. Over several years, 728 however, it is likely that nearly all 395,000 agricu ltural establishments that hire labor will use 729 pesticides, thus all agricultural wo rkers are potentially expos ed to risks of adverse health effects. 730*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

15 However, many farm workers ar e not engaged in hand labor ac tivities and the potential for 731 exposure is quite low. 732

733 Agricultural workers and handl ers are expected to benefit from the proposed rule through 734 provisions that would require ag ricultural employers to provide information to workers and 735 handlers about risks from pestic ides and ways they can minimize their exposure, to provide 736 warnings about treated areas, to provide protective measures such as personal protective 737 equipment, and to provide decontamination supp lies in case they are exposed to agricultural 738 pesticides. The costs of the proposed rule are no t generally expected to fall directly on workers 739

and handlers. 740

741


### 1.3.2 Regulated Entities 742

743 According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were over 2.2 million 744 agricultural establishmen ts in the United States. Anothe r 10,000 commercial es tablishments do 745 business such as providing contract services fo r pest control (Census Bureau, 2006). The WPS 746 covers a subset of agricultural establishments invol ved in plant agriculture. These include farms, 747 livestock operations that gr ow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations. An 748 agricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the 749 management or condition of an agricultural estab lishment, and employs any worker or handler. 750 The WPS also covers self-employed handlers, such as the operator of a family farm who applies 751 pesticides. 752

753 For the purposes of this analysis, we distinguish two types of estab lishments affected by the rule: 754 (1) farms, including livestock operations that pr oduce crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and forestry 755 operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). Within each type, 756 we further distinguish between those who are self-employed ( e.g. , the family farm) and those 757 who employ others. Farms that use pesticides a nd hire labor bear most of the cost of the 758 proposed changes to the WPS. The major sources of impact will be in a dditional labor cost to 759 account for time spent in training and in giving and receiving information. 760

761

Agricultural Establishments 762

763 According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million farms, 764 nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States, of which over 1.5 million are involved in plant 765 agriculture. At EPA’s request , the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 766 Statistics Service (NASS) c onducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of 767 Agriculture and determined th at 788,582 agricultural establishments pr oducing crops used 768 pesticides in 2007. Of those, 304,348 farms also hired labor, leaving 484,234 family farms that 769 used pesticides in 2007. Those family farms, how ever, are exempt from most provisions of the 770 WPS. Family farms benefit from the WPS because it provides several exceptions or alternatives 771 to pesticide label requirements including permission to enter treated fields during the Restricted 772 Entry Interval (REI) under cert ain conditions. The WPS also se ts standards for engineering 773 controls, such as closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for 774 personal protective equipment (PPE). 775*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

16 776 The WPS, and any revisions to it, will primarily a ffect the establishments that use pesticides and 777 hire labor such as the 304,348 farms identified in the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 778 2008b). However, pesticides are not necessarily us ed every year, even by conventional growers. 779 Thus, EPA uses the number of farms hiri ng labor, 394,658, as the likely universe of farms 780 covered by WPS requirements (NASS, 2008b). For convenience, throughout this document, we 781 refer to the farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor as “WPS farms.” The use of all 782 farms hiring labor may be a slight overestima tion due to the presence of organic growers, 783 however many organic producers also have conv entionally grown fields and organic-approved 784 pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and 785 are subject to WPS standards of safety. The num ber of these farms actually using pesticides in 786 any given year, as indicated by the 2007 Census, will be important for many of the requirements. 787

788 Similar information on the number of entities using pesticides for forestry operations is not 789 available. However, WPS requirements do not a pply when treated areas are removed from areas 790 where workers are employed. Given forest prod uction practices, pestic ide applications and 791 worker activities are commonly quite distinct and so WPS re quirements would rarely impact 792 forestry operations. 793

794

Commercial Pesticide Handling Establishments 795

796 The number of commercial pesticide handling es tablishments or CPHEs is derived from Dunn 797 and Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Statistics (BLS, 798 2008) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farms. 799 About 5,000 individual firms were identified from a search of D&B for firms that are listed 800 under the NAICS code 115112 (Soil preparation, planting, and cultivatin g). In order to 801

determine the number of firms that would qualify as commercial pesticide handling 802 establishments as defined by the WPS, EPA dete rmined that only the 1,231 firms which reported 803 hiring at least one employee with the following St andard Industrial Cla ssification (SIC) code 804 descriptions: crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop pr otecting services, soil 805 chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting) would be 806

defined as CPHEs under WPS. EPA also estim ates that there are 1,562 aerial applicators 807 covered by the WPS, based on information pr ovided by the National Agricultural Aviation 808 Association (NAAA, 2008). 809

810 EPA further estimated, based on the number of commercial applicators certified for plant 811 production, that there are nearly 87,000 self-emp loyed handlers providing commercial services 812 to the agricultural se ctor (CPARD, 2007). 813

814



### 1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation 815

816 EPA is proposing requirements to address the prob lems arising from inadequate information and 817 externalities, to clarify require d actions, and to reflect current knowledge. Chapter 2 discusses 818 the proposed requirements, as well as alternative re quirements, in more detail. For this analysis, 819 EPA organizes the proposed requi rements into eight categories. 820*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

17 821 Three categories primarily address the i ssue of incomplete information. Training requirements 822 are designed to provide general information to employees where an important aspect of the 823 pesticide safety training is to provide workers and handlers with information about the risks of 824 pesticides and steps they can take to mi nimize their exposure. Hazard Communication and 825

Notification requirements are designed to provide timely application-sp ecific information. These 826 proposed requirements would mean that agricultural workers rece ive the information they need 827 when they need it. 828

829 Three categories address the externality issue an d provide protections to employees working with 830 pesticides. Age restrictions are meant to protect adol escents, whose devel oping systems may be 831 more susceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescen ts may also be less able to judge the potential 832 risks of exposure, especially the long-ter m effects, compared to adults. Entry restrictions are 833 designed to reduce the possible adve rse effects on workers who are in proximity either in time or 834 space to a pesticide application. Requiremen ts for personal protective equipment (PPE) are 835 intended to provide handlers with protection from pesticide exposure during handling tasks. 836

837 The final two categories revise regulations to provide greater clarity and to help employers 838 adequately prepare for the possibility of exposure. The proposed requirements for 839 decontamination supplies and emergency assistance clarify existing requirements. 840

841


### 1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation 842

843 States and territories may establish local standa rds, provided the minimum federal standards are 844 met. For improved protections and efficiency, EPA concludes that the federal standards should 845

be revised. 846

847 First, there are efficiency gain s for state and local agencies re sponsible for implementing worker 848 protection standards. Many states rely on the fe deral standards because data on pesticide effects 849 are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and the duplication of effort. Thus, 850 while states have the authority to issue their own regulations, they may lack the resources to 851 individually examine toxicolo gical and exposure data and re vise protection standards. 852

853 There are also potential efficiency gains for ag ricultural establishments when there is greater 854 consistency in worker protection requirements across states. Many workers migrate through the 855 agricultural season as different crops and regions need labor at different times. If worker 856 protection standards vary signifi cantly across jurisdictions, workers may be confused about their 857 rights and regulatory protections. Additionally, agricultural employers and farm managers or 858 supervisors who cross state boundaries may inadve rtently be out of comp liance if regulatory 859 requirements are inconsistent. Further, if di fferent states imposed different requirements, 860 workers who cross state boundaries may be confus ed about their rights and responsibilities. 861 Different notification requirements, in particular , that might present information in different 862 ways, would be particularly confusing. 863

864*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

18 There may also be efficiency gains in establis hing consistent training requirements. Federal 865 requirements for training standards can ease th e burden of developing pr ograms for individual 866

entities. 867

868


### 1.4.2 Statutory Authority 869

870 The Federal Insecticide, Fungi cide and Rodenticide Act (F IFRA) of 1947 established a 871 framework for the regulation of pesticide produ cts. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal 872

Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 USC 136 et. seq .) broadened federal pesticide regulatory 873 authority to make it “unlawful for any person to use any registered product in a manner 874 inconsistent with its labeling” (7 USC 136i(a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments provided civil and 875 criminal penalties for violations of the Act (7 USC 136l) and authorized the Administrator to 876 provide regulations to carry out the Act (7 USC 136w(a)). The new and revised provisions 877 directed EPA to protect humans and the envi ronment from unreasonable adverse effects of 878 pesticides. 879

880*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

19 

## Chapter 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS 881

882 EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to improve the 883 protections for agricultural workers, handl ers and their families. The WPS establishes 884 requirements to inform agricultural workers and handlers that they may encounter pesticides 885 either through contact with treated surfaces or through handling activities including mixing, 886 loading and applying pesticides. Broadly speaking, the WPS is meant to (1) inform workers and 887 handlers about the pesticides they use or to whic h they come into contact, (2) protect workers 888 and handlers from the adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the adverse effects of 889

exposure. 890

891 This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the WPS, as well as alternative 892 options considered by EPA. The discussion pr ovides a general overv iew of each potential 893 change to the WPS; the proposed regulatory te xt for 40 CFR part 170 provides the actual 894 regulatory language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not 895 discussed. The NPRM for the proposed rule pr esents additional detail on the proposed changes 896 and the alternatives considered, including some a dditional alternatives not considered here that 897 were rejected for reasons such as practicality an d enforceability. The discussion in this chapter 898 focuses on the benefits of the proposals and alte rnative options. Chapter 3 estimates the costs 899 each would impose and Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits. 900

901 The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non-regulatory programs that have been 902 established to improve worker safety. The remai nder of the chapter is or ganized according to the 903 ways the proposals will improve worker safety ( i.e. , to inform workers, protect against exposure, 904 or mitigate the effects of exposure). For each of these three broad elements, the individual line 905 items that make up the regulatory options are discussed. Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses the 906 changes that will better inform workers and handle rs about protecting themselves from pesticide 907 exposure, which comprise three categories, training, hazard communication, and notification. 908 The provisions that protect work ers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in 909

Section 2.3 and are divided into th ree categories, age requirements , restrictions on entry into a 910 treated area, and personal protect ive equipment (PPE) requirements to protect against exposure. 911 The final section, 2.4, addresses changes to the WPS that will mitigate the adverse effects of 912 contact with pesticides includi ng provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response 913 requirements. Please refer to the NPRM for the WPS revisions for a complete discussion of the 914 regulatory options considered under this rulemaki ng proposal and the rationale for the Agency’s 915

selection of the fina l proposed options. 916

917*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

20 

### 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 918

919 EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is comprised of three major components: 920

 protections for agricultural labor through the agri cultural worker pr otection regulation 921 and support activities; 922

 the establishment of federal competency st andards for the certif ication of pesticide 923 applicators; and 924

 the national health care provide rs’ pesticide initiative. 925

926


### 2.1.1 Non-regulatory Approaches 927

928 In addition to the regulatory changes that EP A is proposing, the Agency engages in extensive 929 non-regulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, handlers, thei r families and the public 930 from pesticide exposure and potential injury. To implement these programs, the Office of 931 Pesticide Programs works with an extensive ne twork of partners incl uding state and tribal 932 pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s Nationa l Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); 933 university cooperative extension services; fa rmworker advocacy groups; and the regulated 934 community. 935

936 EPA funds pesticide safety education and out reach, and regulatory s upport activities through 937 grants with governmental and non-governmental organizations with the goal of improving the 938 health of workers, handlers, applicators, the pub lic, and the environment. For example, EPA has 939 a grant with National Association of State De partments of Agricultu re-Research Foundation 940 (NASDA-RF) to enhance and support national pestic ide safety program efforts in order to reduce 941 pesticide exposure risks in pe sticide worker and other aff ected populations. Regionally, 942 nationally, and internationally, NAS DA-RF, in collaboration with EP A, works with a variety of 943 partners (community-based orga nizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care 944 providers, regulators, subject matter experts, agri cultural retailers) to assess the needs of the 945 targeted communities and develop creative community-based action plans to enhance risk 946 reduction via targeted training a nd outreach methods including: workshops, hands-on training, 947 fact sheets, manuals, exam s, Web, DVDs, and webinars. 948

949 EPA partners the Centers for Disease Control (C DC) National Institute for Occupational Safety 950 and Health (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notificat ion System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) 951 program, which gathers information related to oc cupational pesticide inci dents, including those 952 experienced by farmworkers. These data have been useful in characterizi ng the benefits of these 953 rule proposals, as disc ussed in Chapter 6. 954

955 EPA has also participated in the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey 956 (NAWS), which collects demographic, heal th, and working condition information from 957

farmworkers and handlers. These data are useful to direct the devel opment of materials in 958 appropriate languages and complexity. 959

960 EPA supports state implementation of 40 CFR pa rt 171, which regulates the competency of 961 pesticide applicators who use restricted use pest icides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement 962*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

21 with USDA to support the training of applicator s using RUPs through th e cooperative extension 963

services in each state. 964

965 A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national health care providers 966 pesticide initiative, aimed at improving the trai ning of health care provi ders in the recognition, 967 diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pes ticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the 968 development of a manual for health care pr oviders called “Recogniti on and Management of 969 Pesticide Poisoning.” This resource outlines the h ealth effects associated with different classes 970 of pesticides and suggests treatm ents based on the suspected expos ure. Under this initiative, 971 EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clin icians Network, which operates a project to 972 improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and 973 treat pesticide-related conditions . This project includes the deve lopment of relevant resources 974 and tools that health care provi ders need to deal effectively with pesticide-related health 975 conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessi ons, the Internet, and 976 continuing educati on opportunities. 977

978 The regulatory changes proposed for the WPS ar e designed to complement EPA’s pesticide 979 worker safety program activities to improve prot ections for agricultural workers, handlers, and 980 their families. In many cases, the regulatory changes that EPA is considering came out of the 981 process of consulting with stakeholders and indu stry participants on how to improve pesticide 982 worker safety. 983

984


### 2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches 985

986 Approval of a new or amended pesticide registra tion for sale and use implies EPA approval of 987 the pesticide label. By law, use of a pesticid e must not result in unr easonable risks to human 988 health or the environment. It is illegal to us e any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent 989 with its labeling. EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for how 990 the pesticide must be used in order to prot ect people and the environment from pesticide 991 exposure. The label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific 992 pesticide, where these measures are determined according to the results of the Agency’s risk 993 assessments, including occ upational risk assessments. 994

995 The label, however, is not available to the typi cal farmworker, because they are not involved in 996 the use of the pesticide; as noted previously, they are potentially exposed via contact with treated 997 surfaces after the application has been complete d. The WPS complements the label by providing 998 protections from this post-application exposure. It established requirements on the employer to 999 notify employees of treated areas, to provide pest icide safety training information that enables 1000 workers and handlers to protect themselves and thei r families, to provide supplies to be used to 1001 mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or 1002 handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are generic, crossing all 1003 agricultural use products covere d by the WPS and are more a ppropriately, efficiently, and 1004 consistently covered in regulation. 1005

1006*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

22 

### 2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers 1007

1008 EPA is considering changes to requirements fo r pesticide safety training, hazard communication, 1009 and notification of agricultural workers and handler s to better inform th em of potential dangers 1010 related to pesticide exposure. These measures wo rk together to provide workers with important 1011 information about their working conditions a nd how they should act in those conditions. 1012 Changes to the pesticide safety training re quirements will increase worker and handler 1013 understanding of their potential exposure and kn owledge of appropriate measures to take to 1014 protect themselves and their families. Hazard communication requirements make application1015 specific and pesticide-specific information av ailable when needed. Notification includes 1016 measures to ensure that workers know about pest icide-treated areas and th at reinforce pesticide 1017 safety training. Better hazard communication and notification imparts more appropriate 1018 information to workers so they can avoid unnece ssary exposure to pesticides and take proper 1019 protective measures when necessary. 1020

1021 For each of these potential modifications to the WPS, a summary table of the current, proposed, 1022 and alternative requirements is presented. Note that one alternative is to leave the current 1023 requirements in place. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a qualitative 1024 discussion of expected benefits as well as any disadvantages. For each of the possible 1025 modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAIN-04). These indicators are also used in 1026 Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented. For complete details on the 1027 regulatory changes, see the proposed regulatory text and the NPRM. 1028

1029


### 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options 1030

1031 Current pesticide safety training provides info rmation on pesticides, how workers and handlers 1032 may come into contact with them, how to prev ent exposure to pesticid es, and what to do if 1033 exposed to pesticides. EPA is considering chan ges to worker and handler training requirements, 1034 such as the frequency and content, and ch anges to supporting regul ations that include 1035 recordkeeping, training verificati on, and trainer qualifications. 1036

1037

Worker Training 1038

1039 Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area 1040 that has been treated with a pesticide or been und er an REI within 30 days. If full training cannot 1041 be provided before the first entr y into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training 1042 consisting of basic safety informa tion; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry. 1043 Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. WPS also specifies training 1044 content and trainer qualifications . Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of the current requirements 1045 and the potential changes EPA has considered. 1046

1047*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

23 Table 2.2-1. Current, Proposed, and Alt ernative Worker Training Requirements. 1048 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 periodwith 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)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

24 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Criteria for Trainers of Workers

Training for workers can be performed by certified applicators, trainers of certified applicators, peoplewho 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)

1049

1050 Pesticide Safety Training Grace Period for Workers (TRAIN-01 and 02) 1051

1052 The WPS currently permits a fi ve-day grace period for pesticid e safety training of workers 1053 during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated area s without receipt of 1054 the full pesticide safety traini ng. Employers are required to pr ovide workers with abbreviated 1055 safety training in lieu of the full pesticide safety training. After five days of entry into a treated 1056 area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must 1057 receive full pesticide safety tr aining. This grace period was de signed to allow flexibility for 1058 agricultural establishments and was originally imp lemented because the avai lability of trainers 1059

was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992. 1060

1061 Options for revision are discussed in detail in Unit XVII.C of the NPRM. 1062

1063

TRAIN-01 1064 A potential option is to eliminat e the grace period and require training of all employees prior to 1065 their entry into a treated area. The advantage of this option is that all workers would receive the 1066 full safety training prior to entering treated ar eas, providing workers with the full information 1067 they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. It w ould also prevent the possibility 1068 that a worker never receives full training because he or she changes employers without working 1069 more than five days at a time, which may happen, for example, during harvest season. 1070 Disadvantages of this option are that it reduces the flexibility of growers who hire workers at 1071 different times and that a worker may receiv e duplicative training if he or she changes 1072 employers. 1073

1074

TRAIN-02 1075 The proposed requirement would requ ire training prior to entry into a treated area, but allow an 1076 exception with a two-day grace pe riod. It would also expand the information provided to 1077 employees during this period. The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN-01 in 1078 that workers may still be entering treated areas without full training and some workers may never 1079 receive full training. However, the disadvantages are also less because th is option retains some 1080 flexibility for growers who may hi re workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and 1081 it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings. 1082

1083*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

25 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency 1084

1085 Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five ye ars. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 1086 provides a complete description of the curr ent and proposed requirements and alternative 1087 options. 1088

1089

TRAIN-03/04 1090 The proposed option (TRAIN-03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual 1091 pesticide safety training, rather than once every five years as under the ex isting requirement. 1092 One alternative considered (TRAIN -04) would be to require pest icide safety training every two 1093 years. Periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et al . (2000) showed 1094 that two years after training, me dical students performed no better than untrained students in 1095 following protocols to prevent infections in them selves and their patients. Thus, retention of 1096 pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training, both 1097 of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are 1098 improvements in workers’ ability to protect them selves from pesticide exposure, which in turn 1099 leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6. Annual training is common practice in 1100 other industries and not only for safety. For example, the federal gove rnment requires annual 1101 training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cybersecurity. OS HA requires annual training in 1102 workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals ar e present. Many agricultural employers are 1103 already providing annual safety training unde r OSHA requirements and annual training in 1104 pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements. 1105

1106

TRAIN-05 1107 A second alternative, suggested by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (EPA, 1108 2008), would be to provide an exception from an nual worker training for WPS farms with fewer 1109 than ten employees if there ha d been no turnover in the work force and no changes in the 1110 application information ( e.g. , pesticides used, app lication rates) since the last worker safety 1111 training. This alternativ e would reduce the burden on small fa rms (discussed in Chapter 3). The 1112 exception would only apply to WPS farms that do not change pesticide use patterns, implying 1113 that workers would have, at some point, learned appropriate safety practices. As noted above, 1114 however, people tend to forget safety lessons over time even when the work environment does 1115 not change. 1116

1117 Pesticide Safety Training Content 1118

1119 Current pesticide safety training for field workers covers 11 points: 1120 (1) possible ways exposure to pesticide occurs, 1121 (2) hazards associated with exposure, 1122 (3) routes by which pestic ides can enter the body, 1123 (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 1124 (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 1125 (6) obtaining medical care, 1126 (7) decontamination procedures, 1127 (8) hazards associated with ch emigation and spray drift, 1128 (9) hazards from residues on clothing, 1129*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

26 (10) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, and 1130 (11) WPS requirements that employers must meet ( e.g. , notifications, emergency 1131 assistance, etc. ). 1132 EPA considered several options for expanding the c ontent of the required worker pesticide safety 1133 training. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details. 1134

1135

TRAIN-06/07 1136 Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce 1137 take-home pesticide exposure, worker rights ( e.g. , to hazard information) and protections ( e.g. , 1138 from retaliation), and new WPS requirements. This information addresses problem areas that 1139 have been identified by EPA, state enforcemen t agencies, and advocacy groups since the last 1140 revisions to WPS in 1992. See Chapter 1. For example, many recent studies have shown the 1141 potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home. Training in new WPS 1142 requirements, including information to be provid ed in case of entry into a field under a REI and 1143 the availability of hazard communication material s, will help to insure safety measures are 1144 followed and that workers understand their employe r’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to 1145 pesticides. The alternative is identical excep t for the information on hazard communication. The 1146 proposed option would explain th e information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see 1147 HAZCOM-02); the alternative woul d explain how to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM-04). 1148

1149 Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications 1150

1151 Currently, pesticide safety training for work ers can be conducted by certified pesticide 1152 applicators, handlers, trainers of certified applicators, and people who have completed an 1153 approved pesticide safety “train-the-trainer” pr ogram. Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for 1154 complete details. 1155

1156

TRAIN-08 1157 The proposed option would eliminate training of wo rkers by certified applic ators and handlers. 1158 The benefit of this propo sal is that trainers of certified a pplicators and those having completed a 1159 train-the-trainers program would ha ve better and more relevant sk ills to provide higher quality 1160 training programs, which result in better work er protection. The e xperience of certified 1161 applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide applic ation and safety, may have less 1162 relevance for workers where the primary concern is post-application exposure via contact with 1163 treated plants and other surfaces. Further, wit hout additional preparati on, certified applicators 1164 and handlers may not have the adult educati on skills needed to successfully convey the 1165

information to workers that come from dive rse and linguistically a nd culturally-distinct 1166 backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requ irement will ensure that properly qualified 1167 trainers deliver the required pesticide safety tr aining, thereby ensuring that workers receive and 1168 understand the critical pesticide safety informati on they need to protect themselves and their 1169

families. 1170

1171

TRAIN-09 1172 An alternative option EPA considered was to rest rict qualified trainers to only those who have 1173 completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer pr ogram. In comparison to the proposed option, 1174 this would put a greater emphasis on education skills tailored to the farmworker community. 1175*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

27 1176

Handler Training 1177

1178 WPS provisions for handler safety training are sim ilar to those for workers. Handlers must take 1179 the safety training, covering specifie d topics, at least every five y ears. The WPS specifies trainer 1180 qualifications. Table 2.2-2 provi des a summary of the current re quirements for handler training 1181 and the potential changes EPA has considered. 1182

1183 Handler training must be provided prior to th e employee performing any handling task. No 1184 grace period is permitted. 1185

1186 Table 2.2-2. Current, Proposed, and Alt ernative Handler Training Requirements. 1187 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)

1188

1189 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency 1190

1191 Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five ye ars. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 1192 provides a complete descri ption of the current a nd proposed requirements. 1193

1194*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

28 TRAIN-12/13 1195 As for agricultural workers, EPA is proposing th at handlers receive annu al pesticide safety 1196 training, rather than once every five years as under the existi ng requirement (TRAIN-12). The 1197 alternative (TRAIN-13) would require handler tr aining every two years. Similar to training 1198 frequency for workers, periodic training insures that critical information is retained; Calabro et 1199

al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than 1200 untrained students in following protocols to preven t infections in themselves and their patients. 1201 Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with a nnual training than with 1202 biennial training, both of which would be an impr ovement over the current five year cycle. The 1203 expected benefits are improvements in workers’ ability to protect themselves from pesticide 1204 exposure, which in turn leads to more tangibl e benefits as described in Chapter 6. 1205

1206 Pesticide Safety Training Content 1207

1208 Handler training currently covers 14 topics: 1209 (1) product label information, 1210 (2) hazards, 1211 (3) routes by which pestic ides can enter the body, 1212 (4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 1213 (5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 1214 (6) obtaining medical care, 1215 (7) decontamination procedures, 1216 (8) personal protective equipment, 1217 (9) heat-related illness issues, 1218 (10) safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, a nd disposing of pesticides, 1219 (11) environmental concerns, 1220 (12) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, 1221 (13) regulatory requirement s of pesticide handling, and 1222 (14) WPS requirements that employers must meet ( e.g. , notifications, emergency 1223 assistance, etc. ). 1224 EPA considered expanding the content of the requi red handler pesticide safe ty training to include 1225 several additional topics. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details. 1226

1227

TRAIN-14/15 1228 Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take-hom e pesticide exposure, 1229 handler rights, and new WPS requi rements. Benefits would be similar to those of worker 1230 training. For handler training, the additional co mponents not relevant to workers would be 1231 defining the restricted area during an application and proper proce dures if another person enters 1232 the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on 1233 respirator use, fit-testing of re spirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. This 1234 information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA. As with workers, the proposed 1235 option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the 1236 alternative would explain the in formation found in crop sheets. 1237*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

29 1238

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification 1239

1240 Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and 1241 handlers receive the required pesticide safety tr aining. This makes it difficult for both employers 1242 and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training 1243 requirements. There is, however, an optional progra m for states to distribu te training verification 1244 cards supplied by EPA to trainers . Agricultural employers in participating states can hire 1245 workers and handlers with valid training verifi cation cards, which can reduce their pesticide 1246 safety training burden when a potential empl oyee has a valid card. However, there is no 1247 requirement for a centralized re pository or record of the trai ning. Table 2.2-3 presents the 1248 potential requirements. Unit VII.B of th e NPRM discusses the current and proposed 1249 requirements in detail. 1250

1251 Table 2.2-3. Current, Proposed, and Altern ative Training Records Requirements. 1252 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)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

30 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)
1253 Recordkeeping 1254

1255

TRAIN-10/16 1256 Under one set of options, for worker and for ha ndlers, employers would be required to document 1257 pesticide safety trainings and maintain the reco rds for two years. Documentation would include 1258 the name of the workers trained, th e name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of 1259 training, the worker’s or handler’s date of birth, the training ma terials used, and the employee’s 1260 signature acknowledging training. 1261

1262

TRAIN-11/17 1263 The second set of options is iden tical except that records would be maintained for five years. 1264

1265 These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear 1266 method for verifying that applicab le requirements have been met. A clear advantage of the five1267 year option over the two-year re tention option is that it matche s the current five-year training 1268 cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN-03 and 04), a five-year retention period 1269 provides greater benefits than a two-year rete ntion period as enforcement actions may not be 1270 brought immediately. On the other hand, federal a nd state enforcement agencies have informed 1271 EPA that a two-year rete ntion period is adequate. 1272

1273

Verification 1274

1275

TRAIN-17 1276 This potential requirement would eliminate EPA’ s optional verification card system. States 1277 would retain the right to devel op their own verification card syst em (to complement the proposed 1278 recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. Howe ver, state agencies re port that verification 1279

cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering 1280 and falsification has become common practice. Further, worker and handler training does not 1281 currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot , in practice, be verified. 1282 Finally, with the current five-y ear training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that 1283 employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer. Thus, under the current 1284 system, verification cards provide li ttle benefit to either the empl oyer or the employee. In fact, 1285 many states do not participate in the system. 1286

1287*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

31 TRAIN-18 1288 An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when 1289 they are trained. Card distribution would be co nducted by the trainers. EPA would issue cards 1290 with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards. 1291 As noted above, this would have little benefit un der the current WPS. Falsified cards and the 1292 lack of a record keeping would continue to lim it the ability of growers to trust the validity and 1293 for enforcement to determine compliance. Ho wever, in conjunction with other potential 1294 requirements, there may be advantages. For example, if the existing grace period for full 1295 pesticide safety training is eliminated or s hortened (TRAIN-01 and 02) , a training verification 1296 system may be very useful for migrant worker s who switch employers and could prove they are 1297 in compliance with training requirements. Simila rly, with annual or bie nnial training (TRAIN1298 03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requiremen ts, cards will be less likely to be lost or 1299 falsified and will be more reliable, potentially reducing the need for employees to take multiple 1300 trainings and for employers to provide multiple trainings. A major drawback to the card is that a 1301

driver’s license-sized card will be too small to contain all th e required information, and would 1302 therefore require additional effort on the part of the employer to have a complete record. 1303

1304

TRAIN-19 1305 The proposed option is similar to TRAIN-18 but doe s not require the use of the verification cards 1306 and would simply require the employer to provid e a copy of the training record to the trained 1307 employee. In comparison to TRAIN-18, this requ irement would be more convenient for original 1308 employer, who would not have to provide individua lized cards to every trained worker. It also 1309 insures that the subsequent employer has all the in formation for his or her own records. It may 1310 be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to 1311

another establishment than to ca rry a wallet-sized card. In add ition, the potential for fraud, as 1312 with TRAIN-18, remains. 1313

1314


### 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options 1315

1316 Under current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer mu st provide employees with 1317 application-specific information, including the name of the pestic ide used. The information is 1318 posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 days after the REI 1319 expires. EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide-specific informa tion be made available 1320 and is also proposing to adjust how application and pesticide-specific information is presented. 1321 Table 2.2-4 presents the current, proposed, and alternative requi rements for hazard 1322

communication. 1323

1324*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

32 Table 2.2-4. Current, Proposed, and Altern ative Hazard Communication Requirements. 1325 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)
1326

Application Specific Inform ation and Availability 1327

1328

HAZCOM-01 1329 Agricultural employers are curren tly required to post, at a centr al location, application-specific 1330 information including the location of the treated ar ea, the pesticide used, th e time and date of the 1331 application, and the duration of th e REI. The information must be posted before the application 1332 is made and must be displayed for 30 days afte r the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM1333 01, would have the agricultural employer to comp ile the application-specific information as 1334 currently required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI. The 1335 addition of the site treated information will help employees and inspectors identify the precise 1336

treated area. Addition of the st art and end times for the applica tion, in conjunction with the date, 1337 would assist in determining the date and time th e REI ends. This gives employees more precise 1338 information than just the duration. Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting 1339*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

33 requirement for the pesticide application information and instead make the application 1340 information available upon request by workers, handl ers, or their authorized representative. This 1341 approach to hazard communication has certain a dvantages over centralized posting. Detailed 1342 information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis. Multiple postings at 1343 a central location may even lead to confusion a bout specific products used on particular fields 1344 without providing actionable information. The WPS also requires agricultural employers to 1345 notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur. Finally, many 1346 central posting areas are exterior gathering locations a nd postings are subject to loss or damage 1347 by wind and weather. A clear disadvantage is th at employees may feel uncomfortable or unable 1348 to request the information from their employe r. Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more 1349 complete discussion of this requirement. 1350

1351

Pesticide Specific Inform ation and Availability 1352

1353

HAZCOM-02 1354 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the 1355 SDS. The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical 1356 or product, symptoms of poisoni ng, and treatment information while the pesticide label informs 1357 on proper procedures for handling or worki ng safely with the product. OSHA requires 1358 employers in other industries pr ovide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are 1359 already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than 1360 pesticides. EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, 1361 although there may be cases where an employee mi ght seek information about a specific product. 1362

1363 In practice, the primary benefit of th is requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness. 1364 Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 1365

treatment for workers and handlers without th e relevant information from the label and, 1366 especially, the SDS. Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical 1367 and speed the diagnosis of an illness. Th e SDS also provides treatment information. 1368

1369

HAZCOM-03 1370 An alternative would be to require only the pestic ide label, but not the SDS. This would at least 1371 ensure quick identification of the chemical in cas e an incident occurred and may help to speed a 1372 proper diagnosis by confirming that symptoms match that of the pe sticide. The label, however, 1373 may not indicate treatment. 1374

1375

HAZCOM-04 1376 Under a second alternative, EPA would retain th e central posting requirement and would further 1377 require that crop-pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and 1378 handlers upon entry into a pesticid e-treated area. The advantage of this approach is that it 1379 provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, 1380 reducing the potential for confusi on from multiple postings at the central location. However, the 1381

benefits of this detailed information are uncerta in. Such detailed information could potentially 1382 confuse workers with complex pesticide applicat ion information where the level of hazard is 1383 different for every situation. That could even prove to be counterproductive to providing 1384 workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it 1385*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

34 is one day or one week. Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non-English speakers 1386 and literacy rates are low (NAW S, 2005). Thus, providing crop sheets that effectively present 1387 complex information to this divers e community would be challenging. 1388

1389

Retention and Record Keeping 1390

1391

HAZCOM-05/06 1392 These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard 1393 communication for two or five years (HAZCOM-05 and 06, respectively). See Unit IX.D of the 1394

NPRM. As discussed in the tr aining section above (TRAIN-06) , the advantage of retaining 1395 records is that it makes the verification of comp liance with the regulations much simpler for both 1396 the WPS farm and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may 1397 not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful. 1398

1399

Hazard Information Material 1400

1401 Currently, most available hazard informa tion is chemical or product specific, e.g. , the SDS. EPA 1402 considered requiring registrants to develop crop and chemical-sp ecific hazard sheets for all 1403 agricultural products, HAZCOM-0 7. This requirement would support the option discussed 1404 above, HAZCOM-04. This information could be va luable, but it is very complex because there 1405 may be different use patterns on different crops ( e.g. , application rates) and different potential for 1406 exposure on different crops ( e.g. , leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and 1407 in different activities ( e.g. , weeding versus harvesting). As discussed in HAZCOM-04, it is not 1408 clear that this additional information provides su bstantial benefits. Pesticide safety educators 1409 have informed EPA that providing very specifi c and complex information for the agricultural 1410 worker community is counterpr oductive to instilling, through tr aining, the clear and simple 1411 pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions. 1412

1413


### 2.2.3 Notification Options 1414

1415 The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application 1416 occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when 1417 precautions covered in the safety training s hould be implemented. Current notification 1418 requirements include displaying pesticide applic ation and pesticide safety information in a 1419

central location on the establis hment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry 1420 Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally informing worker s, and informing workers enter 1421 areas under a REI about the pe sticides used. The WPS also requires certain information 1422 exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide 1423 appropriate notification to their respective employees. EPA is considering revising the 1424 notification requirements in three areas: (1) information pertaini ng to fields under a restricted 1425 entry interval (REI), (2) information on dec ontamination procedures, and (3) information 1426 transmitted from commercial applicators’ employers to the agricultural employer. 1427

1428*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

35 Restricted Entry Interval Notification 1429

1430 Currently, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a 1431 REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Warnings need not be given to a 1432 particular employee if, from the start of the app lication to the end of the re-entry interval, the 1433 employee would not be within one-fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the 1434 handler who applied the pesticide. Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform 1435

workers who are directed into areas under a REI a bout the hazards related to the pesticides used 1436 unless the worker will have no contact with pe sticide-treated surfaces. There are currently no 1437 requirements for documenting compliance with these notification requirements. 1438

1439 EPA is proposing that warning signs be poste d around treated areas under REIs in more 1440 situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provided in the warning to 1441 workers entering treated areas under an REI and th at these warnings be documented to insure 1442 compliance. Table 2.2-5 compares the curren t, proposed, and alternative requirements. 1443

1444 Table 2.2-5. Current, Proposed, and Altern ative REI Notification Requirements. 1445 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)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

36 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)

1446*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

37 REI Notification 1447

1448 Under the current rule, notifica tion of a treated area under an RE I must be provided to workers 1449 by the agricultural employer either orally or by po sting warning signs at the treated area, except 1450 where the product label requires both. Gree nhouses are required to post signs for all 1451 applications. 1452

1453

NOTIFY-01 1454 The proposed option would require that warning signs be posted if for pesticides applications 1455 where the REI is greater than 48 hours. See Un it VII.A of the NPRM. The purpose of this 1456 proposed requirement is to provide employees wi th a visual notification because human memory 1457 can be poor. Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second-leadi ng cause of pesticide 1458 incidents, following drift from adjacent fields , according to a NIOSH review of available 1459 information (Calvert et al. , 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from 1460 inadvertent entry as opposed to employer-directe d entry, but it seems likely that many, including 1461 unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall. On farms producing a variety of crops, there 1462

could be several fields treated with different products and reme mbering which fields should be 1463

avoided could become difficult. Even on less di verse WPS farms, fields may have staggered 1464 planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. 1465 Different fields of the same crop but with differe nt REI date could be confusing, especially for 1466 long REIs. Recall may be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers 1467 at the time of the application, but must also re member to notify workers who are not present at 1468 the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, the harder it is to insure all workers 1469 receive the appropria te notification. 1470

1471

NOTIFY-02 1472 An alternative option considered would require po sted warning signs if the pesticide applied has 1473 a REI greater than 72 hours. Th is option provides similar benef its as NOTIFY-06, but is clearly 1474 less protective than the propos ed option since employees an d employers would have to 1475

remember REI information for three days rather than two. 1476

1477

NOTIFY-03 1478 EPA is proposing to allow greenhous e operations to notify employees orally if the REI is four 1479 hours or less. In many situations, this will be far simpler than posting signs only to take them 1480 down in a few hours and employees can be expected to remember when and where applications 1481

occur over such a short time interval. 1482

1483

NOTIFY-04/05 1484 Oral notification is inherently difficult to enforce. A potential mechanism to address this issue is 1485 to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification. This 1486 record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY-09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement 1487 purposes. As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or 1488 greenhouse. 1489

1490*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

38 REI Warning Signs 1491

1492 The WPS specifies when signs must be posted, th e sign content, and the locations required for 1493 posting signs. 1494

1495

NOTIFY-06 1496 Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words 1497 “Keep Out.” The proposed option would make replace the red circle with a red octagon, a 1498 widely-recognized symbol for stop. It would al so change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry 1499 Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that 1500 workers and handlers should genera lly remain out of the posted ar ea, but that they may enter 1501 under certain conditions to perfor m early-entry tasks as permitted under the WPS. Unit VIII.C 1502 of the NPRM provides a complete discus sion of the reasons for the revisions. 1503

1504

NOTIFY-07 1505 An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic, as well as 1506 require posting field-specific info rmation the sign including the da te of application, the length of 1507 the REI, and the pesticide product. While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones 1508 symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation 1509 of certain highly hazardous pestic ides including fumigants. Widesp read use of the graphic for all 1510 pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting th e warning for more hazardous cases. The field1511 specific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to 1512 keep people from entering except under specif ic circumstances (see ENTRY-03 to 06, below) 1513 and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be 1514 available (see NOTIFY-10 and 11). 1515

1516

NOTIFY-08 1517 REI warning signs are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points 1518 of entry to the treated area or, if there are no cl ear points of entry, the corners of the treated area 1519 or an area affording maximum visibility. Signs are also required to be placed on each border 1520 with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area. The proposed revision clarifies that the 1521 warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of the treated 1522 area. The purpose of the refinement is to pr ovide clarity for employers and state officials. 1523

1524

NOTIFY-09 1525 An alternate potential requireme nt would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet 1526 along the field as well as at the usual points of entry. The advantag e of this requirement is that it 1527 would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without 1528 following established routes. It is not clear how large the benefits of in creased posting would be 1529 since good agricultural practices t ypically preclude walking through fields as that can damage 1530 the plants. 1531

1532

Notification to Workers Pe rforming Early Entry Tasks 1533

1534 Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the current regulation under certain 1535 narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact”, “no contact”, “short-term”, 1536*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

39 “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activit ies.” Except for entry under the “no contact” 1537 exception, employers must make sure that work ers performing early entr y tasks wear all PPE 1538 required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information 1539 on the pesticide label prior to entry. See the NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details. EPA is also 1540 considering certain revisions to thes e exceptions; see ENTRY-03 to 06, below. 1541

1542

NOTIFY-10 1543 As noted above (NOTIFY-01), entry into treate d areas during the REI is the second most 1544 common factor leading to pe sticide incidents (Calvert et al. , 2008). Sufficient information is 1545 lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred 1546 during employer-directed entry. Under the propos ed option, the early en try notification would 1547 be expanded to include additional safety informa tion such as the pesticide applied, the start and 1548 end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy 1549 organizations have expressed concern that worker s do not recognize the elevated risk from early 1550 entry or understand the requirements of the exce ptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the 1551 particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry exception. 1552

1553

NOTIFY-11 1554 EPA considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute writte n pesticide hazard 1555 information ( i.e. , crop sheets) to each worker upon early en try in addition to the oral warnings, as 1556 suggested by Farmworker Justice. The major bene fit to workers would be the ability to refer to 1557 the information after the fact, in case, for exampl e, of symptoms arising that may be associated 1558 with pesticide exposure. Written communicatio n can sometimes provide more clarity than 1559 spoken words, which can be misheard or misinter preted, especially if the employer or employee 1560 is using a second language. On the other hand, gi ven language differences and the literacy rate 1561 in the farmworker population, it is not clear th at written communication is substantially more 1562 effective than oral communication. Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously 1563 can often be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms. Finally, farmworkers may not 1564 have a place to save written doc umentation; according to regulator y staff in Texas and Florida, 1565 such documents often end up scattered in the field. 1566

1567

NOTIFY-12/13 1568 These potential provisions would re quire the agricultural employe r to retain a worker-signed 1569 record that notification was provided prior to early entry. NOTIFY-09 w ould require retention 1570 for two years while NOTIFY-10 would require that records be kept for five years. As above, 1571 records help to verify the WPS farms are in compliance. These records can also help in 1572 diagnosis and treatment by identifying workers that entered a treated area under REI if they later 1573 exhibit pesticide poisoning symptoms. 1574

1575

Pesticide Safety Information Display 1576

1577 The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide 1578 safety training, including steps wo rkers and handlers should follo w to protect themselves from 1579 exposure and how to decontaminate themselves if they are exposed. Current ly, safety posters are 1580 required to be displayed only at one central location on the W PS farm. Table 2.2-6 presents 1581 current requirements, proposals and alternatives fo r additional information and displays. Contact 1582*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

40 information for emergency medical care is to be included on the poster, among other things. See 1583

Unit XII.B of the NPRM for more detail on the required information. See the NPRM, Unit 1584 XII.A, for more on additional displays. 1585

1586 Table 2.2-6. Current, Proposed, and Alt ernative Notification Requirements. 1587 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)

1588

NOTIFY-14 1589 This proposed requirement would add contact info rmation for the state enforcement agency and 1590 the appropriate medical facility to the display. Information about how to contact enforcement 1591 personnel would enable employees to report viol ations. Contact information for the medical 1592 facility insures that employees have the ability to call for assistance in case of an accident. 1593

1594

NOTIFY-15 1595 Under the proposed option, at least one additional safety information display would be required, 1596

located when and where worker decontaminatio n supplies are made available. The display 1597 would provide essential decontamination informa tion at the time and place it is most needed. 1598 Decontamination procedures are covered in safety training, but they not reinforced by routine 1599 practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropr iate steps to take in case of exposure will 1600 reinforce the training message. 1601

1602

NOTIFY-16 1603 This option would also require at least one additional safety info rmation display for handlers and 1604

would be located at the decontamination site (s) typically used for mixing and loading of 1605 pesticides. The potential benefits are si milar to those described in NOTIFY-15 above. 1606

1607

NOTIFY-17 1608 Farmworker organizations suggested two alternate options: requiring additional pesticide safety 1609 displays with all posted field warn ing (REI) signs or at worker ch anging sites. They noted that 1610 having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are likely to see it increases 1611*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

41 the chances for workers to absorb the messa ges and to know how to contact emergency 1612 personnel. 1613

1614

Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms 1615

1616 The WPS requires commercial pesticide handli ng establishments (CPHEs) and agricultural 1617 employers to exchange information about pestic ide applications. The agricultural employer is 1618 required to provide the CPHE with informa tion about treated areas under REIs on the 1619 establishment so that applicators do not inadvertently ente r a treated field. The CPHE is required 1620 to notify the agricultural empl oyer prior to making an application so that information, e.g. , about 1621 REIs, can be communicated to the farm’s empl oyees. If there are changes in a scheduled 1622 application, the agricultural employer must be notified. EPA is proposing to revise the 1623 requirement for CPHEs to notify the WPS employe r of changes in a pesticide application to 1624 reflect and clarify existing guidance. See Table 2.2-7. 1625

1626 Table 2.2-7. Current, Proposed, and Alternat ive CPHE Notification Requirements. 1627 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

1628

NOTIFY-18 1629 Under the proposed option, the CPHE would still be required to notify th e agricultural employer 1630 of the application information prio r to the pesticide application. Notification of a change to the 1631 estimated application end time w ould be required within two hours of the end of the application, 1632*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

42 and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification. See Unit X of the 1633 NPRM for details. This revision largely clarif ies and codifies existi ng guidance that provides 1634 flexibility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but 1635 that are currently at odds w ith the wording of the WPS. 1636

1637



### 2.3 Options to Protect Work ers and Pesticide Handlers 1638

1639 EPA is considering changes to three areas to improve the protections for workers and handlers 1640 from the adverse effects of pe sticides. Proposed changes in clude establishing minimum age 1641 requirements for certain tasks, restrictions co vering entry into and ar ound treated areas, and 1642 changes to the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE). These provisions are 1643

intended to reduce worker and ha ndler exposure to pesticides. 1644

1645


### 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options 1646

1647 Currently, the WPS contains no ag e restrictions for agricultur al employees. Adolescents, 1648 however, may be at greater risk from pesticid e exposure because many of their biological and 1649 neurological systems are still de veloping and are more sensitive to chemical disruption than are 1650 adult systems. Further, adolescents may pose gr eater risks for pesticid e exposure because they 1651

often take more risks than their adult coworkers. See Chapter 1. In considering age restrictions, 1652 EPA focused on two situations: handling of pest icides including mixing, loading, and applying; 1653 and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances 1654 under which early entry is allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3-1 1655 summarizes the potential restrictions. The NP RM provides a complete description of the 1656 proposed restrictions and alternatives. Unit X II.A discusses the worker restrictions and Unit 1657

XI.B discusses the handler restrictions. 1658

1659 The proposed restrictions would not apply to persons covered by the immediate family 1660 exemption, i.e. , for children and other family members of the owner/operator of the WPS farm. 1661

1662 Table 2.3-1. Current, Proposed, and Alt ernative Requirements for Minimum Age 1663

Restrictions. 1664 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Alternative Requirement

No age restriction on person performing early entry activities Employee must be 16 years of age to be directed to perform early entry activities (AGE-01) Employee must be 18 years of age to be directed to perform early entry activities (AGE-02)

No age restriction on person performing handling activities Employee must be 16 years of age to perform handler duties (AGE-03) Employee must be 18 years of age to perform handler duties (AGE-04)

1 Restriction does not apply to persons cove red by the immediate family exemption. 1665

1666

AGE-01/03 1667 EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to ensure that workers entering fields during 1668 a REI and pesticide handlers are at least 16 years of age. As explained in more detail in Chapters 1669 1 and 6, studies have suggested th at the adverse effects of pestic ides may be greater on children 1670*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

43 and young adults than for mature individuals be cause developing systems are more sensitive 1671 (EPA, 2002)). Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the 1672 highest levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on thei r health. Further, young adults 1673 may take more risks than older workers becaus e they may be less capable of evaluating the 1674 consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetie lli, 2006)). Thus, they may be less likely 1675

to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situa tions. In the case of handlers, 1676 adolescents may not follow all label restric tions because they do not fully comprehend the 1677 potential impacts to themselves, others, and the environment. EP A estimates that there are about 1678 19,000 workers under the age of 16 w ithin the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 1679 involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely about 1,000 of these adolescent 1680 workers who engage in pesticide handling activi ties on farm and it is extremely unlikely that 1681 youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs. 1682

1683

AGE 02/04 1684 Alternatively, EPA considered a minimum age requi rement of 18 years. This alternative would 1685 provide greater benefits than would a minimum ag e of 16 years due to the number of adolescents 1686 covered. Based on the National Agricultura l Worker Survey (NAWS) (DoL, 2005), EPA 1687 estimates there are nearly 87,000 adolescents betw een 16 and 17 years of age employed as farm 1688 workers in addition to the 19,000 workers under the age of 16. Around 18,300 adolescent 1689 workers might engage in early entry activit ies each year and 5,600 might act as handlers on 1690 occasion, including 4,600 between 17 and 18 years of age. Older youths, however, may be less 1691 sensitive to exposure and less likely to take risks than their younger counterparts. 1692

1693


### 2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions 1694

1695 Entry into areas being treated or under an REI pose risks and EPA consid ered several revisions 1696 to the WPS to bolster protections for agri cultural workers and handlers. The current 1697 requirements and potential changes are shown in Table 2.3-2. In some cases, the proposed 1698 revisions simply clarify conditions under which a person may be in or near a treated area during 1699

the restricted interval. 1700

1701 Table 2.3-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternat ive Requirements for Entry Restrictions. 1702 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement Entry During Application For WPS farms, excluding nurseries and greenhouses , no one except trained and equipped handlers may enter the area being treated (entry restricted area) during a pesticide application. The entry restricted area is

extended to an area 25 to 100 feet, depending on the type of application, around 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

handler. In addition to current requirement, handlers must cease application if a person enters the entry restricted area (ENTRY-02) No change from current requirements*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

44 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement
Entry During REI Workers may enter a treatedarea 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 furtheractivity with cholinesteraseinhibiting products if inhibition

is found (ENTRY-07)

or Limit time handling cholinesterase-inhibiting products to 30 hours in 30 days (ENTRY-08)

1703

Entry during Application 1704

1705 The current requirements limit contact between work ers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into 1706 an area during the application of a pesticide. Another WPS requirement, currently limited to 1707 nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry re stricted area” beyond the treated area to limit 1708 exposure from drift. 1709

1710

ENTRY-01 1711 The proposed requirement, applicable to farms and forests, would establish an “entry restricted 1712 area” of 25 to 100 feet around the area being trea ted, depending on the method of application. 1713

The size of the restricted area is based on th e pesticide application method because some 1714 methods, such as aerial applicatio ns, are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in1715 furrow applications). See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, fo r details. This “entry restricted area” would 1716 protect workers, other employees, and potentially the public in U-Pick oper ations from pesticide 1717 drift. See Chapter 1. 1718

1719*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

45 ENTRY-02 1720 The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is appl ied so as to contact, either 1721 directly or through drift, any wo rker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 1722 equipped handler.” The proposed requirement w ould strengthen this by a dding a provision that 1723 states the handler must “immediately cease or suspend application if any worker or other person, 1724 other than an appropriately trai ned and equipped handler, is in th e treated or entry restricted 1725 area.” See Unit XI.A of the NPRM for a complete description of the requirement. The benefit 1726 of the revision is to clarify the action the handler mu st take if someone is in the treatment area. 1727

1728 Together, these proposed options (ENTRY-01 and 02) should result in reduced incidents of 1729 worker exposure through uninten tional contact during applicati on, which is the second-leading 1730 cause of pesticide incidents according to the anal ysis of occupational incident data in Calvert 1731 (2008). 1732

1733



### Entry During REI 1734

1735 Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it th e risk of increased exposure to 1736 potentially unsafe levels of pe sticide residues. Agricultural pesticide labels establish crop1737 specific requirements for the REI – the time after the end of an application during which worker 1738 entry is restricted – based on the expected level and degradation of residues on treated surfaces 1739 and the transferability of residues during worker activities. The REI is based on the activity 1740 resulting in the highest potential exposure give n any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can 1741 be used. For example, if applications are proh ibited in the latter part of the season, EPA would 1742 not be concerned about exposure dur ing harvest. Early entry into the treated area during the REI 1743 is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumst ances to perform tasks considered critical 1744 for agricultural production. For eac h of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks 1745 that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3-2), 1746 PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the 1747 workers. However, for “agricultural emergenc ies,” the WPS does not currently specify the 1748 length of time an individual work er may be in the treated area. 1749

1750

ENTRY-03 1751 For an agricultural emergency, the proposal would restrict the amount of time workers can spend 1752

in the treated area when a double notification pesticide has been used. Please see the NPRM, 1753

Unit XII.D for details. Products require double-notif ication warnings (both oral and sign 1754 warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity. The benefit of the restriction is to limit the 1755 duration of any exposure, which increases the lik elihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained 1756

while the worker is in the field. The four-hour li mit is half the allowed ti me for the irrigation and 1757 limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits 1758 hand labor, which results in more contact with su rfaces like foliage where residues are likely to 1759

adhere. 1760

1761

ENTRY-04 1762

An alternative would also restrict time allowe d, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated 1763 area under an REI in any twenty-four hour period. This option would impose the same time limit 1764 as the irrigation and limited contact exceptions to the REI, which provides simplicity in the 1765*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

46 requirements. However, given that hand labor is allowed under the agricultural emergency 1766 exception, a similar time limit would be less protec tive for workers than th e existing time limits 1767 on other exceptions. 1768

1769

ENTRY-06 1770 EPA also considered eliminating early entry ex ceptions, as suggested by some advocacy groups. 1771 This option provides more protection for work ers than under the current WPS or proposed 1772 potential revisions by simply eliminating the pot ential for exposure. However, except for the 1773 agricultural emergency exception, the permitted activ ities generally result in lower levels of 1774 exposure than the activities upon wh ich the REIs are established ( e.g. , thinning or hand 1775 harvesting). Thus, the risks of entry for thes e purposes, and therefore the benefits of barring 1776 entry, may be less than they first appear. 1777

1778

Cholinesterase Inhibition 1779

1780 Cholinesterase (ChE) is an enzyme that breaks down the chemical acetylcholine, which transmits 1781 signals across nerve synapses. When cholineste rase is inhibited overstimulation and exhaustion 1782 of nerves, muscles, and glands can occur a nd result in illness. Organophosphate (OP) and 1783 carbamate pesticides, widely used in agricultu re, are known inhibitors of ChE. Agricultural 1784 handlers who mix, load and appl y these pesticides may be at risk of ChE inhibition. 1785

1786

ENTRY-07 1787 One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as 1788 is done in Washington State. In that state, ha ndlers working with toxic ity category I and II OPs 1789

and carbamates are monitored for ChE inhibition. When indication of inhibition is found, 1790 handler exposure to such pestic ides is restricted for a period of time. ChE levels can be 1791 determined through a blood test, but there is no no rmal range for cholinesterase levels to which 1792 the test can be compared. Thus, a monitoring program would require an initial sample to 1793 establish the handler’s own pre-exposure baseline level and potentially multiple follow-up tests 1794

to measure inhibition. 1795

1796 The purpose of a monitoring program is to iden tify handlers who have reached a level of 1797 exposure that has an observable effect and protec t them from further exposure. An ancillary 1798 benefit, demonstrated by the Washington program , is that it can identif y farms and individual 1799 handlers who may need to alter thei r practices to reduce exposure in general. A disadvantage of 1800 such a program is that it may be considered intrusive by the individua l handler. In 2007, 1801 Washington reports that over eigh t percent of handlers who handl ed ChE-inhibiting pesticides 1802 declined to participate in the program; others may have felt obliged to participate by their 1803 employers. 1804

1805

ENTRY-08 1806 Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE-inhibiting pesticides to 1807 30 hours in any 30 day period. This requirement would be similar to the approach California 1808 developed, which requires a blood test if an em ployee handles ChE-inhibiting pesticides more 1809 than the limit. Most employers responded by in suring handlers stayed below the point that 1810 would trigger monitoring. The benefits of such a requirement arise because cumulative effects 1811*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

47 would be avoided. ChE inhibiti on is reversible, but repeated exposure before levels have 1812 returned to normal will result in greater and grea ter inhibition. However, there is no scientific 1813 basis for the 30 hour in 30 day limit. Thus, the actual benefits of such a limit are uncertain. 1814

1815 A complete discussion of these options can be found in Unit XVII of the NPRM. 1816

1817


### 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment 1818

1819 Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticid es may be addressed with the use of personal 1820 protective equipment (PPE) to reduce dermal, inhalation, and oc ular exposure and pesticide 1821 labels may require the use of PPE. The WPS establishes generic requirements designed to 1822 ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, used properly and at the appropr iate time. This is 1823 one way WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. Potential revisions 1824 to the WPS, shown in Table 2.3-3, are evalua ted as ways to further improve safety. 1825

1826 Table 2.3-3. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Personal Protective 1827 Equipment 1828 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

1829

PPE-01 1830 The current WPS only requires that a respirator be appropriate for the pes ticide applied and that 1831 the employer of the handler ensu re that the respirator fits correctly. The proposal would 1832 establish requirements for annual respirator fit testing, training of the respirator wearer, and 1833

medical evaluation for handlers who must use a re spirator. This revision incorporates OSHA 1834 requirements that apply to work ers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This 1835 requirement will reduce the potential for exposures that occur from poor fit. The respirator 1836*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

48 training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify 1837 when filters need replacement. The medical eval uation is a simple questionnaire or interview to 1838 identify any health problems that might be exacerbated by the use of a respirator, which will help 1839 handlers determine if they can safely wear the de vice. For the employer, the revision would also 1840 clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his or her employee. Finally, as noted with 1841 similar requirements, the record-keeping provision helps to verify compliance. 1842

1843

PPE-02/03 1844 The WPS exempts the agricultural employer from complying with some requirements, including 1845 provision of label-required PPE, for employees who are certified crop advisors (CCA) and 1846 employees working under the supervision of a CCA . This exemption is also extended to 1847 commercial crop advisory services, including employees working under the supervision of 1848 CCAs. The proposed revisions eliminate those exemptions for WPS employees (PPE-02) and 1849 commercial service employees (PPE-03) workin g under the supervision of CCAs. See Unit 1850

XVIII.B of the NPRM. The benefit of this revision is to protect employees who may not be fully 1851 trained and may be unable to make appropriate judgments regarding pers onal risk, even with 1852

instruction from a CCA. 1853

1854

PPE-04 1855 Under the current regulations, a closed mixing a nd loading system may be substituted for label1856 required PPE. A closed system, under the curr ent rule, is simply defined as “a properly 1857 functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contact ing handlers or other 1858 persons.” This definition lacks specificity. 1859

1860

If a health hazard cannot be removed from the wo rkplace, there are three categories of methods 1861 to control the hazards according to industrial hyg ienists: engineering controls, administrative 1862 controls, and personal protective eq uipment. Engineering controls should be th e first line of 1863 defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Closed systems are considered an engineering control 1864 method. They are designed to prevent human ex posure and do not require human intervention to 1865 eliminate exposure. Closed systems reduce the human decision-making element from the 1866 process so mistakes are not as like ly. In contrast, PPE is subject to human error: it may be worn 1867 incorrectly or removed if it becomes uncomfortable, e.g. , in hot weather. Additionally, PPE only 1868 protects the wearer; other persons in the area ma y still be exposed. However, the substitution of 1869 a closed system for PPE is only de sirable if the closed system is designed and maintained well. 1870

1871 The proposed revision helps to ensure these bene fits by establishing a cl ear definition of the 1872 requirements that constitute a cl osed system, which is currentl y lacking. The lack of clear 1873 standards means that some closed systems are inad equate and provide less pr otection than use of 1874 PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI .B. Record keeping of system maintenance 1875 would help to verify compliance with standards. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of the changes are 1876 handlers, including self-employe d handlers (family farmers and commercial applicators) who 1877 will be assured that the closed system pr ovides protection to minimize exposure. 1878

1879

PPE-05 1880 Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properly. A proposed revision to the WPS 1881 would clarify that contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearable as part of proper disposal. 1882*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

49 That is, if items like gloves or overalls must be discarded due to contamination with a pesticide, 1883 but are otherwise intact, the ag ricultural employer must ensure that the items cannot be used 1884 again, e.g. , by cutting them. This will prevent other employees, family members, or anyone who 1885 might find them from inadvertently using them and being exposed to the residues. 1886

1887



### 2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure 1888

1889 EPA is considering regulatory op tions to improve emergency assistance for workers and handlers 1890 who may have been made ill from exposure to pe sticides. Most of th ese proposals clarify the 1891 requirements for the provision of decontaminati on supplies and of emergency medical response 1892 in case of exposure. 1893

1894



### 2.4.1 Decontamina tion Supply Options 1895

1896 The current WPS requirement establishes that soap, “enough” water, and towels be made 1897 available for routine washing and emergency eye flushing for workers. The term “enough,” 1898 however, is not defined in the WPS, although EP A has subsequently provided guidance (EPA, 1899 2006). Table 2.4-2 presents the options EPA consid ered for requirements to clarify the quantity 1900

of water that must be available to miti gate exposures to workers and handlers. 1901

1902 Table 2.4-2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Decontamination 1903 Supplies. 1904 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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

50 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)

1905

Decontamination Supplies for Workers 1906

1907 The current WPS regulations require that worker s have access to water, soap, and single-use 1908 towels for washing when a pesticide covered by th e regulation has been used or an REI has been 1909 in effect in the last 30 days and workers may c ontact anything that has been treated with the 1910 pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining “enough” water to be one gallon per worker. 1911

1912

SUPPLY-01 1913 The proposed revision would specify that empl oyers must provide one gallon of water per 1914 worker for routine washing and emergency eye fl ushing. This codifies existing guidance and the 1915 benefit of the provision is simply to provide re gulatory clarity for employers and enforcement 1916 agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details. 1917

1918

SUPPLY-02 1919 The proposed revision would specify that employe rs must provide three gallons of water per 1920 worker engaged in any early entry activity, i.e. , in a field under a REI. See the NPRM, Unit 1921 XII.C, for all requirements. This provision prov ides regulatory clarity, but it also increases the 1922

amount of water available for t horough washing comparable to the requirement for handlers. 1923 More water available for early entry activities is important due to th e greater potential for 1924 exposure and for higher levels of e xposure than in r outine activities. 1925

1926

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers 1927

1928 The current WPS regulations requir e that handlers have access to water, soap, and single-use 1929 towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. EPA has issued guidance defining 1930 “enough” water to be three gallons per handler. Current regulations also require that handlers 1931 carry one pint of water for emergency eyewash when the label requires protective eyewear. 1932 Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity. 1933

1934*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

51 SUPPLY-03 1935 This revision would specify that the employer must provide three gallons per handler for routine 1936 washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. See Unit 1937 XIV.A of the NPRM for all required decontam ination supplies. As with SUPPLY-01, this 1938 codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity 1939 for employers and enforcement agencies. 1940

1941

SUPPLY-04 1942 An alternative is to require that showers be available for handlers. Showers could provide 1943 substantial benefits, given that handlers may be mixing and loading large quantities of pesticides, 1944 including concentrated solutions. Secondary benef its would be the availab ility of showers that 1945 could be used on a routine basis by both handlers and workers to reduce residues that they might 1946 otherwise transport home. These secondary benefits may be quite small, however, as discussions 1947 with field personnel suggest that very few employees would avail th emselves of shower facilities 1948 on a routine basis. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.D, for more information. 1949

1950

SUPPLY-05 1951 This proposed potential requireme nt would specify that permanent mixing and loading sites be 1952 supplied with sufficient running water to flush eyes for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute. 1953

This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required 1954 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-1990. See Unit XIV.C of the 1955 NPRM for a complete description of the propos al. The requirement is intended to provide 1956

handlers with water to immediatel y flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides. 1957 Handlers face a risk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute, and load them 1958 prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient. 1959

1960

SUPPLY-06 1961 A similar requirement would require portable eyew ash stations at all mi xing/loading sites, not 1962 just the permanent sites. The benefits of this option would be somewhat higher than for 1963

SUPPLY-05 since it would cover sites other than those perm anently dedicated for mixing 1964 pesticides. However, reports from state authorities indicate that th e stations can be difficult to 1965 maintain and keep clean. Bacteria may become problematic. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a 1966 complete discussion. 1967

1968


### 2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response 1969

1970 Table 2.4-1 presents the options EPA considered for emergency response. These are explained 1971 more fully in Unit XV.E of the NPRM. Current regulations require that transportation to an 1972 emergency medical facility and the provision of information about the pesticide for medical 1973 personnel must be “prompt,” but the regulations do not define “prompt.” 1974

1975*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

52 Table 2.4-1. Current, Proposed, and Alternat ive Requirements for Emergency Response 1976

Provisions. 1977 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)

1978

EMERG-01/03 1979 EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided 1980 within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG-01) or pesticide 1981 handlers (EMERG-03). Without a formal definiti on of “prompt” it is difficult for agricultural 1982 employers and inspectors to be sure of complia nce. Clarification of the term “prompt” is 1983

intended to ensure that workers and handlers re ceive transport for medical treatment for an 1984 emergency that may be related to pes ticide exposure in a timely manner. 1985

1986 In addition to transportation, the proposal also cl arifies the time for which pesticide information 1987 such as the label and SDS are provided to the in jured person or health care providers, who may 1988 need this information to determine proper treatment . This is valuable because providing medical 1989 personnel with information about the pesticide sy mptoms and their treatment in a timely manner 1990 is critical in reducing the adverse effects of exposures. 1991

1992

EMERG-02/04 1993 The alternative considered was to define “promp t” as 60 minutes. In terms of clarifying the 1994 regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would 1995 clearly provide less benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is 1996 provided within 30 minutes. 1997

1998 This chapter presented the proposed revisions to the WPS and key alternatives considered by the 1999 Agency. It described the bene fits anticipated from the revi sions, which are generally the 2000 provision of more and better information at appr opriate times and places, of improved protection 2001 by reducing potential exposure for high-risk s ituations, and of more rapid and complete 2002 mitigation of exposures if they occur. Ultim ately, these changes will lead to fewer acute 2003 incidents and, more generally, to lower levels of pesticid e exposure over time. 2004

2005*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

53 The next chapter estimates the cost of the potential requirements and Chapter 4 provides a 2006

discussion of the relative costs a nd benefits of the alternatives. 2007

2008*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

54 

## Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options 2009

2010 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the incr emental cost of potential changes to the worker 2011 protection standards that the Agency considere d. The incremental cost is defined as the 2012 difference between the cost of complying with the potential requireme nt and the cost of 2013 complying with the current requirement. These cost s, together with the be nefits of the potential 2014 requirements as discussed in Chapter 2, help to inform EPA’s selection of requirements that are 2015 being proposed. The relative cost s and benefits of a lternative requirements are discussed in 2016 Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then estimates the increm ental cost of all the proposed requirements, 2017 considering how they may interact , and Chapter 6 presents the bene fits of the proposed revisions 2018

in terms of the ultimate outcome on human health and the environment. 2019

2020 These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and 2021 the lack of data regard ing many current practices and the eff ect of the proposed requirements. 2022 We necessarily rely on averages and/or informati on on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is 2023 great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pe sticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, 2024 therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on 2025 conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made 2026 regarding the average or typical, in practice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably 2027 more indicative of high and fre quent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms. EPA 2028

has also tended to assume that farms are in fu ll compliance with current regulations and will be 2029 in full compliance with the proposed regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities 2030 conduct inspections of farms and find violati ons. However, inspections are not conducted 2031 randomly across all potentially regulated establ ishments; many inspectio ns are the result of 2032 specific complaints. As a result, the informa tion on violations does not provide meaningful 2033 information on compliance rates. 2034

2035 As a result of these assumptions, the costs may be overestimated, partic ularly for the overall 2036 regulatory burden of the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, 2037 because many of the assumptions apply to both th e baseline and the proposed rule, they may 2038

have little effect on the estimate of the incrementa l cost or lead to an overestimate of incremental 2039 cost. Where feasible, we have examined the effect of alternative assumptions. 2040

2041



### 3.1 Overview 2042

2043 As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the potential revisions to the Worker Protection 2044 Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouses, forestry operations, and 2045 commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). For simplicity, we use the term “WPS 2046 farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhous es that are subject to the WPS. Forestry 2047 operations are not analyzed quantitatively; with the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use 2048 patterns in forestry operations will not typically trigger most WPS provi sions such as training 2049 and notification. Generally speaking, the revisi ons would require owners /operators of these 2050

establishments to devote resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated 2051 with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure. EPA 2052 estimates the cost of these requirements in term s of the value of the time and materials expended 2053 to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not direct ou t-of-pocket expenses. 2054*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

55 2055 In this analysis, EPA considers a number of di fferent actors who may be required to allocate 2056 their time or make expenditures. Some ac tivities or expenditure s are conducted by the 2057 management of the WPS farm or CPHE. The na ture of these activitie s may vary by certain 2058 characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other 2059 activities require time from empl oyees, who are divided into two groups: workers and handlers. 2060 Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an 2061 agricultural commodity, in cluding crops, nursery ma terial, ornamentals, and forestry products. 2062

Hand labor activities include such tasks as harvesting, weeding, thinning, tr imming, and girdling. 2063 Handlers are those employees who wo rk directly with pesticides, e.g. , to mix, load, and/or apply 2064 pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are 2065 typically workers as well, as th ey will often engage in producti on activities that do not entail 2066 handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a work er or a handler under the rule 2067 depends on the nature of the activity in which th ey are engaged at a specific point in time. 2068

2069 Federal requirements apply nationally, but states may enact additional measures. Thus, when 2070 considering the impact of new federal standard s, EPA must take into account existing state 2071 measures. Section 3.2 explains th e approach taken for estimating the state-level baseline against 2072 which to measure the impact of potential requirements. Secti on 3.3 presents the estimation of 2073 cost for all the potential requirements that EPA considered, as explained in Chapter 2. This 2074 chapter estimates the costs of individual componen ts and alternatives. Chapter 5 estimates the 2075 cost of the proposed rule as well as analyzes potential impacts on employment and on small 2076

businesses. 2077

2078



### 3.2. Regional Groupings 2079

2080 To estimate the impact to the affected industrie s of the proposed regulatory enhancements to the 2081 WPS, EPA established a regulator y baseline. Current federal re quirements establish minimum 2082 standards, but states, as well as other jurisdictions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, 2083 could have more stringent requir ements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory 2084 baseline is based on the current state, tribal a nd territory requirements rather than the federal 2085 requirements. To reduce the analytical comple xity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine 2086 regions of the country. 2087

2088 Table 3.2-1 shows the regions and th e states that were selected fo r the baseline analysis, as well 2089 as the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic 2090 location and the nature of the agricultural product ion within these areas. For example, the South 2091 region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost excl usively on the location of the states in this 2092 region and the agricultural produc tion found in this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 2093 accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, 2094 Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 2095 represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e. , extensive 2096 livestock production, rather than geographical conti nuity. EPA also considered similarities in 2097 worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were placed 2098 together based on the nature of agricultural prod uction in these two states, which is highlighted 2099 by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 2100*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

56 warmer, subtropical climate, and the relian ce on hand labor in agri cultural pr oduction. 2101 California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the 2102 state’s more stringent worker pr otection standards relative to th e current federal standards and 2103 other states’ requirements. 2104

2105 Table 3.2-1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups. 2106 Region Representative St ate 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 Ogalala 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

Shoshonne-Bannock Tribe

2107

Table 3.2-1 also lists a few non-stat e jurisdictions that are include d in certain regions, including 2108 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several tribal entities. These jurisdictions were assigned to a 2109 region according to which of EPA’s regional o ffices they belong. Not all jurisdictions are 2110 included in this analysis because data on farms a nd pesticide use are not available. This implies 2111 some undercounting of affected entities and an un derestimate of the incremental costs, but the 2112 effect will be negligible since the jurisdictions , such as the District of Columbia, have tiny 2113 agricultural sectors relative to those in the states. 2114

2115 EPA examined the worker protection requirement s for each of the representative states to 2116 establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 2117 applied to all states within the region. In fact, variation in wo rker protection standards could be 2118 as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 2119

there is no reason to think that the variation in the national-level estimates of cost are greater 2120 than the variation in regional-level estimates. 2121*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

57 2122



### 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements 2123

2124 The purpose of this section of the cost analysis is to evaluate the expected impacts of potential 2125 worker protection standards at th e national level and at the employer level. EPA also estimates 2126 the potential costs across various regions of the United States, as described in Section 3.2. This 2127

information is used to evaluate the individual regulato ry options and develop a proposed suite of 2128 regulatory changes, as explained in Chapter 4. The cost of t hose proposed requirements, as a 2129 whole, is estimated in Chapter 5. 2130

2131

EPA identified a number of areas where worker protections could be improved to address the 2132 problems discussed in Chapter 1 and within these areas considered different requirement options, 2133 as detailed in Chapter 2. In th is section, EPA presents the esti mated cost of all the potential 2134 requirements, which is then used to help inform the decision of which requirements to propose. 2135 Section 3.3.1 details the methodology EPA follows to estimate or characterize the incremental 2136 cost of potential requirements. Section 3.3.2 presen ts some of the key data used throughout the 2137 analyses of individual requirements. Section 3.3. 3 estimates the cost of potential requirements 2138

associated with worker and handl er training category, including a detailed presentation of an 2139 example of the approach. Subsequent sections present the estimated costs of potential revisions 2140 to the WPS concerning hazard communications (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements 2141 (Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry restrictions ( 3.3.7), PPE requirements (3.3.8), 2142 supply requirements for decontamination (3.3.9 ), and emergency response standards (3.3.10). 2143

2144


### 3.3.1 General Methodology 2145

2146 In general, potential requirements may impose costs at both the leve l of the employer or 2147 establishment and at the level of the employee. Th at is, there are some activities and/or materials 2148 that must be conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the number of 2149 employees; these costs are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities 2150 and/or materials may be conducted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the 2151 number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA’s approach is to estimate 2152 the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate 2153 those costs to the regional level, given the num ber of actors (establishments or employees). 2154 There are six basic steps. 2155

2156 Step 1. Calculate the state/regional level baseli ne cost of existing regulatory requirement: 2157

2158

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ ෍ݓ

a · ܪ ௥,௜,a,௝ ஻

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝ ܿ෍൅

௠ ܯ · ௠,a,௜,௥ ஻

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݉|݅ሻ

௠ 2159

where cost r,i, a B

t

is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r , in region i , for an actor, 2160 a, in time t ; H r,i, a ,j B

t

is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; w a is 2161 the wage rate for the employee/empl oyer category conducting the activity; Prob t ( j | i ) is the 2162 probability of activity j in time t given the region; M r,i, a ,m P

t is the quantity of material m needed in 2163

time t under the requirement; c m is the cost of material; and Prob t ( m | i ) is the probability of 2164*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

58 material m being required in time t given the region. An actor may be an establishment, 2165 primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g. , a pesticide handler or agricultural 2166 worker. For some requirements, EPA disti nguishes subgroups with in an actor category, e.g. , 2167 farms according to the size of the operation. Ac tivities conducted by the establishment include 2168 posting signs and keeping records. Activitie s occurring for each employee include attending 2169 training and obtaining written mate rial from the employer, that is, activities for which an 2170 establishment incurs costs for every employee w ho is assigned that activity. The probability 2171 weighting indicates the likelihood th at any given actor will undertak e the activity in some year. 2172 For example, if training is required biennial ly, any given employee would have about a 50 2173 percent chance of taking a training. 2174

2175 Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per ac tor of each potential regulatory requirement: 2176

2177

ݐݏ݋ܿ a,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ෍ݓ

a · ܪ ௥,a,௝ ௉

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ ܿ෍൅

௠ ܯ · ௠,a,௥ ௉

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݉ሻ

௠ 2178 where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 2179 simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or regi on. State requirements 2180 can exceed federal requirements, however and if current state requirements exceed the potential 2181 federal requirements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we restrict H r,i,, a ,j

B ≤ H r, a

,j

P 2182

and M r,i,, a ,m B ≤ M r, a

,m P ; otherwise, the incremental cost w ould erroneously imply a cost savings. 2183

2184 Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and potential new requirements by 2185 multiplying per-actor costs by the number of a ffected actors in a region and summing across 2186

actors. 2187

2188

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,௜,a ஻

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a 2189

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௉

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௉

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a 2190

where RC r,i

X

denotes the cost of requirement r to region i of the regional baseline, B, and the 2191 potential new requirement, P; and N a, i is the number of affected actors in a region. Note that the 2192 number of affected actors, e.g. , the number of pesticide handlers in a given region, may not be 2193 known and has to be estimated. This is explaine d in the section on general data (Section 3.3.2). 2194

2195

We can also estimate the national le vel costs by summing across regions. 2196

2197

ܥܰ
௥ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܴܥ

௥,௜ ௑

௧
௜ 2198*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

59 Step 4. Estimate the present value of the cost stream 1 . To better compare the impacts across the 2199 various potential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, EPA calculates the present 2200 value (PV) of regional costs over a ten-year time horizon. 2201

2202

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ ௜,௥ ௑ ෍൯ൌ ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 2203

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previous ly defined. The time horizon is 2204 not particularly important as most of the per-ac tor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur 2205 annually. However, a few potential requirements re quire some capital inve stments and ten years 2206 was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might 2207 financially amortize such expenditures. Furthe r, the number of actors is changing over time, 2208

with the number of farms and farm workers dec lining and the number of CPHEs increasing; rates 2209 of change were calculated using three succes sive Census of Agri culture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 2210 2008b) spanning a ten-year period. This is explained more fully in Section 3.3.2. We utilize a 2211 discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discoun t rate, and seven percent, to 2212 represent the private discount ra te as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 2213 2003). 2214

2215 Again, the present value of national level costs is estimated as the sum of the regional costs. 2216

2217 Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the pot ential requirement in each region by subtracting 2218 the regional baseline cost from the co st of the potential new requirement. 2219

2220 ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ ௥,௜ ൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻ ൯

2221

Where PV ( RIC r,i ) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i

. 2222 The PV of national incremental cost, PV ( NIC

r ), is calculated the same way. 2223

2224 Step 6. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized 2225 figure represents the constant co st that, over the time horizon, woul d result in the same present 2226

value as a variable cost stream. 2227

2228

ܥܫܣ
௥ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ
௥ ሻ ൈ ߩ · ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ் െ 1

2229

where AIC

r is the annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time 2230 horizon, i.e. , ten years; and all other va riables are as previously de fined. Dividing the annualized 2231 incremental cost by the number of impacted enti ties provides a simple m easure of the costs per 2232 establishment, which is helpful information to weigh the costs and benefits of a potential 2233 requirement. A more detailed examination of imp acts on small entities is presented in Chapter 5, 2234 considering the costs of all proposed requirements. 2235

2236

1 Present value is a measure of all future costs, translated into the equivalent value if paid or received immediately.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

60 A few of the potential requireme nts require some deviation from this general methodology. This 2237 will be explained in the following sections as we present the results. The next section discusses 2238 the data that are commonly used throughout the an alysis. Data that ar e specific to individual 2239 requirements are discussed in conjunc tion with the potential requirement. 2240

2241



### 3.3.2 General Data 2242

2243 For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to 2244 meet current and potential requirements and the pr obability or frequency with which they will be 2245 needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each potential 2246 requirement. The other component of the per-actor costs are the prices asso ciated with time and 2247 material. The wage rates for the various actors are used frequently in the analysis and are 2248 discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional and national (Ste p 3) requires data on the number 2249 of actors in each category, which includes the es tablishment meeting the requirement or the 2250 employees to which the requirement applies. Fi nally, as EPA projects costs forward into time 2251 (Step 4), we need to take into account changes in costs and the agricultura l sector. Most of the 2252 time and materials needed to comply with curr ent and potential requirements reoccur on an 2253 annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, as farms 2254 consolidate and mechanize and as farms increasingl y rely on commercial pe st control services. 2255 In this section, we will discuss the data and a ssumptions that describe the establishments and 2256 employees, including both numbers and wages, and changes in each over time. 2257

2258

Establishments, Farms 2259

2260 According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, 2261 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United St ates. At EPA’s request , the U.S. Department 2262 of Agriculture, National Agricultur al Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of 2263 data in the 2007 Census of Agri culture to identify the number of these operations that use 2264 pesticides and hire labor. Farm s that both use pesticides and hi re labor may be covered by the 2265 WPS requirements. However, the WPS applies onl y to those pesticides used in the commercial 2266 or research production of agricu ltural plants on farms, forest s, nurseries, and greenhouses. 2267 Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides , especially insecticid es, such use is not 2268 covered by the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 64 0,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock 2269 production. There are about 512,000 livestock operations that also have crop production, 2270 however, that are included in this analysis. Table 3.3-1 pres ents the number of farms where 2271 crops are raised, including ranches that produc e crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their 2272 distribution across the regions EP A identified for this analysis. According to the tabulation, 2273 304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hired labor and used pesticides in 2007. However, 2274 pesticides are not necessarily us ed every year. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, 2275 and greenhouses hiring labor (394,658) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS 2276 requirements; these operations will be referred to as “WPS farms.” This may be a slight 2277 overestimation due to the presence of organic gr owers. However, many organic producers also 2278 have conventionally grown fields and organic-ap proved pesticides, while generally considered 2279 less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and are subj ect to the WPS requirements. 2280

2281*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

61 There is likely to be substantial overestimati on of the number of affected farms, however, 2282 because the WPS applies only when workers are engaged in hand la bor activities or if handlers 2283 are working with pesticides used for crop produc tion. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in 2284 the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries a nd greenhouses. The 2007 Census 2285 of Agriculture identifie s 73,550 WPS farms in these categories, based on the primary source of 2286 revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in dive rse types of production so many other farms might 2287 produce such crops, even if the primary activit y is highly mechanized like the production of 2288 oilseeds and/or grains. Moreove r, pesticide handlers may be employed on any category of farm, 2289 so this analysis includes a ll farms with crop production. 2290

2291 Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the 2292 definition of handler includes any self-employed pe rson who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. 2293 However, these farms will generally not be affect ed by the proposed revisions because there is an 2294 exemption from WPS requirements for the owner/ope rator of the farm an d his or her immediate 2295 family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some 2296 exemptions to pesticide label requirements, e.g. , entry into treated fiel ds during a REI during an 2297 agricultural emergency. Thus, a ny changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect 2298 all farms applying pesticides. 2299

2300 Table 3.3-1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms 1

. 2301

Region Crop Farms 1 Regional

Share Farms Using

Pesticides Farms Hiring

Labor
United States 1,564,178 788,582 394,658
South 233,063 14.9% 117,499 58,804 California 96,979 6.2% 48,892 24,469 Southwest 50,054 3.2% 25,235 12,629 Subtropical 39,104 2.5% 19,715 9,866 Midwest 339,427 21.7% 171,122 85,641 Northeast 161,110 10.3% 81,224 40,650 Ohio Valley 361,325 23.1% 182,162 91,166

Texas/Mountain

West 192,394 12.3% 96,996 48,543 Northwest 90,722 5.8% 45,738 22,890
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) 2302

1 Farms include nurseries and greenhouses as well as livestock operations that also produce crops. 2303

2304 The tabulation for farms using pesticides and fa rms hiring labor is at the national level only. 2305 EPA assumes that farms hiring la bor and using pesticides are di stributed throughout the country 2306 in the same proportion as all crop farms. Thus, while the national figures are well-defined, the 2307 regional numbers are less precise. 2308

2309 Table 3.3-2 presents a breakdown of WPS establis hments according to farm size, which bears on 2310 the impacts of many of the requirements. For ex ample, smaller farms are less likely to employ a 2311 pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is lik ely to be the applicator or he/she will use a 2312 commercial applicator. The spli t between large farms, those w ith annual gross revenue greater 2313 than $750,000, and the small farm categories, co rresponds to the definition under the Small 2314*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

62 Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013). EPA further subdivides the small farm 2315 category into three groups: small-small fa rms with annual gross revenue less than $10,000, 2316 medium-small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small 2317 farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 2318 which produce crops, are considered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million. 2319

Subdivisions of small feedlots are small-sma ll, with annual gross re venue less than $50,000; 2320 medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large-small, with 2321 annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million. These distinctions correlate to the 2322 number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also 2323 correlate to pesticide use. Around 90 percen t of large and large-small WPS farms used 2324 pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small-small farms did. Seventy-four percent of 2325 medium-small farms used pesticides. 2326

2327 Table 3.3-2. Number of WPS Establishments, by size category, and CPHEs. 2328 Region WPS

Farms SmallSmall 1 MediumSmall 2 LargeSmall 3 Large 4

South 58,804 11,906 18,062 20,746 8,089 California 24,469 4,954 7,516 8,633 3,366 Southwest 12,629 2,557 3,879 4,456 1,737 Subtropical 9,866 1,998 3,031 3,481 1,357 Midwest 85,641 17,340 26,305 30,214 11,781 Northeast 40,650 8,231 12,486 14,341 5,592 Ohio Valley 91,166 18,459 28,003 32,164 12,541 Texas/Mountain West 48,543 9,829 14,910 17,126 6,678 Northwest 22,890 4,635 7,031 8,076 3,149

U.S. 394,658 79,909 121,223 139,237 54,289
Source: Special tabulation from 2007 Census of Agricu lture (NASS, 2008b). Establishments distributed 2329 across regions according to distribution of all crop farms. 2330

1 Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and feedlots with annual re venue less than $50,000. 2331

2 Farms with annual revenue great er than $10,000 and less than $10 0,000 and feedlots with annual 2332 revenue between $50,000 and $500,000. 2333

3 Farms with annual revenue betw een $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlo ts with annual revenue between 2334 $500,000 and $2.5 million. 2335

4 Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 an d feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 2336

million. 2337

2338 Establishments, Commercial Pesticide Handlers 2339

2340 In order to identify the number of CPHEs, EPA searched the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) 2341 database of companies and identified firms unde r the Standard Industria l Classification (SIC) 2342 code descriptions for crop spraying services, crop disease control se rvices, crop protecting 2343 services, soil chemical treatment services, and we ed control services (bef ore and after planting). 2344 Within these categories, there were 1,231 firms that reported hiring at least one employee. 2345

2346 Numbers are not available for firms making aerial applications. Based on conversations with the 2347 National Agricultural Aviation Association ( NAAA, 2008), EPA estimates that there are 3,200 2348*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

63 commercial aerial applicators nationwide. Assu ming an average of two pilots per firm, we 2349 estimate that there are 1,600 aeria l application establishments. Given the proportion from Dun & 2350 Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at 2351 least one employee. 2352

2353 Adding the estimate of aerial applicators to the nu mber of firms identified in Dun & Bradstreet 2354 for other pest control firms results in a tota l of 2,793 CPHEs with employees. These firms are 2355 distributed across the regions in the same propor tion as total farms. See Table 3.3-3. This 2356 assumption seems reasonable considering that th e CPHEs would largely be servicing the farm 2357

sector. 2358

2359

EPA also considered the number of commercial applicators. In 2007, the year corresponding to 2360 the NASS data, there were 89,529 co mmercial applicators certified in the Agricultural Plant 2361 Production category. Given data on employees from Dun & Bradstreet and by the NAAA, we 2362

estimate those establishments to account fo r 19,873 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At 2363 the extreme, all these commercial applicators co uld be self-employed. More likely, many are 2364 part of small operations not id entified by Dun & Bradst reet. EPA assumes th at one-fourth of 2365 these applicators are self-employed and the remain ing applicators are part of operations with an 2366 average of 2.5 commercial applicat ors, including the owner of the establishment. As shown in 2367 Table 3.3-3, this implies that there are 17,414 self-employed commercial applicators and 20,897 2368 CPHEs with two or three applicators. These two categories are distributed across the regions 2369 based on the number of commercial applic ators certified in eac h state (CPARD, 2007). 2370

2371

Table 3.3-3. Estimated numb er of CPHEs, by region. 2372 Region CPHE multiple employees CPHE few employees CPHE self-employed

South 416 918 765 California 173 1,049 874

Southwest 89 662 552 Subtropical 70 120 110 Midwest 606 8,355 6,963 Northeast 288 3,386 2,822 Ohio Valley 645 2,404 2,003

Texas/Mountain West 344 889 741 Northwest 162 3,113 2,594

U.S. 2,793 20,897 17,414
Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (2010); NAAA (2008); CPARD (2007). 2373

2374 Establishments, Wage Rates 2375

2376 The value of the owner/operator’s time is impor tant in the estimation of the cost of most 2377 requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007c), managerial wages for 2378 farm establishments are $19.75 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of 2379 benefits received, such as insura nce. BLS reports that wages and salaries comprise 70 percent of 2380 total compensation for management in the civilian labor force (BLS, 2010). We, therefore, use a 2381 loaded wage rate of $28.21 per hour as the full va lue of time. For commercial pesticide handling 2382*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

64 establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers 2383 (since employers would likely train their own handl ers) is reported in th e 2007 OES data series 2384 for the NAICS-specific value (115100 - “Support Ac tivities for Crop Produc tion”) for SOC code 2385 37-1012 (“First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Fa rming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers”) (BLS, 2386 2007c). Using the same rate for benefits as for fa rm establishments, the loaded wage rate for this 2387 category is $30.30 per hour. 2388

2389

Employees, Farmworkers 2390

2391 Table 3.3-4 presents the number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops 2392 and the share of workers in each region. As we are including all farms that hire labor in the 2393 category of farms covered by the WPS, we implic itly assume that all labor is covered, over 2.3 2394 million people. The WPS only covers farmworkers engaged in hand labor activities, so this is 2395 likely an overestimate of affected labor. Over 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and 2396 vegetable farms and nurseries and greenhouses, howeve r, so any overestimation is less than that 2397

in the number of affected farms. Table 3.3-4 also presents the number of employees on farms 2398 according to their size designation under the SBA. While about 77 percent of farms that hire 2399 labor use pesticides, 87 percent of labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the 2400 crop farms, the number of workers at the nati onal level is from a sp ecial tabulation by NASS 2401 from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 20 08b). Regional numbers for labor on farms by 2402 size are estimated by distributing the total number of employees in the same proportion as all 2403

farm workers. 2404

2405 Table 3.3-4. Hired Labor on Crop Farms, by size. 2406

Region Farm Labor Regional

Share Farm Labor Large Farms 1 Farm Labor

Small Farms 1

United States 2,322,610 1,084,121 1,238,489
South 274,068 11.8% 127,926 146,142 California 394,844 17.0% 184,301 210,543 Southwest 78,969 3.4% 36,860 42,109 Subtropical 111,485 4.8% 52,038 59,447 Midwest 299,617 12.9% 139,852 159,765 Northeast 278,713 12.0% 130,095 148,619 Ohio Valley 353,037 15.2% 164,786 188,250

Texas/Mountain

West 185,809 8.0% 86,730 99,079 Northwest 346,069 14.9% 161,534 184,535
Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) 2407

1 Large farms are those with annual revenue greater than $750,000 or feedlots with annual revenue 2408 greater than $2.5 million, small farms are those with annual revenue of $750,000 or less or feedlots 2409
with annual revenue of $2.5 million or less. 2410

2411

Employees, Pesticide Handlers 2412

2413*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

65 The number of pesticide handler s on WPS farms unknown. EPA assu mes that, on average, large 2414 WPS farms employ two individual s who handle pesticides and large-small WPS farms employ 2415 one individual who handles pesticides. For th e two smallest categories of WPS farms, EPA 2416 assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide ha ndler. The distribution of handlers, therefore, 2417 is equivalent to farms, as in Table 3.3-1, not to workers as in Table 3.3-4. Pesticide handlers 2418 represent a subset of WPS worker s, not a distinct group. It is unlikely that an on-farm handler 2419 would be occupied full time with pesticide handling tasks and will, therefore, likely perform 2420 other production- related tasks. 2421

2422 Table 3.3-5 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, and the number 2423 of handlers employed at CPHEs, given the sa me assumptions underlying Table 3.3-4. All WPS 2424 farms are likely to use commercial applicators for some applications. 2425

2426 Table 3.3-5. WPS Agricultural Worker s and Handlers and CPHE handlers. 2427

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1 Handlers

CPHEs 2

,

multiple employees Handlers CPHEs, few employees Handlers CPHEs, self-employed

South 36,924 2,961 2,296 765 California 15,365 1,232 2,623 874 Southwest 7,930 636 1,656 552 Subtropical 6,195 497 299 100 Midwest 53,776 4,312 20,889 6,963 Northeast 25,525 2,047 8,465 2,822 Ohio Valley 57,245 4,591 6,009 2,003

Texas/Mountain

West 30,481 2,444 2,223 741 Northwest 14,373 1,153 7,782 2,594
U.S. 247,815 19,873 52,242 17,414
Source: NASS (2008b); D&B (2010); NAAA (2008), EPA estimates. 2428

1 Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS 2429 establishment and one handler per large-small W PS establishment, not including the employer. 2430 Handlers are a subset of workers, not an additional category. 2431

2 Number of handlers includes employer. Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all 2432

farms. 2433

3 Number of handlers includes employer. Distribution across regions follows number of state 2434 commercial applicator certifications for Agricultural Plant Production. 2435

2436

Employees, Wages 2437

2438 Data from the May 2007 National Industry-Spe cific Occupational Em ployment and Wage 2439

Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers 2440 employed by commercial pesticide handling es tablishments (BLS, 2007c). The number of 2441 handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (17,080 in total) is 2442 estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45-2091(Agricultural Equipment 2443 Operators) or 37-3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers , and Applicators, Vege tation) that work for 2444*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

66 a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop produc tion). Regional numbers are 2445 estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3-1. 2446

2447 The average wage rate for U.S. field workers reported in the November 2007 NASS Farm Labor 2448 Report (NASS, 2007) is $9.40 per hour. The BLS ( 2010) reports that, for all civilian workers, 2449 wages represent slightly more th an 69.5 percent of total compen sation, while for workers in the 2450 Natural Resource, Construction, and Maintena nce category, wages are around 67.5 percent of 2451 total compensation. An agricultu ral category is not available. For nonunion workers, which may 2452 better represent farm labor, wages are about 72 percent of total compensation. Given the 2453 available information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this 2454 analysis, resulting in a loaded wage rate for workers of $13.43 per hour. Since the revisions to 2455 the WPS are not expected to influence wages or benefits, the choice of loading factor is not 2456 critical to estimating the increm ental costs of the requirements. 2457

2458 Handlers represent a more skilled set of workers, but we lack data on wage differentials. Instead, 2459 EPA estimated the wage rate for handlers as th e simple average of the agricultural worker and 2460 the owner/operator of enterprise, obtaining a lo aded wage rate of $20.83. An unloaded wage rate 2461 of $14.07 per hour is reported for commercial pe sticide handling establishment handlers (BLS, 2462 2008). The loaded wage rate for handlers of commercial pesticide handling establishments, 2463 therefore, is $20.10 per hour. We note that the two wage rates are similar, which lends support 2464 for the estimated wage rate for on-farm handlers. 2465

2466

Future time periods 2467

2468 To project costs into the future, EPA must take into consideration any changes over time. EPA 2469 calculates the present value (PV) of regional base line and new regulatory costs as shown in Step 2470 4 above. Thus, the calculation is: 2471

2472

ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ∑ ܿݐݏ݋ ௥,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ ௔ ௧ ௔ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 2473

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as defined as above. Some indices are 2474 suppressed for clarity. 2475

2476 In general, the per-actor costs ar e constant through time, particular ly for the baseline. However, 2477 the number of actors is changing as farms cons olidate, production becomes more mechanized, 2478 and as growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control servic es. Changes in the number of 2479

actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where g a represents the 2480 annual percentage change in the number of actors. That is, 2481

2482

ܰ ௔ ௧ ൌ ܰ ௔ ଴ · ሺ1 ൅ ݃
௔ ሻ ௧ିଵ

2483 As a result, we can rearrange the equati on for PV into components for each actor. 2484

2485*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

67 ܥܴ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ൥

ܿݐݏ݋ ത ത ത ത ത ത

௥,a ௑ · ܰ ௔ ଴ · ෍ ሺ1 ൅ ݃
௔ ሻ ௧ିଵ

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ ൩

௔ 2486 That is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that 2487 combines the effect of the grow th or decline in numbers with the effect of the discount rate, 2488 which can then be summed across actors. Thus, in lieu of estimating regional costs in every year 2489 of the time horizon, we can often calculate the present value as the initial cost multiplied by 2490 some factor that combines the growth ra tes of the actors with the discount rate. 2491

2492 Based on numbers reported in the Agricultu ral Censuses of 1997, 2002, and 2007 (NASS, 1999, 2493 2004, and 2008b), EPA estimates the decline in fa rm numbers to be 0.47% annually and the 2494 decline in farm workers to be 2.14% per year. Gi ven a discount rate of three percent, the ten2495 year sum of the combined effects is a multipli er of 8.61 for WPS farms and 8.03 for workers. 2496 The WPS farm factor is applied to farm handlers as well. These factors are in contrast to a ten2497 year sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3-6. Annual data on the number of 2498 farms and quarterly data on farm labor (NASS, 2013) indicate that the numb er of farms is quite 2499 steady and that the annual declin e in farms workers is less than one percent. The difference in 2500 estimated costs is negligible, however, and does not influence the relative cost and benefits of the 2501 options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered 2502 in a sensitivity analysis for th e total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5. 2503

2504 Table 3.3-6 Multipliers for calculating NPV. 2505

Actor g a r = 3% r = 7%

WPS Farms - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Handlers - 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Workers - 2.14% 8.03 6.91

CPHEs 4.27% 10.57 8.93

CPHE handlers 0.17% 8.85 7.57 Commercial Applicators 3.06% 10.03 8.50

Discount alone 0% 8.79 7.52

Source: EPA calculations. 2506

2507 For CPHEs with multiple employees, the growth rate is calculated using the U.S. Census 2508

Bureau’s 2006 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (Census Bureau, 2006). Within these statistics, EPA 2509 utilizes the NAICS code of 115112 (Soil Pr eparation, Planting, a nd Cultivating) as 2510 representatives of these establishments and calculates the rate based on the number of 2511

establishments from 1998 to 2006. The number of CP HEs is estimated to be growing at a rate of 2512 4.27 percent per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the combined effect over 10 years 2513 is a multiplier of 10.57. Reliance on the past rate of growth, which has been high, may overstate 2514 the future growth of commercial pesticide servic es. If the future rate of growth is more 2515 moderate, the multiplier would be lower. 2516

2517 For handlers employed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from 2518 employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment 2519 Statistic’s National Industry-Specific Occupatio nal Employment and Wage Estimates from May 2520*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

68 2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop 2521 Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45-20 91 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37- 2522 3012 (Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicator s, Vegetation). Handler numbers are growing 2523 at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, l eading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent 2524

discount rate. 2525

2526 The growth rate of commercial applicators was calculated (based on CPARD 2007 data) to be 2527 3.06 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 10.03 for a three percent discount rate. This 2528 growth rate applies to CPHEs with few employees and their handlers as we ll as to self-employed 2529

commercial handlers. 2530

2531 This completes the discussion of the general data used in the an alysis. As mentioned above, the 2532 data that are specific to indivi dual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 2533 requirement. The discussion of the potential re quirements begins in the next section with 2534 training, followed by notification, age, entry, pe rsonal protective equipment, emergency response 2535 and decontamination supplies. 2536

2537


### 3.3.3 Training 2538

2539 Training requirements impose cost s on WPS farms in the form of providing training, potentially 2540 hiring trainers, and incurring th e opportunity cost of labor dur ing the time workers and handlers 2541 are receiving the training. Commercial pesticide applicator firms bear costs for handler training. 2542

2543 We assume that all farms hiring labor conduct trai ning sessions even if over the course of the 2544 production season they find they do not need to ma ke pesticide applicatio ns. Otherwise, any 2545 untrained employees, especially ha ndlers, would have to be traine d prior to an application, which 2546 could delay treatment. Alternatively, the pes ticide application could be made and untrained 2547 employees would not be allowed to work in an d around treated areas until they receive training, 2548 which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into 2549 compliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other farm activities, WPS farms 2550 may find it more cost-effective to forego training un til a pesticide application is needed. Thus, as 2551 a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimates the in cremental cost of potential training requirements 2552 if only those WPS farms using pe sticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hypothesizes 2553 that WPS farms find it cost-effective to forego tr aining under the current regulatory environment, 2554 but will not under potential regulations. For ex ample, currently, if the owner/operator is a 2555 certified applicator, he or she may lead worker training sessions, which would facilitate the rapid 2556 provision of training as needed. A potential requirement, however , would raise th e qualifications 2557 needed to lead a training, whic h might make it more difficult to organize an immediate training. 2558 Thus, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate the incremental cost of potential 2559 requirements if training occurs as needed in the baseline but will occur regardless of pesticide 2560

use under the revisions. We also assume that al l employees receive training, which likely leads 2561 to an overestimate of costs. Some employees , especially on farms with a primary focus of 2562 livestock production, will probably not engage in fieldwork that would expose them to pesticide 2563 residues and will, therefore, not require pesticide safety training. 2564

2565*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

69 In this section, we present the estimation of one potential training requirement in detail to 2566 demonstrate the methodology. For the other potential requir ements, we provide summary 2567 information about the effect of the requireme nts and present the results. Details on the 2568 estimation are available in Appendix A. Potentia l requirements are numbered as in Chapter 2. 2569

2570

Requirement: Immediat e Training of Workers 2571

2572 TRAIN-01. Immediate full training of workers. The potential requirement would require full 2573 training of workers prior to entr y into an area where a pesticide application had been made or a 2574 REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days. 2575

2576 Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 2577 Under current requirements, workers must be trai ned every five years. Requirements currently 2578 allow for an abbreviated training, wi th full training required before the sixth day of entry into an 2579

area described above. 2580

2581 Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the 2582 workers, who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although the WPS farm 2583 incurs the training costs and implicitly pays the wo rker to take the traini ng at the same wage he 2584 or she earns doing field work. 2585

2586 Regarding the provision of training, the cost is essentially the cost of providing a trainer. We do 2587

not include material costs as there are none specifically required under the requirements, 2588 although various aides such as DVDs are availabl e. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is 2589

2590

ݐݏ݋ܿ ௠௥ி,௜,௥ ஻

௧ ൌ෍ݓ
௝ · ܪ ௥,௜,ி௥௠,௝ ஻

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݆|݅ሻ

௝ 2591

where j , in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the trai ning. There are four types of 2592 trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety tr aining, each of which may be paid at a different 2593 wage rate. Table 3.3-7 presents th is estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of 2594 handlers and certified applicat ors, paid $37.87 per hour and assu med to lead 14 percent of 2595 trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also paid $37.87 per 2596 hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certifi ed applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 2597 75 percent of trainings; and (4 ) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour a nd assumed to lead one percent 2598 of trainings. Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2599 (BLS, 2007a). The wages in Table 3.3-7 are lo aded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of 2600 total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2. The wage for handler trainers is based on 2601 NAICS code for SOC 19-1013 (soil and plant scie ntist). Handler wages are as explained in 2602 Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are based on owner/opera tor wages as in Section 3.2. 2603 The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussions with 2604 trainers, extension agents, and employers who indi cate that certified applicators, who may be the 2605 owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that ha ndlers rarely conduct a 2606 training. Based on EPA observati ons of trainings and the leng th of training videos, EPA 2607 assumes that a full training cu rrently takes about 30 minutes. 2608

2609*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

70 Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-4), there are, on 2610 average, 20 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750,000 in annual sales) and 3.6 2611 workers per small WPS farm. With a five-year training cycle, an average of four workers to less 2612 than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained ever y year. This number 2613 could easily be accommodated with a single se ssion. However, given new hires, including 2614 workers who change employers, an average farm ma y need to train almost half its work force 2615 each year (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm 2616 masks considerable variability across farms w ith different production systems. For example, 2617 large WPS farms that primarily produce grains a nd oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 2618 average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 2619 workers. Given the overall averages, and the fl exibility for training ne w hires provided by the 2620 five-day period before a worker must be traine d, EPA assumes for simplicity that, on average, a 2621

WPS farm conducts one full tr aining each year. Individual farms will differ, perhaps 2622 substantially. In fact, EPA assumes that small farms with fewer than te n workers are likely to 2623 hold 0.7 training sessions each year on average, sm all farms with more than ten workers hold an 2624 average of 2.2 training session per year, large farms with fewer than ten workers will hold 0.9 2625 sessions per year, and large farms with more th an ten workers hold 4.5 session per year. On 2626 average, however, the frequency or probability that the training will be led by a particular type of 2627 trainer is simply the proportion of tr ainings that type of trainer conducts. 2628

2629

Table 3.3-7. Per-Establishment Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training. 2630

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trai ner $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2.65Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.100 $ 1.89

Training by certified applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 0.750 $10.58

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.010 $ 0.10

cost r , i

, a

B $15.23

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2631

2632 For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego training unle ss and until a pesticide 2633 application is needed. The probability of conduc ting a training is therefore weighted by the 2634 likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pest icide application, which is, on the average, 77.1 2635 percent. Thus, the expected per-WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $11.74. 2636

2637 The per-worker cost for an establishment is estima ted in a similar manner. Each worker to be 2638 trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wa ge rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (U.S. 2639 Department of Labor, 2008). In the baseline, 48. 9 percent of workers will to be trained each 2640 year. This percentage is derived as follows. 2641

2642 Specific data on retention and/or new hiring ar e not available, however a report from the 2643 National Agricultural Workers Survey, 2001-2002 (DoL, 2005) indicat es that 16 percent of the 2644 agricultural workforce is comprised of foreign-born newcomers. While this underestimates the 2645*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

71 true turnover rate in agri culture, EPA uses it as the new hire ra te and examines the impact of this 2646 bias in a later sensitivity analysis. 2647

2648 This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each ye ar. Current standards 2649 require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 pe rcent of the returning 2650

workforce will need to take the fu ll training in any given year. In addition, there will likely be 2651 other workers that receive training even though they are within the five-year period because they 2652 have changed employers and/or don’t remember when they last took the training or because it is 2653 convenient for the employer to train workers si multaneously. Some workers may even receive 2654 multiple trainings if they switch employers during the year. In the absence of specific data, EPA 2655 assumes another 20 percent of the returning workfo rce will take the full training for one of these 2656 reasons. Forty percent of the returning workfo rce implies a calculated 33.6 percent of the 2657 workforce in need of training, which, along w ith the new hires at 16 percent, gives us 49.6 2658 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training 2

. 2659

2660 Some small portion of the workforce may work le ss than six days and thus could receive an 2661 abbreviated training, but not a full training. Based on Farm Labor Reports (NASS, 2007 and 2662 2008a), EPA estimates that 28 percent of the agricultural workforce, including both new and 2663 returning workers, are part-time employees who wo rk less than 150 days. EPA assumes that five 2664 percent of these part-time employees, or about 1.4 percent of the workforce, do not receive 2665 training because they are employed for less than six days. Thus, 98.6 percent of the first time 2666 and returning workers in need of training will ta ke the full training, or 48.9 percent of the total 2667

workforce. 2668

2669 Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively sma ll, about 1.4 percent. However, 2670 this suggests that up to 35,000 farm workers each year do not receive pes ticide safety training 2671 when they are hired or within fi ve years of a previous training. 2672

2673 Table 3.3-8 presents the per-wor ker cost of training under curr ent requirements, including the 2674 per-worker cost for establishments of abbreviate d trainings. An abbrevia ted training is assumed 2675 to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on aver age. As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 2676 percent of the workforce will r eceive the abbreviated training onl y. We further assume that 25 2677 percent of new hires receive an abbreviated tr aining in lieu of immediately attending a full 2678 training session, most of whom w ill then receive the full training w ithin six days. Together, this 2679 suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of worker s will receive an abbreviated training each 2680 year. Finally, abbreviated trai nings are assumed to be delive red individually, requiring three 2681 minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator, whose time is 2682 valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2. 2683

2684

2 This will be the percentage of the work force traine d, on average, if immediate training is required.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

72 Table 3.3-8. Per-Worker Baseline Costs for TRAIN-01. 2685

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 30 min 0.489 $ 3.28 Abbreviated Training

Session $13.43/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated

Session $28.21/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.08

cost r , a

B $ 3.40
Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources. 2686

2687 For the sensitivity analysis, we note that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that 2688 make a pesticide application. Weighting the probability of attending some kind of training 2689 session by this amount yields an ex pected cost per worker of $2.97. 2690

2691 Step 2. Calculate Per-Actor Co sts of Potential Requirement 2692 The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner. 2693

2694 EPA assumes that trainings will be needed 1.5 tim es per year, on average, over all farms, since 2695 workers may be hired at different times during th e year. This represents an increase over the 2696 baseline, shown above, due to the loss of flexibility currently provided by the five-day grace 2697 period. The probability of a training, by type of tr ainer, is, therefore, 50 percent higher than in 2698 the baseline. Table 3.3-9 presents this estimation for establishments. 2699

2700

Table 3.3-9. Per-Establishment Cost s for TRAIN-01, Immediate Training. 2701

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j ) cost

Training by handler trai ner $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98Training 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

cost r , a

P

$22.84

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2702

2703 For the sensitivity analysis, th e probabilities would again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the 2704 likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pest icide application. Expected compliance cost 2705 would be $17.62. 2706

2707 The per-worker cost for an establishment is simi lar. Each worker to be trained spends 30 2708 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (BLS, 2008). EPA 2709 calculates that, in future years, 49.6 percent of workers will be tr ained every year as explained 2710*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

73 above. This percentage includes workers employe d for less than six days since the grace period 2711

would be eliminated. 2712

2713 In the first year under the rule, EPA calculate s that an additional 1.2 percent of the total 2714 workforce will need training. This represents th e returning workers who previously worked less 2715 than six days and, under the grace period, did no t receive a full training. The percentage is 2716 calculated as 84 percent, the proportion of returni ng workers, multiplied by the 1.4 percent of the 2717

workforce we calculated above as re ceiving only abbreviated training. 2718

2719 Table 3.3-10 presents the per-worker unit cost of eliminating the training grace period. 2720

2721

Table 3.3-10. Per-Worker Costs for TRAIN-01. 2722

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j ) cost

cost r, a

P

t
Worker Training (Year 1) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.508 $ 3.41 Worker Training (future) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.496 $ 3.33

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. 2723

2724 Under the sensitivity analyses, expected costs ar e estimated to be $2.98 in the first year and 2725 $2.91 thereafter. Cost is somewhat lower because the probability of attending a training is 2726 adjusted to account for the fact that 87.4 percent of workers ar e employed on farms that make a 2727 pesticide application. 2728

2729 Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 2730 Given the estimated costs per-establishment and per-worker, we can estimate the regional level 2731 baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in 2732 each region that are affected by the requireme nts and adding the two components together. 2733

2734

ܥܴ ௜,௥ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a 2735 Table 3.3-11 presents the baseline costs, where the number of farms is taken from Table 3.3-2 2736

and the number of workers from Table 3.3-4. Unde r current requirements, the national cost is 2737 estimated to be $13.9 million per year. Establ ishment-level costs total about $6.0 million per 2738 year and costs for worker time is approximately $7.9 million per year. Costs are for the first 2739 year; in future years, the baseline costs per acto r are not expected to ch ange but the number of 2740 actors is anticipated to decline. Under the a lternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, 2741 baseline cost for the first year is $11.5 million. 2742

2743*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

74 Table 3.3-11. Regional Baseline Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training, Year 1. 2744

WPS Farms WPS Workers Regional Cost,

Baseline

RC B i ($1,000) cost r,i,, a B $15.23 $ 3.40

Region Number of

WPS Farms

N i frm Number of WPS

Workers

N i wrkr South 58,804 274,068 $ 1,826 California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,713 Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 460 Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 529 Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,321 Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,565 Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 2,587 Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,370 Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,524
US 394,658 2,322,610 $13,896
Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008); see Table 3.3-1. Baseline costs per 2745 WPS farm and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 2746 summed. Numbers in columns may not sum due to rounding. 2747

2748 Table 3.3-12 presents the estimated regional and na tional costs for the potential requirements. In 2749 the first year, costs are estimated to be $16.9 million, an increase over baseline of $3.0 million. 2750 Establishment level costs are estimated to be $9.0 million while worker-level cost rise only 2751 slightly over the baseline. In future years, EP A estimates the worker-lev el will decline slightly 2752

because it eliminates the need for an abbreviate d training in addition to the full training. The 2753 expected per-worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3-10) which would, if 2754 applied to the first year, result in worker-level cost of $7.7 million. 2755

2756 Overall, however, the requirement would reduce th e flexibility of agricultural establishments to 2757 hire workers as needed and to provide a full trai ning when there is a critical mass of employees. 2758 This effect is captured by the increased number oftrainings, which drives the increase in per2759

establishment costs shown in Table 3.3-9. 2760

2761*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

75 Table 3.3-12. Regional Compliance Costs, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training, Year 1. 2762

WPS Farms WPS Workers
Regional Cost,

Potential

RC P est ($1,000) cost r, a

P

$22.84 $ 3.41

Region Number of WPS

Farms

N i est Number of WPS

Workers

N i wrkr South 58,804 274,068 $ 2,277 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 $ 1,702
US 394,658 2,322,610 $16,932
Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008b); see Table 3-3.2. Baseline costs per 2763 establishment and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 2764 summed. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2765

2766 As a sensitivity analysis, EPA assumes traini ng costs are incurred only by those WPS farms 2767 making a pesticide application in a given year. Under this scenario, th e first-year cost is 2768 estimated to be $13.9 million. 2769

2770 Step 4. Calculate the PV of Costs. 2771
EPA calculates the PV of costs over the ten-year time horizon as explained in Section 3.3.1. The 2772 costs per establishment for the baseline and the potential requirement are constant over time. 2773 Thus, we can multiply the first year cost by 8.61, as explained in Section 3.3.2, to obtain the PV 2774 of establishment cost. The cost per worker in the baseline is also constant and the multiplication 2775 factor is 8.03. However, the cost per worker de clines from $3.41 in the first year to $3.33 in 2776 future years under the potential requirement once all part time workers obtain full training. The 2777 PV of worker cost for the potential requirement is the first year cost plus the lower cost for future 2778 years, times the number of workers, multiplied by 7.03, which calculates the discounted cost for 2779 the last nine years of the time horizon. 2780

2781 That is, 2782

ܥܰ൫ܸܲ

௥ ௉ ൯ൌ෍ ൥

ܿݐݏ݋ ത ത ത ത ത ത

௥,a ௑ · ܰ ௔ ଴ · ෍ ሺ1 ൅ ݃
௔ ሻ ௧ିଵ

ሺ1 ൅ ݎሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ ൩

௔ 2783 becomes, for the worker cost at the national level, 2784

2785

PV ( NC r,wrkr P ) = $7.917 million + $3.33·(2,322,610)·(8.03-1) 2786

2787 Regional cost is calculated the same way and the establishment and worker elements are added 2788 together. Estimates are presented in Table 3.3-12. 2789*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

76 2790 Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incrementa l Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2791 The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking 2792 the difference in the PV of the compli ance and the regional baseline costs. 2793

2794 ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ ௥,௜ ൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ௥,௜ ஻ ൯

2795 Estimates are shown in Table 3.3-13, showing both establishment and worker components. This 2796 potential requirement would reduce the per-wor ker cost, primarily because it eliminates 2797 abbreviated trainings. The per-establishmen t cost, however, increases because more full 2798 trainings will need to be conducted due to the elimination of th e grace period between 2799 employment and training. 2800

2801

Table 3.3-13 Present Value of Cost s, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training. 2802

Region PV(RC P frm ) PV(RC P wrkr ) PV(RC B frm ) PV(RC B wrkr ) PV(RIC) ($1,000) ($1,000) South 11,569 7,349 7,713 7,471 3,735 California 4,814 10,588 3,209 10,763 1,430 Plains 2,485 2,118 1,656 2,153 793 Subtropical 1,941 2,990 1,294 3,039 598 Midwest 16,849 8,034 11,233 8,167 5,484 Northeast 7,997 7,474 5,332 7,597 2,543 Ohio Valley 17,936 9,467 11,957 9,623 5,823

Texas/Mountain

West 9,550 4,983 6,367 5,065 3,101 Northwest 4,503 9,280 3,002 9,433 1,348
US 77,645 62,283 51,763 63,309 24,855
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2803

2804 Table 3.3-14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent 2805 discount rate. Regional costs ar e estimated to range from $68,000 per year in the Subtropical 2806 region to $663,000 in the stat es of the Ohio Valley. 2807

2808*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

77 Table 3.3-14. Present Value of Cost s, TRAIN-01 Immediate Training. 2809

Region PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC
$1000 $1000 South 18,918 15,183 3,735 425 California 15,402 13,972 1,430 163 Plains 4,602 3,809 793 90 Subtropical 4,931 4,333 598 68 Midwest 24,883 19,400 5,484 624 Northeast 15,471 12,929 2,543 289 Ohio Valley 27,403 21,580 5,823 663 Texas/ Mountain West 14,533 11,432 3,101 353 Northwest 13,784 12,435 1,348 153
US 139,928 115,073 24,855 2,829
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2810

2811 Step 6. Estimate National Level Incrementa l Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2812 The national incremental cost of the potential requ irement is simply the sum of the regional level 2813

incremental cost or the difference in the sum of regional level baseline and potential costs. 2814

Estimates are shown in the last row of Tabl e 3.3-14. The incremental cost of the potential 2815 requirement is estimated to be $24.9 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. This 2816 corresponds to $2.8 million per year and an aver age of $7.20 per year per WPS farm. The per2817 farm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the 2818 worker for the time spent in training. However, many temporary workers employed to harvest 2819 fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 2820 spent in training may represent forgone wages. 2821

2822 Sensitivity Analysis, Timing of Training 2823 As discussed throughout this example, EPA examined the effect of the assumption that all farms 2824 hiring labor would, on average, conduct trainings, even if no pesticide application is ultimately 2825 made on the farm. Under the alternative assump tion that training only occurs if a pesticide 2826 application is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $2.2 million 2827 annually, or $5.50 per year per WPS farm, on average. 2828

2829 At the other extreme, the altern ative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of 2830 the loss of flexibility permitted by the grace pe riod, it would not apply under the potential 2831 requirement. That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers 2832 attending training would in crease from the baseline. Under this scenario, the incremental cost of 2833 this potential requirement is estimated to be $5.1 million per year or $12.90 per WPS farm. 2834

2835 Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate 2836 As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined the impact of the approximated hiring rate on 2837 estimates of baseline and potential costs by estim ating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in 2838 lieu of the 16 percent rate used above. A highe r rate means more new workers who must receive 2839 abbreviated and/or full training, bu t fewer returning workers who mu st be retrained. The former 2840 is the larger effect, implying that by using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of 2841*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

78 training in the baseline. With a new hire rate of 20 percent, th e estimated incremental cost of 2842 immediate training is $2.789 million annually, about a percentage lower than the estimate using 2843 of a 16 percent new hire rate. Therefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to the 2844 assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a 2845 reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias. 2846

2847

Other Training Requirements 2848

2849 Table 3.3-15 presents the net present value of the cost of the potential tr aining requirements EPA 2850 is considering. Details of thes e estimations can be found in Appe ndix A. In this section, we 2851 briefly discuss the results and hi ghlight any data considerations. 2852

2853 The most costly changes to the current standards would be to require annu al training of workers 2854 compared to the current requirement of tr aining every five years (TRAIN-03, $8.8 million 2855 annually) and to expand the conten t of worker training including an explanation of information 2856 found in crop sheets (TRAIN-07, $5.3 million annua lly). Costs are estimated using a 3% 2857 discount rate. The high cost re flects the significant increase in the amount of trainer and 2858 employee time devoted to training and the number of affected farms and workers. Relatively 2859 low-cost potential requirements include increasing the trainer qualifications for worker trainings 2860 (TRAIN-08 and 09), which are estimated to cost around $1.1 million per year over 10 years. The 2861 cost is primarily due to higher wages paid to more qualified trainers. Implementation of these 2862 requirements would be delayed two years to allo w sufficient trainers to acquire the necessary 2863 qualifications and this delay is factored into the analysis. EPA also considered eliminating the 2864 training verification programs (TRAIN-17) , which would save the over $560,000 annually. 2865 Alternatively, requiring verification be given to workers, but as a copy of the training registry, 2866 could save almost $180,000 but accomplish essentially the same objective. 2867

2868

Table 3.3-15. Present Value of National Costs, Potential Training Requirements 1

. 2869

Potential Requirement PV(NC P ) PV(NC B ) PV(NIC) Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Immediate Training 139,928 115,073 24,855 2,829 02 Immediate Training with Exceptions 135,168 115,073 20,095 2,287 03 Annual Worker Training 192,116 115,073 77,043 8,769 04 Biennial Worker Training 142,536 115,073 27,463 3,126 05 Annual Worker Training, Small Farm Exception 184,234 115,073 69,162 7,872 06 Expand Worker Training

Content 2 159,858 121,883 37,976 4,322 07 Expand Worker Training Content (crop sheet variant) 2 168,489 121,883 46,607 5,305

08 Increase Worker Trainer

Standards 124,795 115,073 9,722 1,107

09 Increase Worker Trainer Standards, Train-the-Trainer variant 124,795 115,073 9,722 1,107*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

79 Potential Requirement PV(NC P ) PV(NC B ) PV(NIC) Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 10 Keep Worker Training Records -2yr 14,216 0 14,219 1,618 11 Keep Worker Training Records -5yr 17,092 0 17,092 1,945 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

Source: EPA estimates. 2870

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2871

2 California requires additional worker training conten t, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN-06 and 2872 07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constr ained to be less than or equal to the cost of the 2873 potential requirement. 2874

3 California requires additional content and annual training for handlers, but for the purpose of the 2875 regional baseline for other handler requirements, co sts are constrained to be equal to the potential 2876 regulatory costs. 2877

2878

TRAIN-02. Immediate full traini ng of workers with exception. This potential requirement is a 2879 variant on the one discussed prev iously (TRAIN-01); it would provide an exception to the 2880 requirement of immediate training of workers. This exception woul d allow agricultural 2881 employers to delay the full pesticide safety traini ng for up to 2 days if workers are provided with 2882 an EPA-approved right-to-know information sheet explaining pesticide hazard information prior 2883 to entering an area that had been treated with a pesticide in the last 30 days. In addition to 2884 providing workers with this right- to-know sheet, its content must be explained to the worker in a 2885 manner they understand. The exception would ma intain some of the existing flexibility for 2886 employers. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option, compared to current requirements, 2887 to be about $2.3 million per year or a bout $5.80 per farm per year, on average. 2888

2889 TRAIN-03, 04, and 05. Freque ncy of worker training. Under current requirements, all workers 2890 must be trained at least once every five years if they will be entering a recently treated area. 2891 EPA is proposing to increase the frequency of work er training to every year (TRAIN-03). EPA 2892 also considered requiring trai ning every other year (TRAIN-04) and providing WPS farms with 2893*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

80 fewer than ten employees with an exception from annual training requirement under certain 2894

circumstances. 2895

2896 Training costs are incurred at the farm level, wh ere the employer provides the training, and at the 2897 worker or handler level where employees are no t engaged in work activ ities during trainings. 2898 Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential 2899 requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to 2900 accommodate the proposed requirement which increas es the frequency of trainings. The primary 2901 reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training 2902 each year. Annual training of agricultural work ers (TRAIN-03) would result in incremental 2903 costs to the agricultural sector of about $8.8 million per year over the baseline, or about $22.20 2904 per establishment. Biennial worker training (TRAIN-04) would cost about $3.2 million per year 2905 over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment. 2906

2907 If training does not occur as a matter of course, but only occurs if a pestic ide application is made, 2908 fewer WPS farms and workers are impacted each year . Under this assumption, annual training is 2909 estimated to cost about $7.4 million annually ( $18.70 per WPS farm) and biennial training would 2910 cost about $2.6 million ($6.70 per WPS farm). 2911

2912 Given the large proportion of small businesses in the U.S. farm sector, EPA convened a Small 2913 Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel to advise the Agency on the development of the rule. 2914 The panel suggested providing an exception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than 2915 ten workers that had no new employees and were us ing the same pesticide as in previous years 2916 (TRAIN-05) (EPA, 2008). The SBA defines small farms on the basis of revenue, i.e. , annual 2917 sales less than $750,000, but based on data from th e Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA 2918 estimates almost 95 percent of small WPS farms have fewer than ten workers. In fact, almost 60 2919 percent of large WPS farms employ fewer than ten workers. It is not clear how many of these 2920

farms would meet the latter two cr iteria. EPA estimates that, if fi ve percent of small farms could 2921 take advantage of the exception ( i.e. , had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in 2922 previous years), this option would cost about $7.9 million per year across all farms, about $0.8 2923 million less than annual training without exceptions. The incremental cost is estimated to be 2924 $13.60 per year, on average, for small farms. In c ontrast, the incremental cost of annual training 2925 is estimated to be $15.90 per year, on average, for small farms. If ten percent of small farms met 2926 the criteria for the excep tion, the incremental cost would fall to $11.30 per year, on average. 2927 Note that the estimated cost of this option doe s not include the cost of documenting compliance 2928 with the criteria for exception. 2929

2930 TRAIN-06 and 07. Content of worker training. Current requirements specify the content of 2931 trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover. The expanded content that 2932 would be required under the proposed option woul d include, among other things, an explanation 2933 of the hazard information found in the SDS. Toge ther, the expanded content is expected to add 2934 another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $4.3 million per year (TRAIN-06). This averages 2935 out to be about $11.00 per WPS farm. The altern ative would include an explanation of the 2936 hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer 2937

session estimated to be an extra 18 minutes. Th e alternative is expected to cost about $5.3 2938*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

81 million per year or an average of $13.40 per WPS fa rm. Both estimates assume a two-year delay 2939 in implementation to allow for the deve lopment of the new training content. 2940

2941

The baselines for TRAIN-06 and 07 are differe nt from those changing the frequency of 2942 requirement because California already requi res expanded content similar to TRAIN-06. 2943

2944

EPA also estimated the incremental cost if onl y WPS farms making a pes ticide application in a 2945 given year conduct training. An additional 15 mi nutes of training (TRAIN-06) would cost $3.6 2946 million annually, or $9.00 per WPS farm, while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN-07) 2947 would cost $4.3 million annually, or $11.10 per WPS farm. 2948

2949

TRAIN-08 and 09. Increase wo rker trainer qualifications. These possible requirements would 2950 set standards for trainers of agricultural work ers. TRAIN-08 (proposed) would require trainers 2951 to be qualified trainers of certified applicator s or individuals who have completed an approved 2952 Train-the-Trainers program; TRAIN-09 would onl y allow individuals who have completed an 2953 approved Train-the-Trainers progra m. The impact of these potenti al requirements would be an 2954

increase in the overall cost for trainers. There ma y be an increase in costs to WPS farms of about 2955 $1.1 million per year or $2.80 per WPS farm for bot h options. In the short term, both options 2956

could result in a shorta ge of trainers, with TRAIN-09 the more problematic. Employers could 2957 face delays in scheduling training sessions, a co st we cannot quantify. Implementation of the 2958 revision would be delayed two years to al low for more trainers to be trained. 2959

2960

The incremental cost of these potential requirements is estim ated to be $853,000 per year or 2961 $2.20 per WPS farm, if only those farms making a pesticide application conduct worker training. 2962 However, it could be that all farms currently conduct worker training only as needed, but under 2963 the new requirements will conduct trainings as a matter of course because qualified trainers may 2964 not be available on demand. Under this high-cost scenario, the incremental cost is estimated to 2965 be $2.8 million annually or $7.20 per WPS farm. 2966

2967 TRAIN-10 and 11. Record keeping requirements, Worker training. Currently, WPS farms are 2968 not required to maintain records of the work ers who have received training. These potential 2969 revisions would impose such requirements. Cost s consist of the opportunity cost of labor for 2970 employees to acknowledge training and for employe rs to distribute, collect, and store the 2971 acknowledgements. There are also material co sts to store the acknowledgements, depending on 2972 the length of storage. TRAIN-10 would requir e retention for two years while TRAIN-11 would 2973 require retention for five years. In total, th e cost to document and st ore records on agricultural 2974 worker training is estimated to cost a bout $1.6 to $1.9 million annually or $4.10 to $4.90 per 2975 year per WPS farm. 2976

2977 If training only occurs if there is at least one pesticide application, the estimated costs of the 2978 requirements are $1.3 million per year ($3.20 per W PS farm) to keep records for two years and 2979 $1.6 million per year ($4.00 per WPS farm) to keep records for five years. 2980

2981 TRAIN-12 and 13. Frequenc y of handler training. Current requirements stipulate that handler 2982 training is valid for five years. EPA consider ed increasing the frequenc y of training to every 2983 year under TRAIN-12 or every other year under requirement TRAIN-13 fo r handlers. Training 2984*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

82 costs are incurred at the establishm ent level, to provide the traini ng, and at the handler level, as 2985 employees are not engaged in work activities duri ng trainings. As with worker training, some 2986 establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the increase 2987 in the frequency of trainings, but the primary r eason that the regulatory cost increases is that 2988 more handlers would receive training each year. 2989

2990 EPA estimates that there are over 247,000 handl ers employed by WPS farms, based on the 2991 assumption that there are, on average, two handl ers for each large farm (annual revenues greater 2992 than $750,000) and one handler for each of the largest small farms (annual revenues between 2993 $100,000 and $750,000). There are also about 17,000 handlers employed by CPHEs (BLS, 2994 2007c). For lack of better data, EPA uses the same 16% new hire rate for both categories to 2995 determine the number of returning handlers that will need periodic traini ng. We exclude self2996 employed commercial handlers a nd other handlers who are cert ified because the training or 2997 examinations required by states would meet th e WPS requirements. In fact, most of the 17,000 2998 CPHE handlers and many of the WPS handlers included in this cost estimate are also likely to be 2999 certified or in the process of obtaining certification and w ould probably meet WPS training 3000 requirements. 3001

3002 Under TRAIN-12, the increase in annual handler training over curr ent requirements runs about 3003 $3.5 million per year and would cost the larger WPS farms an additional $17.00 per year and 3004 CPHEs an additional $66.70, on average. Again, because most CPHE handlers would have or 3005 seek commercial certification, the true incremen tal cost is likely to be near zero. Biennial 3006 training under TRAIN-13 would cost $1.6 million annua lly over the baseline. Average per entity 3007 costs for the larger WPS farms would be about $8.10 per year more for handler training. CPHEs 3008 would incur additional costs of about $27.40 per year, on average. The per-entity costs are 3009 higher for the CPHEs because they employ more handlers. 3010

3011 California already requires pesticid e handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is 3012 adjusted accordingly. As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the 3013 federal standards. In the case of the potential re quirement requiring biennial training, the cost of 3014

California baseline is co nstrained to be that und er biennial training to account for the fact that 3015 federal requirements would not lower costs to California establishments. 3016

3017 It could be that pesticide handlers would only be trained if a pesticide application were needed. 3018 Under this scenario, requiring annual handler trai ning would result in an incremental cost of $3.1 3019 million annually or $15.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are always making pesticide 3020 applications, there is no change in the assump tions underlying the estimate of their cost. 3021 Requiring biennial handler training is estimated to cost an additional $1.4 million per year ($6.90 3022 per larger WPS farm) over baseline, under the alternative assumption. EPA notes that the 3023 assumptions regarding the number of impacted farms and handle rs has little effect on the 3024 estimated incremental cost because data show that 90 percent of handlers are employed on farms 3025 making pesticide applicati ons in any given year. 3026

3027 TRAIN-14 and 15. Content of handler training. Current requirements specify the content of 3028 handler trainings and EPA estimat es that trainings take about 45 minutes based on the length of 3029 commercially available video materials. The e xpanded content under the po tential requirements 3030*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

83 could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the tr ainings, the difference depending on whether the 3031 training covers hazard communication via the SD S (see HAZCOM-02) or the more detailed crop 3032 sheets (see HAZCOM-04). This would cost an additional $656,000 for TRAIN-14 (additional 3033 15 minutes) and $795,000 for TRAIN-15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training 3034 each year. Average handler training costs unde r TRAIN-14 and 15 are estimated to increase by 3035 $3.20 or $3.90 per year for larger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are 3036 estimated to rise by $14.70 and $17.90 per year resp ectively. These requirements would not take 3037 effect for two years while the new training mate rials are developed. As noted above, we are 3038 likely overestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for 3039 expanded training for CPHEs and private certific ation would meet the requirements for WPS 3040

farms. 3041

3042 As with worker training, the baselines for potential handler traini ng requirements differ 3043 according to existing California requirements. As explained in the methodology, baseline costs 3044 are constrained to be less than or equal to those of the potential requirements to avoid 3045 erroneously estimating a reduction in costs. 3046

3047 As a sensitivity analysis, EPA estimated the in cremental cost of these requirements under the 3048 assumption that handler training occurs only if a pesticide application is made during the season. 3049 An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN- 14) would cost about $553,000 per year ($2.70 per 3050 larger WPS farm) while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN- 15) would cost about 3051 $680,000 per year ($3.30 per WPS farm). CPHE co sts are not affected by these assumptions. 3052

3053 TRAIN-16 and 17. Record keeping requirements, Handler training. Currently, WPS farms and 3054 CPHEs are not required to mainta in records of the handlers who ha ve received training, except in 3055 California. These potentia l requirements are similar to TRAIN-10 and 11. In total, the cost to 3056 document and store records on pesticide handler training is estimated to cost about $162,000 to 3057 $289,000 annually, which ranges from $0.80 to $1.40 pe r larger WPS farm and from $3.00 to 3058 $3.80 per CPHE. 3059

3060 If handler training only occurs in conjunction with a pesticide appl ication, keeping records for 3061 two years is estimated to cost $150,000 per ye ar, with WPS farms incurring costs around $0.70 3062 per year. Requiring records be kept for five years is estimated to cost about $276,000 annually 3063 under this alternate assumption and WPS farms would face an additional $1.40 per year. Costs 3064 to CPHEs are unaffected by this assumption. 3065

3066 TRAIN-18, 19, and 20. Tr aining verification. Under these potential requirements, EPA would 3067 end voluntary programs to issue training verifica tion cards. The cost of the program is the 3068 opportunity cost of labor for employers to distri bute the cards and empl oyees to receive them; 3069

EPA also incurs costs to manuf acture the cards. About 22 stat es and territories currently 3070 participate in the program, based on 2010 requests fo r new cards. Of the representative states, 3071 Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions 3072 have requested verification cards. For this anal ysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, 3073 Plains, Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zer o to reflect low partic ipation. Arkansas, along 3074 with five of the seven states it represents, pa rticipates, as do es California and Colorado, along 3075 with one of the two states it represents. Baselin e costs for these three regions, South, California, 3076*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

84 and Southwest, are estimated assuming full partic ipation, reflecting high participation among the 3077 states. Baseline costs for the other three regions , Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are 3078 calculated using a 50 percent participation rate b ecause about half the states in these regions 3079 participate in the current program. Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of 3080 participation, EPA estimates that eliminati ng the training verificati on program (TRAIN-18) 3081 could save about $567,000 annually, incl uding costs to EPA of providi ng the cards. Savings per 3082 WPS farm amount to $1.40 per year and for CP HEs, $0.80 per year, but savings would only 3083 occur in states currently part icipating in the program. 3084

3085 Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) would cost about $641,000 annually, or roughly 3086 $1.60 per WPS farm and $1.50 per CPHE. Costs, howev er, would only be incurred in states not 3087 fully participating in the current program. 3088

3089 Replacing the voluntary program w ith a requirement that employees be provided evidence of 3090 training (TRAIN-20) would, under the curren t frequency of training, save about $180,000 3091 annually or about $0.50 per year per WPS farm and $0.04 per CPHE. Savings arise because 3092

individualized cards are more e xpensive to complete than simply providing a copy of the training 3093 register. However, WPS farms and CPHEs observe additional material cost, as EPA and states 3094 are currently providing cards or ot herwise subsidizing them. Furthe r, savings only arise in states 3095 currently participating in the volun tary program; establishments in other states would bear costs. 3096

3097 If training currently occurs only if a pesticide ap plication is made on a W PS farm, the cost saving 3098 of eliminating the verification cards is estima ted to be $498,000 per year while the cost of 3099 requiring verification cards would be about $566,000 annually. Requiring verification through a 3100 copy of the training register (TRAIN-20) would save around $158,000 annually, under this 3101 alternative assumption. 3102

3103



### 3.3.4 Hazard Communication 3104

3105 Hazard communication requirements impose cost s on WPS farms who must inform their 3106 employees about the use of pes ticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry 3107 operations are also covered, but as the impact is minimal, they ar e not considered in this analysis. 3108 As with training, the impacts in clude the opportunity cost of la bor for providing and receiving 3109

the information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. Hazard communication 3110 requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications. 3111

3112 Table 3.3-16 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement considered 3113 in this category. The table shows the present va lue of regional compliance cost for the potential 3114 requirements, PV(RC P ), and for the baseline consideri ng current state requirements, PV(RC B ). 3115 The present value of the incremen tal costs, PV(RIC), are calcul ated as the difference between 3116 compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 3117 is the requirement to provide workers with cr op sheets, which describe the ways in which a 3118 worker might be exposed to a particular pesticide for each crop (HAZCOM-04). The 3119 requirement is estimated to cost $13.0 million annually. The proposed change from central 3120 posting to making application information available on request (HAZCOM-01) entails 3121 comparatively low cost at $1.1 million per year. 3122*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

85 3123 Table 3.3-16. Present Value of Costs, Hazard Communication Requirements 1

. 3124

Potential Requirement PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC $1,000 $1,000 01 Application Information Availability 164,954 154,908 10,046 1,143

02 Pesticide Information Availability – SDS and

label 131,032 84,201 46,831 5,330

03 Pesticide Information Availability – label 59,865 59,791 14,074 1,602

04 Pesticide Information Availability – crop sheets 163,774 49,303 114,471 13,029 05 Record Keeping – 2 years 29,894 3,677 26,217 2,984 06 Record Keeping – 5 years 32,770 3,677 29,093 3,311 07 Provide Crop Sheet with

Label 2 318,330 293,020 25,310 2,881 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3125

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3126

2 Requirement would apply to registrants at a national scale only. 3127

3128 In this section, we discuss the results of the estimation and present details if the situation 3129 diverges from the typical method. Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in 3130 Appendix A. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 15.4 3131 pesticide applications per year, given that 77.1 pe rcent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given 3132 year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farm s using pesticides make an average of 20 3133 applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially field crops, but the 3134

number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following examples s how how EPA arrived at 3135

this number. 3136

 Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. A ccording to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 3137 (NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Iowa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). 3138 Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average 3139

farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 3140 acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, 3141

which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn – soybean rotation with some fields 3142 in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the stat e indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 3143 and soybean crops grown in rotation and an he rbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 3144 in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implie s 12 pesticide applications for a typical 3145

farm. 3146

 Fruit crops in Washington. There ar e 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 3147 production, implying about 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per 3148 farm, on average (NASS, 2008b, Volume 1, Chapte r 2, Table 32). This suggests a typical 3149 farm might have four blocks of fruit production: two of apple, one of cherry, and one of 3150 pear. Typical spray programs (Northwest Wholesale, Inc., 2011a, b, c) imply 12 3151 applications to apple blocks, six to the cherry block, and seven to th e pear, for a total of 3152 37 applications. Including one herbicide application to each leaves us with 40 3153*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

86 applications per year. 3154

 Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida 3155 vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no informati on on field size or 3156 number of fields per farm. Fu rther, Florida’s climate allows two or even three crops each 3157 year and a wide variety of vegetables, incl uding beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 3158 tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 3159 Florida, 2008-09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, 3160 including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 3161 however, may be treated 17 times over the c ourse of a season, including an herbicide 3162 treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and 3163 fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 3164 Florida vegetables are probably more intens ely managed than most vegetable fields, 3165 however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California (Smith, Klonsky, and 3166 DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receives about six pesticide tr eatments, considering 3167 tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of 3168 time to take advantage of marketing opportuni ties and to stagger pr oduction activities. 3169 Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in te rms of the number of 3170 pesticide applications. 3171 Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fru it and vegetable farms 3172 accounting for another 22 percent (NASS, 2008b). The average across all farms, given 12 3173 applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 a pplications on fruit and vegetable farms, is 3174 about 20 applications per farm. This does not co nsider farms that are primarily livestock with 3175 some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average. 3176

3177 HAZCOM-01. Application information. Currently, farm owners or operators must post 3178 information about a covered pesticide applica tion made within the previous 30 days when 3179 employees are present 3 . This requires time to compile and record the information. Discussions 3180 with stakeholders suggest that the time required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. 3181 A sheet of paper is needed to record the information, which take s about a minute (0.017 hours) to 3182 post at a central location. This must be done for every application. Table 3.3-17 presents the 3183 estimated baseline cost per establishment for all regions except for California and 3184 Texas/Mountain West. Representative states fo r those regions have provisions similar to the 3185 proposed requirements. 3186

3187 These costs may be underestimated. Stakeholders indicate that multiple postings are often 3188 necessary for a single applica tion because the central area is outdoors and the posting can be 3189 subject to weathering. 3190

3 An insecticide application in or around a cattle barn, for example, would not be covered under the WPS.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

87 Table 3.3-17. Per-Establishment Baseline Co sts for HAZCOM-01, Provide Application 3191

Information. 3192

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 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

cost r,i, a B $ 44.90

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3193

3194 Under the proposed requirement, HAZCOM-01, WPS farms would provi de the application 3195 information to any worker or handler who requests to review it rather than post the information. 3196 EPA assumes that such a request would take about six minutes (0.1 hour) or about five minutes 3197 more than posting. EPA does not have experience as to how often a reques t would occur. It is 3198 likely to be rare, but EPA estimates costs assumi ng a request for 25 percent of applications, or 3199 3.9 times per year. This is likel y to be a significant overestimat e. Thus, in lieu of posting the 3200 application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $10.88 per year, 3201 making the total cost of the new requirement $48.53 pe r farm per year. This is also the baseline 3202

cost for California and Texas/Mountain West as the representative states already have a 3203 provision that employees or thei r representatives can request th e application information. 3204

3205 There are no actions required of any other acto r. Table 3.3-18 presents the estimated regional 3206 costs for the first year the requirement is in effect. California and Te xas already require the 3207 display of the additional information. 3208

3209 Table 3.3-18. Regional Costs for HAZCOM -01, Application Information, Year 1. 3210 Region N WPS est RC P RC B

cost r,i, a B $ 44.90

cost r,i, a P

$48.53 $1,000 South 58,804 2,640,541 2,853,784

California 1 24,469 1,187,480 1,187,480 Southwest 12,629 567,096 612,893 Subtropical 9,866 443,044 478,823 Midwest 85,641 3,845,620 4,156,181 Northeast 40,650 1,825,340 1,972,750 Ohio Valley 91,166 4,093,724 4,424,322

Texas/Mountain West 1 48,543 2,355,808 2,355,808 Northwest 22,890 1,027,861 1,110,869
U.S. 394,658 $17,986,514 $19,152,909

Source: EPA estimation. 3211

1 Baseline costs are $48.53 as for the potential requirement. 3212

3213 The costs of this requirement, both current and pote ntial, recur annually. In estimating the PV of 3214 costs over a 10-year time horizon, the only factor that changes through time is the number of 3215*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

88 establishments, which has been declining at a ra te of 0.47% annually over the last decade. This 3216 trend is expected to continue as agriculture consolidates. EPA estimates the PV of the baseline 3217 cost is $155 million dollars over 10 years at a 3% discount rate, considering requirements in 3218 California and Texas (Table 3.3-15). The potentia l requirement is expected to cost about $165 3219 million over 10 years. Thus, incremental costs of increasing the information provided about 3220 pesticide applications are estimated to be a bout $10.0 million. This corresponds to $1.1 million 3221 annually and, on average, to be $2.90 per WPS farm per year. If baseline costs are higher than 3222 estimated due to multiple postings for each applic ation, the incremental cost of this provision 3223

will be lower. 3224

3225 HAZCOM-02, 03, and 04. Pesticide-sp ecific information. Agricultural employers are currently 3226 required to post information about pesticide ap plications, including the active ingredient used 3227 and the product name and registration number . The proposed revision (HAZCOM-02) would 3228 require additional hazard information, consisting of the label and the associated SDS, be 3229

collected and made available. The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and 3230 copy the material. The SDS is typically available w ith the label at distributo rs and on line. Four 3231 representative states (Ca lifornia, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) al ready require this information to be 3232

available. EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $5.3 million annually. The cost is 3233 proportional to the number of applications. 3234

3235 An alternative would be to require only that th e pesticide label be ava ilable (HAZCOM-03). The 3236 cost of this option would be just over $1.6 million annually. A second alternative, HAZCOM3237 04, would be to require crop shee ts for all applications. Th is information would be crop3238 chemical specific, providing information on rout es of exposure and high risk activities, given 3239 typical cropping practices, and em ergency procedures in case of exposure. These sheets would 3240 likely be harder to obtain and, while generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more 3241 frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical. EPA estimates the cost of 3242 this potential requirement to be $13.0 million annually or $33.00 per WPS farm. 3243

3244 HAZCOM-05 and 06. Keep records of application information. There are no current 3245 requirements that WPS farms keep records of pesticide applications; information about an 3246 application must only be posted for 30 days following the expiration of the REI. EPA 3247 considered requiring records to be kept for two or for five years. The primary costs would be 3248 materials such as copies of the application information and somethi ng in which to keep records. 3249 Baseline, compliance, and incremental costs ove r a ten-year period at the national level are 3250

shown in Table 3.3-14. EPA estimates annuali zed incremental costs are $2.9 to 3.3 million 3251 respectively, which averages out to be $7.60 per establishment under HAZCOM-05 to $8.40 per 3252

establishment for HAZCOM-06. EPA assumes that all WPS farms will fall under record 3253 keeping requirements since over time all are exp ected to make some pesticide applications. 3254

3255 HAZCOM-07. Provision of crop sheets. To support the potential re quirement for crop-chemical 3256 specific hazard information (HAZCOM-04), this proposal would require re gistrants to provide 3257 additional safety information along with the pesticid e label, which provides use directions. This 3258 would require the development of new printing te mplates, which would be a one-time cost for 3259 each existing pesticide product, the cost of which would depend on the number of crops for 3260 which the crop is registered. EPA would expect to phase this in over a three year period to allow 3261*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

89 registrants to include the new ma terial as they reprint product la bels. It would also increase 3262 printing costs over the entire time 10-year time period we analyze because of the additional 3263 volume of material. EPA estimates this potential requirement would impose additional costs of 3264 about $25.3 million on registrants over 10 years, or an annualized cost of about $2.9 million per 3265

year. 3266

3267



### 3.3.5 Notification 3268

3269 Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employers who must provide their 3270 employees with information abou t where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 3271 information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 3272

information as well as materials used to di sseminate the information. As with hazard 3273 communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 3274 pesticide applications. 3275

3276 Table 3.3-19 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement. As in 3277 previous tables, it shows the present value of regional compliance costs for the potential 3278 requirements, PV(RC P ), and for the baseline consideri ng current state requirements, PV(RC B ). 3279 The present value of the incremen tal costs, PV(RIC), are calcul ated as the difference between 3280 compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 3281 is the requirement to post warning signs for Re stricted Entry Interval s every 100 feet around the 3282 perimeter of a treated field (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this would cost $256 million per 3283 year in additional signs and labor. Other poten tially costly requirements include maintaining 3284

records of oral notification of REIs (NOTIFY-04 and 05). Th ese two potential requirements 3285 would cost about $19.5 million per year in time and materials. Relatively low cost requirements 3286 considered by EPA include revisions to warni ng signs and safety posters (NOTIFY-06 and 14), 3287 which are expected to cost $97,000 and 108,000 per ye ar respectively. EPA is also proposing to 3288 allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REIs of less than four hours. EPA 3289 estimates this will save greenhouse operations about $10,000 per year nationally. 3290

3291

Table 3.3-19. Present Value of Co sts, Notification Requirements 1

. 3292

Potential Requirement PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC $1,000 $1,000

01 REI > 48 hours Warning Sign 412,958 320,324 92,634 10,543

02 REI > 72 hours Warning Sign 385,126 320,324 64,802 7,375

03 REI ≤ 4 hours Oral

Notification (greenhouses) 980 1,065 -84 -10 04 Record Keeping for

Oral Notification – 2 years 176,075 0 176,075 20,040 05 Record Keeping for

Oral Notification – 5 years 178,292 0 178,292 20,293*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

90 Potential Requirement PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC $1,000 $1,000 06 Revise Warning Sign (“Entry restricted Area”) 19,062 18,211 851 97 07 Revise Warning Sign (Skull and Cross Bones) 45,909 18,211 27,698 3,152 08 Posting Warning Signs w/in 100 ′ worker housing 96,375 96,375 0 0 09 Posting Warning Signs every 100 ′ 2,346,405 96,375 2,250,030 256,089

10 Oral Information for Entry restricted –

workers 10,296 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 48,826 7,777 41,049 4,672 18 Clarify Notifications by Commercial Applicator 316,546 316,546 0 0 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3293

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3294

3295 NOTIFY-01 and 02. Posting warning signs. Two potential requireme nts require the physical 3296 posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY-01, would require 3297 posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours. An altern ative, NOTIFY-02, would require posting if the 3298 REI exceeds 72 hours. Currently, employers may in form workers of REIs orally or by posting a 3299 sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e. , both verbal 3300 communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post wa rnings of all applications 3301 and these new requirements would not apply to t hose operations. Costs are expected to vary by 3302 farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally no tify a large number of 3303*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

91 workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medi um to small-small farm is presented in Table 3304 3.3-20, as an example. EPA assumes that mo st employers in small farms provide oral 3305 notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made. 3306 Since some workers may not be present the day of application, they will ha ve to be informed of 3307 the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to provide multiple 3308 notifications. Employers with many workers, however, may find it too complicated and too time 3309 consuming to orally notify them all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs 3310 already. Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be 3311 double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two 3312 signs are generally needed for pos ting. We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker 3313 housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed (see NOTIFY-08). Signs will 3314 generally last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by 3315 the proportion of non-greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is 3316 77.2 percent (NASS, 2008). The expected per-far m cost is estimated to be between $35 and 3317 $105 depending on the size of the farm. There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which 3318 accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification ov er the entire season. 3319

3320

Table 3.3-20. Per-Medium & Small-Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs for NOTIFY-01, Post 3321 REI warning signs. 3322

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 14.3 $ 20.14 Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0.313 $ 3.55 Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 1.25 $ 11.78 Signs $ 5.66 per 3 0.011 $ 0.19 Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.045 $ 0.63

cost r,i, a B $ 36.28

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3323

3324 The costs associated with these potential requirements are the material expense of additional 3325 signs and labor costs of posting signs more freq uently. Offsetting some of these costs is a 3326 reduction in the time required to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3-21 presents the 3327 calculations. We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater 3328

than 48 hours while oral notificati on occurs 70 percent of the time . Double notific ation is still 3329 required for ten percent of app lications. As a result, the e xpected per-establishment cost 3330 increases to between $70 and $105, where large farms with many work ers are not expected to be 3331 impacted. Due to less frequent oral notifications , the expected per-worker cost decreases to $5 to 3332 $7. 3333

3334*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

92 Table 3.3-21. Per-Medium & Small-Small WP S Farm Potential Requirement Costs for 3335 NOTIFY-01, Post REI warning signs. 3336

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 10.0 $ 14.09 Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0.313 $ 7.09 Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 5.01 $ 47.14 Signs $ 5.66 per 6 0.011 $ 0.38 Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.178 $ 2.51

cost r,i, a B $ 71.22

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3337

3338 For NOTIFY-02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that 3339 signs would be required 30 percen t of the time while oral notifi cation would occur 80 percent of 3340

the time. Per-establishment cost is calculat ed to be between $60 and $105 per year and per3341 worker cost to be between $5.60 and $7.80, depending on farm size. 3342

3343 Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warn ing signs to be about $7.3 million annually if 3344 posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $10.5 million annually if posting is 3345 required for REIs over 48 hours. The estima ted incremental costs average $28.70 to $26.80 per 3346 year per non-greenhouse WPS fa rm across all farm sizes. 3347

3348

These estimates take into consideration the allo wance that new signs are to be phased in by the 3349 third year. 3350

3351

NOTIFY-03. Oral notificati on of REIs in greenhouses. Currently, greenhouses are required to 3352 post REI warning signs for all pesticide applica tions; signs are also required to be removed 3353 shortly after the end of the REI. This proposal would give owners/operators of greenhouses the 3354 option of simply notifying their employees orally for REIs of four hours or less. For many 3355 operations, this would lead to savings in the tim e required to post and remove signs. However, 3356 some operations may be large enough that orally notifying all their employees would be more 3357 time consuming. EPA estimates that this revi sion would save about $10,000 per year nationally 3358 or about $1.80 per year per WPS greenhouse, on average. As noted above, greenhouses with 3359 many workers may not alter their practices while greenhouses with relatively few workers would 3360 save more than the average. 3361

3362 NOTIFY-04 and 05. Record keep ing of oral notifications. A potential addition to the WPS 3363 would require owners/operators to obtain ac knowledgement from their employees that the 3364 employees were notified of REIs. Under NOT IFY-04, these records would be kept for two 3365 years; under NOTIFY-05 they would be kept fo r five years. As e xplained in NOTIFY-01 and 3366 02, the size of the farm, particular ly the number of workers, infl uences the decision to post or 3367 orally inform employees of the REI. The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in 3368 Table 3.3-22 for small farms and includes prep aring the written copy of the notification, 3369 obtaining employees’ signatures, and filing the doc ument. The annual frequency for each action 3370 is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY-01, e xplained above. The cost for large farms is 3371*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

93 estimated to be $38.73, slightly lower than for sma ll farms because it is more cost-effective to 3372 post fields when there are many workers. Ther e is also a per-worker cost for providing the 3373 signature, which EPA estimates to be $1.34 per year for workers on small farms and $1.19 per 3374 year for workers on large farms. Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double 3375 notification products as explai ned under NOTIFY-03. Greenhouse costs are estimated to be 3376 $3.72 per year, on average, with a per-employee cost of $0.13 per year. 3377

3378 Table 3.3-22. Per-Small WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs 3379 for NOTIFY-04, Keep Record s of REI notifications. 3380

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Prepare 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

cost r,i, a B $ 45.98

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3381

3382

EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY- 04 is $20.0 million annually. The average cost per 3383 WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $50.80 per year and is similar for small and 3384 large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $7.10. NOTIFY-05, with a five3385 year retention requirement, woul d be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage 3386

container to hold the files. EPA estimates the cost to be about $20.3 million per year with an 3387 average cost per WPS farm of $51.40 pe r year and $7.60 per year per greenhouse. 3388

3389 NOTIFY-06 and 07. Revise warning signs. EPA is considering revisions to warning signs 3390 posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI. The proposed revision, NOTIFY-06, 3391 would replace the current circle with a stop-sign like octagon a nd replace the words “Keep Out” 3392 with “Entry Restricted Area.” An alternative, NOTIFY-07, would instead replace the circle with 3393 a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide inform ation about the pesticide that was used. For 3394 the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.30, more expensive. Nationally, this 3395 revision may cost about $97,000 per year. Per-farm cost would average less than $0.30. For 3396 NOTIFY-07, the potential requiremen t would also entail labor cost s to post appl ication-specific 3397 information and higher material cost for a sign on which information could be written. This 3398 could cost $3.2 million annually, which is $8.00 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS 3399 greenhouses, on average. Greenhous es would bear high costs due to the frequency with which 3400 they are required to post REI warning signs. 3401

3402 NOTIFY-08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently, when warning signs are posted, they 3403 must be placed at the usual access points to a trea ted field or at each corner and where visible if 3404 worker housing is adjacent to the field. The num ber of access points to a fi eld is highly variable, 3405 but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across 3406 irrigation infrastructure for workers and/or equipm ent to enter. We assume about 20 percent of 3407 farms will need a third sign to place near worker housing. Posting signs is likely the exception, 3408*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

94 rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler. The baseline costs, i.e.

, 3409 costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the labor to post the signs and the 3410 material cost of the signs. Signs can be reus ed, so most establishments probably only need two 3411 or three, i.e. , to post one field at a time. Greenhouses , however, must post warning signs for all 3412 pesticide applications and likely ne ed four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots 3413 simultaneously. 3414

3415 NOTIFY-08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to 3416 engender any costs. 3417

3418 EPA also considered a potential requirement th at would require posting warning signs every 100 3419

feet around a treated area to aler t workers if, for example, they were to cross a field without 3420 passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY-09). Size and shape of field are extremely 3421 variable, but as a scenario that might be somewh at representative, EPA c onsidered a square field, 3422 40 acres in size. Each side would be 1,320 feet , requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in 3423 total. Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smalle r, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular 3424 one-acre plot. Accounting for the cost of addi tional signs and additi onal labor, EPA estimates 3425 that this potential re quirement could cost over $2.2 billi on dollars over ten years at a three 3426 percent discount rate or about $256 million annuall y. The annual incremental cost is estimated 3427 to average over $690 for WPS greenhouses and about $650 for other WPS farms. 3428

3429

NOTIFY-10 and 11. Provide info rmation to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 3430 Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during the restricted entry period for which the 3431 restricted-entry interval is in effect. Workers must have either read the product labeling or been 3432 informed of the labeling require ments related to hazard or safe ty. NOTIFY-10 would permit oral 3433 instruction, but would require mo re detailed information be provided, which would require more 3434 time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information. An alternative, NOTIFY-11 3435 would require that the information also be pr ovided in writing, in the form of crop sheets 3436 generated by the registrants. EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY-10 to be about 3437 $698,000 annually and $1.1 million per year for NOTIF Y-11. Per WPS farms, annual costs are 3438 expected to be $1.80 and $2.70, respectively. 3439

3440

NOTIFY-12 and 13. Document information to wo rkers entering treated fields during the REI. 3441 Under these potential measures, EPA would re quire that employers obtain acknowledgement 3442 from the workers that they received the inform ation and the employer w ould retain the record 3443 sheet for two or five years (NOTIFY-12 and NOTIFY-13, respectively). Record keeping is 3444 expected to cost about $469,000 pe r year for two-year retention and, for five years, $796,000 per 3445 year, which includes material to document r eceipt of the information and to store the 3446 documentation. The cost is equivalent to $1.20 to $2.00 per WPS farm. 3447

3448 NOTIFY-14. Revise pesticide safety information display. The proposal would require 3449 agricultural establishmen ts to include, along with the safe ty display, contact information for 3450 medical assistance and for state agencies overseeing pesticide use. The incremental cost of this 3451 action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which 3452 would be done by the WPS farm. EPA estimates that this potential re quirement would cost 3453 growers about $108,000 per year over ten years, using a three percen t discount rate, and 3454*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

95 considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two y ears. The annualized cost is 3455 estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS farm per ye ar. Costs may be somewhat overstated because 3456 signs are available free through EPA. 3457

3458 NOTIFY-15, 16, and 17. Safety disp lays at decontamination sites. These requirements would 3459 add additional pesticide safety displays where decontaminati on supplies are located. NOTIFY3460 15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY- 16 addresses handler si tes on WPS farms. 3461

NOTIFY-17 is a variant on the field worker cas e and would require displays wherever REI 3462 warning signs are posted. The cost of these requir ements arises from the cost of new signs and 3463 the labor to post them. EPA anticipates that th ese requirements will impose costs that vary by 3464 the size of the operation, which will determine the num ber of sites at which safety posters will be 3465 required. EPA identifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2. 3466 Table 3.3-23 presents EPA’s estimates of the pe r-establishment unit cost s, assuming that the 3467 requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average. Large farms incur 3468 much higher cost for posting safety displays wi th REI signs because they likely post more 3469 frequently than do small farms. See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY-01 and 02. If 3470 safety displays are required with REI warning signs, however, large farms could reduce the 3471 number of postings by shif ting to oral notification. 3472

3473

Table 3.3-23. Per-Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites 3474

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 $11.34

Small WPS

Greenhouse $31.17

Large WPS Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15 $33.07

Large WPS

Greenhouse $42.20

Source: EPA estimates. 3475

3476

Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by eac h potential requirement, EPA 3477 estimates the national cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is estimated to be 3478 $2.0 million annually or $5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites 3479 (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 or $2.00 per WPS farm. Safety displays can be 3480 obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. 3481 Placing safety posters with REI warning signs (NOTIFY-17) is estimated to cost $4.7 million 3482 annually or $11.80 per WPS farm. 3483

3484 NOTIFY-18. Notification of agricultura l establishments by CPHE employers. WPS currently 3485 requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that 3486 proper steps can be taken to protect workers in th e area or who might enter the field. Further, if 3487 there are any changes to the application, e.g. , delay in application, change of product (brand), the 3488*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

96 CPHE must immediately inform the client. The latter requirement has raised concerns about the 3489 practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspe cts of the application 3490 and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical informati on pertaining to worker 3491 safety is provided in a timely manner. The prop osed revision would speci fy that the CPHE must 3492 inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI 3493 begins. It also revises the regulations to matc h EPA guidance. No costs are expected to arise 3494

from this revision. 3495

3496 Sensitivity Analysis 3497 The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements 3498 and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis. That 3499 is, under the assumption that WPS farms that use pe sticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide 3500 applications per year instead of 20 applications. 3501

3502 The incremental costs for the potential requir ements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY-01 3503 and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the nu mber of applications. This is because the 3504 baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting 3505 warning signs for REIs greater than the thres hold (48 and 72 hours, re spectively) changes by a 3506 fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the nu mber of applications 3507 results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the re vision. The savings generated by 3508 allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notif y workers when the REI is less than four hours 3509 varies (NOTIFY-03) proportionally with the number of applications . The cost of record keeping 3510 of oral notification (NOTIFY-04 and 05) also va ries nearly proportionally with the number of 3511 applications. The cost of providing more in formation upon early entr y (NOTIFY-10 and 11) 3512 varies proportionally with the number of applic ations as does record keeping for two years 3513 (NOTIFY-12). Maintaining records for five year s (NOTIFY-13) is less sensitive to the number 3514 of applications because of fixed costs of storage. 3515

3516 The incremental costs of the potential notification requirements that deal with revisions to REI 3517 warning signs (NOTIFY-06 and 07) or safety po sters (NOTIFY-14), and the location of safety 3518 posters (NOTIFY-15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications. The cost of 3519 the potential requirement to post REI warning sign s every 100 feet (NOTIF Y-09) varies with the 3520 number of applications, but le ss than proportionally. The same is true for NOTIFY-17, which 3521 would require safety displays with every REI wa rning sign. The revisions to clarify when signs 3522 must be posted in sight of adjacent worker hous ing (NOTIFY-08) and to codify notification by 3523 commercial applicators (NOTIFY-18 ) are not expected to entail co sts regardless of the number 3524 of applications. 3525

3526



### 3.3.5 Age 3527

3528 EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pe sticide handlers and on field workers who enter 3529 areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions. These restrictions could 3530 raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by ne cessitating the employment of older, better paid 3531 employees in place of younger, lower paid staff. In estimating the impact of these potential 3532 requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1. 3533

The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the 3534*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

97 baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the di fference with labor costs under the 3535 potential requirement. Table 3.3-24 presents the results for this protective category. 3536

3537 Table 3.3-24. Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1

. 3538

Region NC P NC B 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
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3539

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3540

2 Several states have minimum age restricti ons on handlers for which we adjust the baseline. 3541

3542 AGE-01 and 02. Minimum age for agricultura l workers entering fields during the REI. EPA is 3543 considering setting a minimum age for agricult ural workers (other than immediate family 3544 members) who may enter areas subject to a REI. Entry during a restrict ed-entry interval may 3545 occur if there is an emergency that threatens th e crop or for certain task s that have limited or no 3546

contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities. In this analysis, EPA has 3547 assumed that there will be one early entry even t for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on 3548 average, half of the farm’s workers will be engaged in associated tasks. As it is unlikely that a 3549 farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any 3550 under-age worker that might be involved in an ea rly entry activity with a worker of minimum 3551 age older for these limited events. Thus, these potential requirements are likely to impose 3552 negligible costs on employers although there ma y be some unquantifiable management costs 3553 associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time. 3554

3555 As an upper bound, however, we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher 3556 paid adult worker in place of the lower wa ge, adolescent worker. EPA has found no data 3557 regarding wage differentials by age categories, bu t it seems reasonable that factors such as age 3558 and experience would contribute to higher wages. The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is 3559 used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field 3560 workers would earn, on average, 60% of the aver age wage and 14 and 15 year old field workers 3561 would earn about 50% of the average wage. T hus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as 3562 $5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. EPA notes 3563 that the latter is approximately the special minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers 3564 during the first 90 days of empl oyment with a given employer. 3565

3566 The additional labor cost of the 16 year-old minimum age would be about $160,000 annually, or 3567 an expected cost of about $0.40 per WPS farm per year. A minimum age of 18 would impose 3568*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

98 costs of $720,000 annually, or about $1.80 per WPS farm. As noted above, this cost is unlikely 3569 to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm’s labor management. 3570

3571 AGE-03 and 04. Minimum age for pesticide handlers. EPA is considering setting a minimum 3572 age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e. , those who 3573 mix, load and/or apply pesticides. There is cu rrently no federal age restriction within the WPS 3574 although the Department of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides 3575 classified as Category I or II toxicity. EPA evaluated the im pacts of both a 16-year minimum 3576 (NOTIFY-03) and an 18-y ear minimum (NOTIFY-04). 3577

3578 Table 3-3.25 presents the estimated labor costs of using different age categories for handling 3579 tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15-year olds are paid half the hourly wage 3580 of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percen t of adult wages. The wage rate for adult 3581 handlers is from the BLS (2008). EPA calculates the wage for a dolescent handlers on-farm to be 3582 $7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former is 3583 approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Benefits, valu ed at 30 percent of 3584 total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates. Among employees surveyed by the 3585 National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied 3586 pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 percent were 14- an d 15-year olds, 1.87 percent were 3587 16- and 17-year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. The survey further indicated that 3588 handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler-related 3589 activities. Given the wages, hours worked, a nd the proportion of adol escent handlers, we 3590 calculate an expected cost per WPS farms fo r these handler tasks of about $12.43 per year. 3591

3592 To calculate labor costs under the proposal ( NOTIFY-03), the time of 14 and 15 year old 3593 handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $14.35. This would be 3594 an upperbound, of course, because the employer coul d still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years of 3595 age. For a minimum age requirement of 18 ( NOTIFY-04), all adolescent labor is replaced by 3596 adult labor, resulting in an e xpected cost of $21.35 per year. 3597

3598

The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar ma nner. However, there are no data estimating the 3599 number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. It is likely that the proportion is 3600 smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely 3601 higher. EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none 3602 are less than 16 years of age due to the commercial nature of the work. Further, we assume that 3603 these handlers work part time, spending, on av erage, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours 3604 per week. This is likely an over estimation fo r what may be summer employment. Labor costs 3605 assume that 16 and 17 year-olds are paid a bout 60 percent of the average adult wage. 3606

3607*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

99 Table 3-3.25 Labor costs for Handlers, by Age 3608 Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost
Baseline, WPS Farm

14-15 Year Old 10.41 50 0.004 1.92

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Total WPS farm 12.43
Baseline, CPHE 16-17 Year Old, CPHE 12.06 640 0.010 77.18
Minimum Age, 16, WPS

Farm

16-17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.017 10.51

Adult 20.83 50 0.004 3.84

Total WPS farm 14.35
Minimum Age, 18 Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.021 21.35 Adult, CPHE 20.10 640 0.010 128.64
Source: BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations. 3609

3610 EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers na tionally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large 3611 WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the la rgest small operations employ 3612 one handler (see Section 3.3.2). Given the NAWS findings, th is suggests around 1,000 handlers 3613 in the 14-15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16-17 year age group. Table 3.3-26 presents 3614

EPA’s estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state 3615 requirements, RL B , and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RL P . Incremental labor 3616 costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect 3617 and about $880,000 for CPHEs. 3618

3619 Table 3.3-26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE-04 WPS Handler, 18 Year 3620 Age Restriction, Year 1. 3621

Region N WPS hndlr B RL P RL B
($1,000) South 36,924 1,116 655 California 15,365 464 273 Southwest 7,930 240 141 Subtropical 6,195 187 110 Midwest 53,776 1,625 954 Northeast 25,525 771 453 Ohio Valley 57,245 1,730 1,016 Texas/Mountain West 30,481 921 541 Northwest 14,373 434 255
U.S. 247,815 7,489 4,398

Source: EPA Estimations. 3622

3623*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

100 Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate , the annual cost of sett ing a minimum age of 18 3624 for handlers is estimated at $3.1 million, which averages $11.20 per WPS farm and $317 per 3625 CPHE. Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual la bor costs of about 3626 $466,000. The latter option is substantially less co stly because it would only affect the few 3627 handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost of $2.40 per 3628

WPS establishment. 3629

3630 These requirements could result in higher labor co sts for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. 3631 Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be 3632 transfer of wages from adolescents, who w ould lose employment opportunities, to adults. 3633

3634



### 3.3.6 Entry 3635

3636 Entry restrictions are designe d to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide 3637 residues. Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide 3638 applications occur. Unlike the training and no tification examples, which require farm operators, 3639 agricultural workers, or pesticid e handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to 3640 purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely re quire specific activities or materials. These 3641 potential requirements preclude certain work activ ities from occurring at certain times in certain 3642 places. The primary cost of changes in the re gulations will be to increase the management 3643 burden of scheduling work activi ties and pesticide appl ications to minimi ze conflicts. This 3644 burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the 3645 diversity of production activities in which the operation engages. Estimates for the potential 3646 requirements are presented in Table 3.3-27. 3647

3648 Table 3.3-27. Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1

. 3649

Region NC P NC B NIC Annualized NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Expand restricted area 0 0 0 0 02 Application must not result in

contact with others 0 0 0 0 03 Limit entry during emergencies to 4 hours 0 0 0 0 04 Limit entry during emergencies to 8 hours 0 0 0 0 05 Eliminate early entry exceptions 2,173,318 0 2,173,318 247,358 06 Monitoring handlers for chlolinesterase inhibition 137,368 3,394 133,975 15,248 07 Limit time handling cholinesterase-inhibiting products 38,533 1,470 37,063 4,218
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3650

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3651

3652*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

101 ENTRY-01. Entry restricted area. During an application, entry into the area being treated is 3653 restricted to appropriately attire d handlers. A proposed requireme nt defines the entry restricted 3654 area during an application on a WPS farm as ex tending 25 to 100 feet from the edge of the 3655 treated area, depending on the application method. This restriction al ready applies to WPS 3656 nurseries and greenhouses. Enlarg ing the restricted area could a ffect the scheduling of work 3657 activities in areas immediately ad jacent to the area being treate d, but only during the application. 3658 This may complicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely 3659 preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments. 3660

3661 ENTRY-02. Entry into a restricted area. The proposed requirement specifies that a handler 3662 working for a WPS farm or a fore stry operation must cease applica tion if he or she observes a 3663 person, other than a trained and equipped handl er, in the treatment area. Since current 3664 requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non-handlers, the restri ction simply clarifies 3665 the applicator’s responsibil ity and is unlikely to resu lt in measureable costs. 3666

3667 ENTRY-03 and 04. Limit early entry under th e Agricultural Emergency exception for double 3668 notification products. During agricultural emergencies, ag ricultural employers can send workers 3669

into treated areas to conduct critical tasks even during the REI. One potential requirement 3670 (ENTRY-03) would limit the amount of time an indi vidual worker could spe nd in an area treated 3671 with a product that requires both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; 3672 see discussion on NOTIFY-01 and NOTIFY-02). Another option (ENTRY-04) would limit the 3673 time to eight hours. Neither restriction is e xpected to have measureable impacts. Throughout 3674 this analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early entry event is 3675 about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. Further, 3676 EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide ap plications, or ten pe rcent, involve double 3677 notification products, i.e. , those requiring both oral notifi cation and physical posting. Thus, only 3678 a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a 3679 product in any given year. Furt her, EPA assumes that not a ll workers would generally be 3680 involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefor e, be able to reassign workers 3681

if the time limit is reached. Th is will involve some management burden, but the effect is not 3682 quantifiable. 3683

3684 The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both 3685 of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specia lized skills that are 3686 needed. Even in these situations, however, th e impact of the potential requirements is likely 3687 negligible as the tasks are expect ed to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 3688 reset irrigation equipment or pl ace smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, 3689

tasks that would not be of l ong duration on a small operation. 3690

3691 ENTRY-05. Early entry exceptions. Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by 3692 administrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ c ontact, and irrigation activ ities, as well as for 3693 agricultural emergencies. As suggested by farm worker advocacy organizations, EPA considered 3694 eliminating all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY-05). The impact of this requirement would be to 3695 expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address 3696 unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irrigation equipment. 3697 This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial. To characterize potential losses, EPA 3698*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

102 developed the following scenario: an estab lishment may face a problem, which might be 3699 addressed under current exceptions, on some proportion of its acreage, e.g. , 25 percent. The 3700 inability to address the problem might contribut e to yield or revenue loss of some amount on 3701 those acres, e.g. , five percent. Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year, 3702 including family farms that currently are allo wed to exercise the emergency exception to 3703 pesticide labels under the WPS. In this case, EP A calculates that 9.8 percen t of farms have early 3704 entry events that would lead to such losses, given the propor tion of specialty crop farms, 3705 nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide-usi ng farms and the assumption that there is an 3706 early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications. 3707

3708

Growers most at risk would be those producing specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables and 3709 those producing nursery and greenhouse crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive 3710

to water and other stress than are field crops. Farms at risk would include all farms using 3711 pesticides since the exemption to the REI extends to family farms only through the WPS. 3712 According to data from the 2007 Census of Agri culture, the total value of production (including 3713 government payments) was $50.5 billion for vegetables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and 3714 greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 200 8b). From the special tabulation requested from NASS, 3715 there are nearly 200,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). 3716 Thus, the average revenue of these establishmen ts is about $260,000 per year and a five percent 3717 loss would be around $13,000. Table 3.3-28 presents the calculation of per-establishment loss 3718 using these figures. 3719

3720

Table 3.3-28. Per-Establishmen t Unit Costs for ENTRY-05. 3721

Action/Material value of production affected

acreage likelihood cost

Five percent yield loss $13,024 25% 9.8% $320.00

Total $320.00

Source: EPA estimation. See text for derivation of numbers. 3722

3723 Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent 3724

likelihood of occurrence could be an overstatement . Under this scenario, the expected loss per 3725 establishment would be $320 per ye ar, although if such an event we re to occur, which would not 3726 happen every year, the loss to aff ected enterprise would be around $3,250, i.e. , the five percent 3727 loss occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extrapolating to th e national level indicates losses 3728 of $247 million per year. 3729

3730

ENTRY-06 and 07. Cholinesterase inhibition. EPA considered two approaches that could 3731 address the issue of handler exposure to cholin esterase inhibiting pest icides. ENTRY-06 would 3732 establish a monitoring program while ENTR Y-07 would simply impose a limit on the time 3733

handlers could work with these chemicals. 3734

3735 Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries facilitates a testing program to monitor 3736 pesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibi tion for handlers who apply organophosphate and N3737 methyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural empl oyers are required to allow their employees to 3738 participate in the program, which involves a blood test to establish a baseline and follow-up tests 3739 for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The employee 3740*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

103 can decline to participate. ENTRY-06 would make the program mandatory in all states. If the 3741

handler’s cholinesterase levels drop, the handler would not be a llowed to be exposed to such 3742 pesticides until levels return to normal. 3743

3744 Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is us ed to establish both baseline and potential 3745 costs for a U.S. program. The calculation for a handler employed on a WPS farm in the 3746 Northwest is presented in Tabl e 3.3-29. Washington reports that the voluntary program cost 3747 $115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses. Given 3748 that 2,024 handlers participated in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a 3749 per-handler cost of $55.14. Based on the descrip tion of how the program follows up with an 3750 examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e. , those employed on 3751 farms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program . The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 3752 14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region. 3753

3754 The per-handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the handler’s 3755 time that is spent getting tested. Each partic ipating handler must go to a medical center and 3756 submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily dec line to participate. EPA assumes this takes 3757 about one and a half hours, on aver age, including travel and wait time. Washington reports that 3758 386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow-up 3759 testing for cholinesterase inhi bition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in 3760 the program obtain follow-up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region. The data also 3761 show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 fo llow-up tests, which implies that they spend 3762 2.1 hours, including travel and wait time. As shown in Table 3.3- 29, the expected cost per WPS 3763

handler in the Northwest re gion is estimated to be $13.32. 3764

3765

Table 3.3-29. Per-WPS Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY-07, Cholinesterase monitoring 3766

in NW. 3767

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Testing cost $ 55.14/handler 1 0.141 $ 7.76
Baseline blood test $ 20.83/hr 1.5 0.141 $ 4.40 Follow-up blood test $ 20.83/hr 2.07 0.027 $ 1.16

cost r , NW

, a

B $ 13.32

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3768

3769 California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers 3770 working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticid es for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA 3771 estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9.55 3772 for WPS handlers and $9.40 for CPHE handlers. S ee Appendix A for details. The baseline cost 3773 in all other regions is zero. 3774

3775 To estimate national participation in a cholin esterase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates 3776 from the Washington program. We estimate, based on the number of large and large-small 3777 farms, that there are 4,415 WPS handlers in Wash ington state, which sugg ests that 45.8 percent 3778 of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those w ho decline to be tested, and 3779*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

104 accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utili ze pesticides each year. We further estimate 3780 that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would pa rticipate given the rate at which WPS handlers 3781

are involved and the fact that CPHE handlers work with pesticides every year. We assume that 3782 the participation rate in Wa shington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and 3783 carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variet y of crops. Thus, the expected per-WPS handler 3784 cost of the national program is calculated as in Table 3.3-30, but with the probability of testing 3785

cost and baseline blood test of 0.458 and of fo llow-up blood tests of 0.087, or 19.1 percent of the 3786 baseline participation. Expected cost pe r WPS handlers is $43.36 and is $47.51 for CPHE 3787

handlers. 3788

3789 The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $15.2 million annually and 3790 would cost a WPS establishment employing ha ndlers about $52.70 per year, on average, and 3791 would cost a CPHE an average of $123 per year. 3792

3793 In theory, a monitoring program woul d not be expected to affect the handlers’ ability to work. If 3794 inhibition were seen, a handler c ould still work with other classe s of pesticides. Nor would a 3795 program necessarily affect the grower’s ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers 3796 would likely be available. In practice, howev er, finding another application job or another 3797 handler at a particular moment could be problematic. In 2007, only about one percent of 3798 participating Washington handl ers showed cholinesterase i nhibition sufficient to warrant 3799 removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely. 3800

3801 An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with 3802 cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY-07). The primary cost of this approach would 3803 be tracking the time handlers spend with such pr oducts. Data are not available for a precise 3804 estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the co st as follows. Each handler, including self3805 employed handlers, would need to record his/he r time following an activity using a ChI product, 3806 a task that would take perhaps two minutes. The employer would then need to document the 3807 accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take about three 3808 minutes per handler. ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes 3809 for WPS farms that they make up about 20 per cent of applications, on average, and about 30 3810 percent of applications by CPHE handlers. Following the scenario for ChI monitoring, we 3811 calculate that 45.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChI pesticides. Similarly, 51.0 percent of 3812 CPHE handlers work with ChI products . Gi ven these assumptions, which may underestimate 3813 the extent of use of ChI products, EPA estimates th e cost of tracking handlers’ time to be about 3814 $4.2 million annually. The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, 3815 but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides. CPHEs could face costs of around 3816 $80 per year because of the number of applications an individual handler makes. This does not 3817 include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time 3818 limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or sh e reaches the limit and 3819 alternative jobs are not available. 3820

3821


### 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 3822

3823 Protective gear is often require d by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable 3824 adverse effects that might re sult from pesticide exposure wh en an individual is handling 3825*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

105 pesticides or entering fields when exposure is st ill probable. The potenti al requirements in this 3826 category are intended to improve the use and e fficacy of PPE. Costs to establishments are 3827 mostly in additional materials such as additiona l PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit 3828 testing. Additional time may be required for ma intenance and record keeping. Some actions or 3829 material will be required of all WPS farms that hi re handlers, because they are part of routine 3830 preparations. Other requirements may only be app licable when a pesticide application is actually 3831 made. Table 3.3-30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of 3832

PPE. 3833

3834 Table 3.3-30. PPE, Present Value of Costs 1

. 3835

Potential Requirement NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640 02 Eliminate 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 158,472 93,133 65,339 7,437

05 Contaminated PPE

rendered unwearable 0 0 0 0
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3836

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3837

3838 PPE-01. Respirator fit test and medical evaluation. Currently, employers are required to insure 3839 that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedur es for doing so. Thus, in the 3840 baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some i ndividual adjustments at the time 3841 of an application. The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA-like program of 3842 fit testing. Further, some ha ndlers will undergo fit testing beca use the requirement has been 3843 incorporated onto some product la bels, for example, various soil fumigants. CPHE handlers are 3844 fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self-employed handlers. 3845

3846 The proposed requirement would bring users of re spirators for handling pesticides on-farm under 3847 provisions similar to OSHA requirements, includi ng that those using respirators are medically 3848 cleared for their use. The costs of this requi rement would include the time required for handlers 3849 to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical sc reening. The actions and 3850 materials required are shown in Table 3.3-31. The me dical screening consists of a health survey 3851 that takes about 30 minutes to complete. The su rvey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a 3852 licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008). The Agency 3853 assumes that, on average, one handler from la rge and large-small crop farms and one handler 3854 from large livestock farms growing crops will routinely obtain the fit test each year, implying 3855 about 60 percent of all handlers. This is probabl y an overestimate, but a number of widely used 3856 pesticides have respirator requirements and gr owers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is 3857*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

106 necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee. Data from OS HA (2004) indicate that about 23 3858 percent of those taking the medical screen wi ll need a follow-up examination, which implies 3859 about 13.7 percent of all handlers. The examin ation is expected to take about two hours, 3860 including travel and wait time. The cost of th e examination is $101, based on the average cost of 3861 an office visit to a general practitioner (Machl in and Carper, 2007). On ce cleared, the handler 3862 takes the fit test, which EPA antic ipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time. 3863

The material for the fit test costs about a dollar (O SHA, 2004). As currently required, if the 3864 respirator is used, the employer mu st provide instructions on proper us e. Actual respirator use is 3865 likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however. The expected cost-per WPS handler of the 3866 requirement is calculated to be $48.72, as shown in Table 3.3-31. 3867

3868

Table 3.3-31. Per-WPS Handler Costs for PPE-01, Respirator fit test. 3869

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , 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 0.347 $ 0.98

Handler receives

instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0.347 $ 0.72

cost r , i

, a

P

$ 48.72

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3870

3871 The cost per-CHPE handler is calculated to be $82.29, which is higher than for WPS farms due 3872

to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test. Since OSHA requirements 3873 already apply to commercial enterprises, this co st is incurred in the ba seline as well as under the 3874 proposed requirement, resulting in no additiona l cost. However, the employer of the CPHE 3875 handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per y ear to collect and store documentation of the 3876 fit test and evaluation. The record keeping co sts for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60 3877

per year. 3878

3879

EPA estimates that the incremental cost of this potential requirement would be about $10.6 3880 million annually, with an average annual cost of $54.40 for WPS establishments that hire 3881 handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs. The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost. 3882

3883 PPE-02 and 03. Exceptions for Ce rtified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs assist growers to plan 3884 production activities such as irrigatio n or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for 3885 soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically 3886 damaging levels. Under current exceptions, us e of PPE by employees acting under the direction 3887

of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. The proposed requirements would remove the 3888 exception for those working under CCAs employ ed by a farm (PPE-02) and/or under CCAs 3889*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

107 employed by a firm that contracts advisory se rvices (PPE-03). The requirement would only 3890 apply to employees who are not certified. W ithout the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms 3891 would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be 3892 available under different provisions. Thus, th e impacts of eliminating the exception will be 3893 negligible, consisting, at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, 3894 coveralls) on rare occasions. 3895

3896 PPE-04. Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements 3897 allow mixers and loaders of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in 3898 which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. EPA is 3899 considering revising the standards that define a closed system under which such a substitution is 3900 permitted. The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and 3901 CHPEs. Some entities may not use closed system s now. Others may have a system that is 3902 already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those that are not in compliance, some 3903 establishments may purchase a new, compliant syst em while others will opt for use of PPE. In 3904 addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all system maintenance, something that is 3905 not currently required under federal regul ations, but is required by California. 3906

3907 Given the variability in possible impacts, estimat ion of the cost of the potential requirement is 3908 difficult. In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and la rge-small WPS farms and 3909 50 percent of large family farms do not currently use a closed system. Instead, they utilize PPE 3910 and, we assume, replace about five pairs of person al filters each year. The other large and large3911 small WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only replace one pair of personal 3912 filters each year. This probably overestimates th e number of family farms using a closed system 3913 as family farms may be less likely to self-apply pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also 3914 assumes that about 20 percent of systems will require maintenan ce each year, entailing costs of 3915 $86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). The probability of an 3916 action is then modified by the pr oportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use pesticides, 3917 which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of 3918 Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Ta ble 3.3-32 presents the baseline calculations, showing EPA’s 3919 estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large a nd large-small WPS farms. The baseline cost 3920 for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year. 3921

3922

Table 3.3-32. Per-WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for closed 3923 systems. 3924

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 20.19 Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.67 $ 12.11
Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.13 $ 11.66

cost r,i, a B $ 43.96

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3925

3926 The per-establishment cost for CPHEs is calculat ed in a similar manner, but we assume that 3927 CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two 3928*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

108 person CPHEs have one. Thus the current expect ed cost per CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and 3929 $35.27, respectively. Note that California system s are all in complian ce with the potential 3930 definition of a closed system. However, st ate requirements do not in clude recordkeeping. 3931

3932 Table 3.3-33 presents the expected cost for larg e and large-small WPS farms to comply with the 3933 proposed standard. In addition to the 25 per cent of farms not using a closed system, EPA 3934 assumes another 25 percent of la rge and large-small WPS farms already have a system that 3935 would meet the potential requirement. As shown in the second and third lines of Table 3.3-33, 3936 these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct 3937

maintenance as needed. We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system, 3938 likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc ., 2008). Once in compliance, their filter and 3939

maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems. Finally, 25 percent 3940 of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a 3941 closed system. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all 3942 probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large-small WPS farms that use 3943 pesticides in a given year. 3944

3945 Table 3.3-33. Per- WPS and Family Farm Pote ntial Costs for PPE-04, Revise standards for 3946 closed systems, Year 1. 3947

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w

j unit time/quantity

H
r , i

,j

/M
r , i

,j annual frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.22 $ 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

cost PPE

, a

P

$ 177.52
Source: EPA estimation. Prices (Gempler’s, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA 3948 assumptions. 3949

3950 Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials. EPA 3951 assumes that slightly less than ten percent of all large and large-small WPS farms (20% of those 3952 with closed systems) will have a maintenance even t to report. All establishments with closed 3953 systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in 3954 the file. As shown in Table 3.3-33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $178 in the 3955 first year for large and large-small WPS farms. In subsequent years, these farms will not need to 3956 purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $56.29, on average ac ross all the affected 3957

WPS farms. 3958

3959 A similar approach was used to estimate an e xpected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and 3960 per CPHE of $221 to $442 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple 3961*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

109 handler enterprises, respectively. The differences in cost arise because of different assumptions 3962 about the use of closed systems on these establ ishments. For example, we assume that all 3963 CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed 3964 systems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems. In all cases, one third 3965 are assumed to have systems already in complia nce, one-third would obtain a new system, and 3966 one-third would rely on PPE. 3967

3968

EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requireme nt to be about $32.5 3969 million for the first year, assuming that all new closed systems are purchased immediately. Over 3970 ten years, using a three percent discount rate, th e incremental cost is estimated at $60.7 million. 3971 Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about 3972 $4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,000, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 3973 million. This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $24.90, to family farms of $12.00, 3974 and to CPHEs of $48.00. Note that the aver age impact per establishment includes those 3975 establishments unaffected by the change in standards. 3976

3977 PPE-05. Disposal of contaminated PPE. The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated 3978 PPE. The proposed revision would specify that c ontaminated PPE be rendered unwearable. The 3979 change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact. 3980

3981


### 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies 3982

3983 The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of 3984 exposure to pesticides. EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define 3985 expected standards for employers to follow and increase the ability of employers and employees 3986 to mitigate exposures if they occur. Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA 3987 characterizes some potential cost im pacts. A summary of the results of the cost analysis of these 3988 potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3-34. 3989

3990 Table 3.3-34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1

. 3991

Potential Requirement NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC ($1,000) ($1,000) 01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0

02 Decontamination requirements, early entry

events – workers 33 11 22 3 03 Decontamination requirements

- handlers 434 434 0 0

04 Showers for handler decontamination 22,682,537 0 22,682,537 2,581,636 05 Emergency eyeflush - handlers 2,547 2,547 0 0 06 Eyewash station 121,999 2,547 119,452 13,596
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3992

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3993

3994*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

110 SUPPLY-01. Quantity of water available for workers. A current WPS provision requires that 3995 “enough” water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing 3996

tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, 3997 supplemented the rule with policy that stated th at one gallon per worker would be considered 3998 sufficient. This potential revi sion would make it explic it, in the regulations, that one gallon of 3999

water be available for each worker for routine decontamination. Given the policy manual, it is 4000 likely that all WPS farms are in compliance w ith the potential requirement such that the 4001

incremental cost will be zero. Water would lik ely be supplied from existing wells or delivery 4002 systems; some sort of containers would be n ecessary to have water available in the field. 4003

4004 SUPPLY-02. Quantity of water available for early entry events. Similarly, for tasks in treated 4005 areas during an REI, the WPS requires “sufficien t” water be available for decontamination and 4006 the “How to Comply” manual stated that one gall on per worker would be considered sufficient. 4007 The proposed requirement would increase the am ount of water needed to three gallons. 4008 Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized th e probability that an early event occurs to 4009 be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employed on the farm would engage in 4010 the activity. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. 4011 (NASS, 2010), a gallon would co st about $0.003. Given these assumptions, the incremental cost 4012 of increasing water availability is estimated to be $2,500 annually. This amounts to less than 4013 $0.01 per WPS farm per year. 4014

4015 SUPPLY-03. Quantity of water available for handler decontamination. Currently, the WPS 4016 requires that “enough” water be available for hand lers to use for routine and emergency washing, 4017 including emergency eye-flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the 4018 rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient. This 4019 potential revision would codify the existing definition of ‘enough’ water for decontamination. 4020 The impact of this requirement would be neg ligible given the existi ng requirement and policy 4021 manual. As noted in SUPPLY-01, water avai lability would not generally be a problem. 4022

4023 Supply-04. Provide showers fo r handler decontamination. This option would require all 4024

establishments with handlers to install showers for decontamination purposes. The impact of this 4025 requirement would be substantial. Based on an es timate from an architectural engineer, material 4026

and construction costs to install a shower w ith plumbing and utilitie s would cost about $105,000 4027 (Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007). Nationa lly, this would cost ab out $22.7 billion dollars 4028 for construction. Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $2.6 billion per year and almost $12,000 4029 per WPS farm. This estimate does not include futu re costs of maintenance. In practice, most 4030 WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all 4031 applications themselves or turn to CPHEs. Th e cost for current CPHEs to install showers could 4032 be as much as $2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand 4033 for pesticide applications. In the short term , EPA estimates that there are over 150,000 handlers 4034 employed on WPS establishments who could lose th eir jobs. Some would lik ely transfer to more 4035 general employment categories, possibly at so me loss of wages. Ot hers would likely find 4036 employment with CPHEs, for whic h demand would increase. Thus, the final number of jobs lost 4037 as a result of this potentia l requirement is uncertain. 4038

4039*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

111 There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement. For use in an 4040 emergency, a decontamination shower may onl y cost about $630, not including installation 4041 (Grainger, 2013). Such equipment is usually fo r indoor use and it is uncl ear whether it would be 4042 appropriate for mixing/loading site s on-farm. If the goal is to pr ovide handlers, and potentially 4043 workers, with an opportunity to clean off any re sidues before returning ho me, an outdoor shower 4044 with privacy panels may suffice for small fa rms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013). Some 4045 farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the 4046

more substantial facilities desc ribed above, but annualized costs might be less than $1 billion. 4047

4048 SUPPLY-05 and 06. Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements 4049 specify that handlers should ha ve at least one pint of water available when working with 4050 pesticides requiring protective eyewear. Potentia l requirements would re quire there to be a 4051 sustained flow of water. SUPPLY-05 would require that there be suffici ent running water at all 4052 permanent mixing and loading sites to provide 1.5 liters per minute. Ther e would be little or no 4053 impact to this requirement as permanent sites are likely to have running water for other purposes 4054 such as diluting concentrated pesticides. 4055

4056 An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would require a separa te eyewash station. The average cost of a 4057 portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 200 8; Gempler’s, 2008). Given the number of 4058 CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates 4059 the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $66.7 million. Assuming that annual 4060 maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annu alized cost of this 4061 potential requirement is about $13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate. 4062

4063



### 3.3.9 Emergency Response 4064

4065

The time between an accident and th e provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in 4066 mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticide. Current requirements require “prompt” action 4067 in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of information about the specific 4068 pesticide to which the individual was exposed. Terms such as “prompt” lack specificity, 4069 however; they do not provide employers with cl ear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is 4070 considering potential requiremen ts that would more precisely define standards for emergency 4071 response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as 4072 explained below. 4073

4074 EMERG-01 and 02. Response for worker exposure. Potential requirements would define 4075 expected emergency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes 4076 (EMERG-01) or 30 minutes (EMERG-02). Estimati on of a precise cost of this requirement is 4077 not possible as field conditions ar e highly variable. However, as this merely clarifies existing 4078 requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones 4079 suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement. The 4080 most difficult aspect of the requirement for fiel d workers will be identifying the pesticide to 4081 which an individual is exposed. In an early en try situation, the problem may be assumed to be 4082 the most recent application. However, in ot her situations, the probl em may not be clear, 4083 especially if workers are exposed to pesticide dr ift from an application performed on a different 4084

farm. 4085*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

112 4086 EMERG-03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Similarly, potential requirements would 4087 define expected emergency response time in cas e of handler exposure as either 60 minutes 4088 (EMERG-03) or 30 minutes (EMERG-04). Neithe r potential time frame is likely to result in 4089 measurable impacts. In particular, identificati on of the pesticide to which the individual is 4090 exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers. 4091

4092

4093 This concludes the analysis of the cost of each requirement option. The following chapters 4094 discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subs et of the options discussed in this section. 4095 Chapter 4 describes the cost-benefit analysis us ed by the Agency in selecting the requirements 4096 for proposal. Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal 4097 on employment and small businesses. Chapter 6 di scusses the ultimate be nefits of the proposed 4098 revisions in terms of improved human health that results from less pestic ide exposure, both from 4099 reduced pesticide incidents and fr om lower day-to-day exposure. 4100

4101

4102*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

113 

## Chapter 4. Costs and Benefi ts of Potential Requirements 4103

4104 EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that will provide benefits to workers and pesticide 4105 handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler 4106 establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessive costs to employers. Out of the potential 4107 requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4-1 summarizes the 4108 requirements the Agency is proposing. 4109

4110 Table 4-1. Proposed Requirements. 4111

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 Tr ainer Qualification Standards TRAIN-10 Keep Worker Training Records – 2 years TRAIN-12 Annual Handler Training TRAIN-14 Expand Handler Training TRAIN-16 Keep Handler Tr aining Records – 2 years TRAIN-20 Require Employees Re ceive Verification of Training HAZCOM-01 Application Information Available on Request HAZCOM-02 Availability of Pesticide Label and SDS HAZCOM-05 Keep Applicati on Information – 2 years NOTIFY-01 Post Warning Signs if REI Great er than 48 Hours for Outdoor Production

NOTIFY-03 Oral Notification if RE I 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 Appli cation 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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

114 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 Requireme nts for Handler Eye Flushing EMERG-01 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency EMERG-03 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency

4112 This chapter provides a comparison of the costs a nd benefits of the options EPA considered in 4113 developing the proposed revisions to the WPS. Chapter 2 qualitativ ely described the benefits of 4114 different requirement options in terms of providi ng better information, greater protection, and/or 4115 more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement. The 4116 emphasis of a cost-benefit analysis is on efficien cy, in this case, the dua l goals of providing the 4117 agricultural workers and handlers with the hi ghest level of protection practicable while 4118 minimizing economic impacts to agriculture , and small businesses in particular. 4119

4120 In weighing the relative advantag es and disadvantages of the op tions, however, EPA considered 4121 the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory 4122 development process ( e.g. , farmworkers and farmworker a dvocate organizations, growers and 4123 grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticid e safety trainers, researchers, and other federal 4124 agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA). Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this 4125 document as they lie outside the scope of a cost-b enefit analysis. Other relevant factors include, 4126 for example, equity considerations ( e.g. , potential distribution of co sts) and concerns over the 4127 feasibility of implementing a requirement given st ate regulatory experiences. A discussion of all 4128 these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule. 4129

4130



### 4.1 Training Options 4131

4132 The WPS currently requires employers to provid e pesticide safety training for workers and 4133 handlers. Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections. 4134 Insuring that workers and handlers have the in formation necessary so that they can take 4135 appropriate steps to protect themselves from pest icide exposure is more efficient than attempting 4136 to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise. 4137

4138


### 4.1.1 TRAIN-01 vs TRAIN-02: Immediate worker training 4139

4140 EPA is proposing to require that all workers receive complete pes ticide safety training prior to 4141 their entry into a pesticide-tr eated area with limited exception s that allow for a two-day grace 4142 period (TRAIN-02). Requiring employers to provi de the complete training to workers before 4143 they enter a treated area would ensure that work ers understand how to protect themselves when 4144 working in pesticide-treated fields. This is an especially critical issue for many temporary 4145 workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than 4146 five days on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fall into this category. 4147 These temporary workers may work on multiple farms, especially for harvest, and never receive 4148*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

115 complete training. Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substantial improvement in 4149 pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this pr oposal will ensure that about 13,000 more workers 4150 will receive full training before they enter pr eviously treated areas. These changes should 4151 decrease the number of occupati onal pesticide-related illnesses b ecause workers would be better 4152 informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area. 4153

4154 EPA estimates that TRAIN-02 will cost about $5.80 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an 4155 increase in the number of trainings conducted to account for workers who are hired at different 4156 times. The alternative, TRAIN-01 (no grace pe riod), is estimated to cost $7.20 per year per 4157 WPS farm. In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also c onsiders the fact the workers 4158 themselves may bear some of this cost sinc e many workers hired at harvest are paid by the 4159 amount they pick rather than by the hour. 4160

4161


### 4.1.2 TRAIN-03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN-12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and 4162 

### handler training 4163

4164 EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN -03) and handler (TRAIN-12) pesticide safety 4165 training be valid for one year from the date of tr aining, instead of five years. This means that 4166 employees would be retrained on an annual basis. To be effective, training must be repeated at 4167 appropriate intervals. Pesticide safety educ ators have noted that “repeating basic safety 4168 messages increases adoption of improved safety pr actices (Spradley, 2007).” Thus, retention of 4169 pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than w ith biennial training. 4170

Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after tr aining, medical students performed no better 4171 than untrained students in following protocols to prevent infections in themselves and their 4172 patients. Thus, while both alte rnatives would be an improveme nt over the current five year 4173 cycle, annual training is likely to provide substantially greater be nefits than biennial training. 4174

4175 Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS 4176 farms an additional $22.20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about 4177 $7.90 per year. For handlers, the costs for annua l training are estimated to be about $17.00 per 4178 year per WPS farm and $66.70 per year for CPHEs. Costs for biennial handler training is 4179 estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year fo r WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively. 4180

4181

While the difference in costs between the annua l and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA 4182 balanced the higher cost of annua l training with the importance of more frequent training. As 4183 noted above, annual training will lead to better retention of the self-protective information by 4184 workers and handlers than biennial training, ultim ately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 4185 exposure and illness in workers and handlers. Mo reover, training reinforces many of the other 4186 WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs. 4187

4188 The Agency also considered an alternative ba sed on a comment from the SBAR panel. This 4189 option (TRAIN-05) would require annual retraini ng but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 4190 10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see 4191 Chapter 2.2.1). EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms 4192 (those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15.90 per year under TRAIN-03 to 4193*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

116 $13.60 per year. However, this alternative w ould mean about 82,000 workers would not receive 4194 training, possibly for several years. 4195

4196


### 4.1.3 TRAIN-06 vs 07 / TRAIN-14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and 4197 

### handler training 4198

4199 Expansion of pesticide safety training conten t is a key component of the overall WPS rule 4200 amendments and affects multiple areas of the pro posed changes. A major goal of this expansion 4201 is to support changes in the hazard communica tion component in the revised WPS. The new 4202 training reinforces EPA’s strate gy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic 4203 pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves from pesticide exposure 4204 risks while putting less emphasis on pesticide- specific information that could lead to 4205 complacency in some cases and excess concern in others. 4206

4207 EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pesticide safety training to include additional 4208 topics on how to reduce take-home pesticide expo sure, information for workers (TRAIN-06) and 4209 handlers (TRAIN-14) on the protections employe rs must provide under the WPS, and proposed 4210 requirements for early entry notification, emerge ncy assistance, and availability of hazard 4211 communication materials, especially the SDS. 4212

4213 The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training by about 15 4214 minutes. The longer training sessions would co st an additional $11.00 per WPS farm per year 4215 for worker training and an estimated $3.20 pe r WPS farm and $14.70 per CPHE per year for 4216 handler training. 4217

4218

EPA also considered alternatives that would have supported the use of crop sheets instead of 4219 SDS as the primary means of hazard communica tion. These alternativ es (TRAIN-07 and 15) 4220 would be slightly more expensive since explaini ng the details of crop sheets would be more 4221 complex than explaining the SDS. The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this 4222 estimate, nor is the cost of printing and distributing copies; the latter two are captured in 4223 HAZCOM-07 and HAZCOM-04, respectively. 4224

4225 Generally speaking, the benefits of crop and chemical-specific information do not appear to 4226 justify the costs of developmen t, distribution, and training. Crop sheets may confuse workers 4227 with complex pesticide information, possibly be fore any product is used. Providing such 4228 information could be counterproductive to provid ing workers with simple, consistent pesticide 4229 safety messages. 4230

4231



### 4.1.4 TRAIN-08 vs 09: Increase work er trainer competency standards 4232

4233 EPA is proposing to eliminate training of wo rkers by certified applic ators and WPS-trained 4234 handlers (TRAIN-08), leaving trai ning to those qualified to train certified applicators or those 4235 who have completed a “Train-the-Trainers” progra m. An alternative evaluated here is to limit 4236 training only to those who have completed a Tr ain-the-Trainers program (TRAIN-09). As 4237 discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and traini ng skills of certified applicators and handlers 4238*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

117 may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to 4239 train. The unique characterist ics and demographics of the fa rmworker population, especially 4240 language and literacy issues, implie s that there are substantial bene fits to having trainers that 4241 have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse popu lation. These trainers, 4242

i.e. , those completing the Train-the-Tr ainers program, have the abil ity to convey pesticide safety 4243 information, the knowledge of adult education pr inciples, and the communication skills needed 4244 to reach low-literacy audiences. Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding 4245 and retention of pesticide safety training by wo rkers. This improvement would increase the 4246

likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined in the pesticide safety training 4247 and reduce the potential for exposure to themselv es and their family members. Trainers of 4248 certified applicators will have th e technical knowledge, but may not have the skills to convey the 4249

information to a farmworker audience. The cost of both provisions is estimated to be about 4250 $2.80 per WPS farm. However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have 4251 completed a Train-the-Trainer program could lead to shortages of trainers, even though the 4252 provision will be delayed for two years. 4253

4254



### 4.1.5 TRAIN-10 vs 11 / TRAIN- 16 vs 17: Record keeping 4255

4256 EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN-10) and handler 4257 (TRAIN-16) employee training for two years. As explained in Chapter 2, these proposals may 4258 benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that 4259 applicable requirements have been met. Keepi ng records for two years is expected to cost WPS 4260 farms about $4.10 per year for worker training an d less than $1.00 for handler training. For 4261 CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the cost of handler tr aining is about $3.00 per year. 4262 Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WPS farms for each type of 4263 training and about $0.80 more per CPHE than retaini ng records for two years. Information from 4264 regulatory agencies indicates that a two year time frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify 4265 training through records retained by the employer. Therefore EP A concludes that the longer, 4266 five-year retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the two-year period. 4267

4268


### 4.1.6 TRAIN-20 vs 18 and 19: Training verification 4269

4270 There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employe rs to use verification 4271 cards to identify workers and handlers who have b een trained in accordance with the WPS. The 4272 purpose of the program has been, in part, to pr ovide some means of verifying compliance with 4273 training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they 4274 change employers, thus reducing duplicative trai ning. In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems 4275 with the current voluntary program for traini ng verification in which workers and handlers 4276 receive cards they can show to subsequent employers. Primary among the problems is that cards 4277 may be lost or stolen and are too small to c ontain all the information needed for adequate 4278 verification. These problems reduce employers’ abil ity to rely on the cards and, therefore, the 4279 ability of employees to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the 4280 voluntary program to justify the expenditure. El iminating the program (TRAIN-18) is estimated, 4281 in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would 4282 accrue to EPA. Making the program mandatory (TRAIN-19) is estimated to cost about $641,000 4283*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

118 per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification 4284 (TRAIN-20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program. 4285

4286 However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the 4287 proposed requirements for annual training (Sec tion 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of 4288 training and thus shortens the period over which the informati on must be verifiable. The 4289 information will thus be more reliable. The prop osed record keeping requirements discussed in 4290 Section 4.1.5 would provide sufficient supporting doc umentation. EPA also notes that a majority 4291 of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers w ho may move frequently fr om farm to farm at 4292 harvest as these workers are typi cally paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked. 4293 Thus, the time these workers spend in training – especially repeated tr aining – reduces their 4294

wages. 4295

4296 Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program ha ve the advantage of 4297 being easy for workers to carry. They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time 4298 required to fill them out individually. In additi on to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training 4299 register as verification has the distinct adva ntage of providing subsequent employers with 4300 sufficient information for their records, while veri fication card of the sort typically used would 4301 not. If subsequent employers would have to pe rsonally contact the previous employer to obtain 4302 all the information, they are unlikely to be wi lling to accept the cards as proof of training. 4303

4304



### 4.2 Hazard Communication Options 4305

4306 The WPS requires agricultural employers to pos t information on pesticide applications for 4307

workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, nursery, or greenhouse, known as “central 4308 posting.” The current requirement for central posting includes the di splay of the following 4309 information: location and descrip tion of treated areas, the pestic ide product name, EPA pesticide 4310 registration number, the pesticide ac tive ingredient name(s), the time and date the pesticide is to 4311 be applied, and the REI, specified in duration ( e.g. , hours or days). Posting is required for 30 4312 days following the expiration of the REI. 4313

4314 EPA intended central posting to make pesticide hazard information available to workers and 4315 handlers in the event of an exposure and so th ey may learn about chemicals they might be 4316 exposed to in the workplace. However, there are several problems with the central posting 4317 requirement that impede its intended purpose. On large establishments, or those where growing 4318 areas are not contiguous, the centr al location can be a signific ant distance from areas where 4319 workers or handlers are working. Employers have informed the Agency that it can be difficult 4320 to make changes to the information prior to be ginning the application an d to ensure that the 4321 information remains current. Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to 4322

workers and handlers. 4323

4324


### 4.2.1 HAZCOM-01: Availability of application-specific information 4325

4326 EPA is proposing to require that employers ma ke pesticide application hazard information, 4327 available to workers, handlers, and their representatives upon request (HAZCOM-01). At the 4328*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

119 same time, this revision would eliminate the requ irement for the application records to be posted 4329

at a central location. In additi on, the application information w ould add the start and end times 4330 of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI. The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 4331 million annually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 4332 percent of applications. 4333

4334 Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting work er and handler exposure to pesticides can best 4335 be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps th at workers and handlers can take to protect 4336 themselves. Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and 4337 handlers rejecting the standard sa fety principles from the traini ng, leading to increased potential 4338 for exposure. In addition, workers may not ro utinely pass the central posting area because their 4339 workplace is at a different part of the establishmen t. Thus, central posting is not necessarily an 4340 effective means to communicate with employees. 4341

4342 However, this detailed information would be im portant in the event a worker or handler is 4343 poisoned and needs medical attentio n, for example. It is the h ealthcare provider who most needs 4344 to know to what the patient is exposed in orde r to provide the proper treatment. The proposed 4345 change would continue to make available, at a designated location, pesticide application 4346

information for workers and handlers 4347

4348



### 4.2.2 HAZCOM-02 vs 03 and 04: Pe sticide-specific Hazard Communication 4349


### Materials 4350

4351 EPA is proposing that the agricultural employe r compile the SDS and the product label in 4352 addition to the current applica tion record (HAZCOM-02). The co st of this requirement is 4353 estimated to be $13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3. One alternative would 4354 be to add only the pesticide label to the cu rrent information (HAZCO M-03), which would cost 4355 about $4.10 per year per WPS farm. These cost estimates are ba sed on posting the information 4356

at a central location. A second alternative w ould be to require cr op sheets (HAZCOM-04), 4357 estimated to cost $33.00 per year pe r WPS farm. This cost estima tes is based on the distribution 4358 of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area. 4359

4360 As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed inform ation on crop sheets may confuse workers with 4361 overly specific information about pesticide hazard s, leading to complacency in some situations 4362 and inappropriate concern in othe rs. A simple, consistent appr oach to safety, provided through 4363 frequent training, is likely to be more effective. Hazard information is particularly valuable in 4364 case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provi de the bulk of this value. While the pesticide 4365 label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for 4366 safe use and handling. The SDS provides information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and 4367

on treatment. 4368

4369



### 4.2.3 HAZCOM-05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention 4370

4371 As discussed above in TRAIN-10 and -11, recordk eeping provides several benefits in terms of 4372 verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five years 4373*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

120 (HAZCOM-06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM-05) ($8.40 vs. 4374 $7.60 per WPS farm), However, state agencies ha ve indicated that a re tention period of more 4375 than two years provides little or no additional benefit. 4376

4377


### 4.2.4 HAZCOM-07: Registr ant-produced crop sheets 4378

4379 EPA considered requiring registrants to publish cr op-specific hazard sheets along with the labels 4380 for all agricultural products. This requirement would support the alternativ e approach to hazard 4381

communication under HAZCOM-04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training 4382 under TRAIN-06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know 4383 how to interpret and use the crop sheets. As noted in the discussions above, however, it is not 4384 clear that this additional information provides su bstantial additional benefits. While this 4385

additional information is useful in certain circumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse 4386 workers with complex pesticide application in formation that would be counterproductive to 4387 providing workers with simple, consistent pes ticide safety messages. EPA estimates this 4388 requirement would cost $25.3 million over three years, equivalent to $2.9 million annually for 4389 ten years. This cost does not include the cost of developing these shee ts, which would likely be 4390 substantial as they would ha ve to be location-specific. 4391

4392



### 4.3 Notification Options 4393

4394 In addition to the more general training and hazard communication require ments, the WPS also 4395 requires that specific information be provided in certain situations . This information is often 4396 necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that w ould put them at risk. 4397

4398



### 4.3.1 NOTIFY-01 vs 02: Posted Notifi cation Timing for Outdoor Production 4399

4400 The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about 4401 areas where an REI is in effect unless require d by the product label to provide both oral and 4402 posted warnings. NOTIFY-01 would require posting if the REI is longer th an 48 hours, at an 4403 estimated cost of $10.5 million per year, and NO TIFY-02 would require posting for REIs longer 4404 than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7.3 million per year. On a per-farm basis, estimated to 4405 cost are about $26.80 per year for NOTIFY-01 and about $18.70 per year for NOTIFY-02. A 4406 WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from 4407 NOTIFY-02 to NOTIFY-01 is appr oximately $1.40 per worker. 4408

4409 Entry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor 4410 contributing to reports of acute occupational pe sticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 4411 (Calvert et al ., 2008). One reason workers may be entering pe sticide-treated areas is their lack of 4412

awareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI. Given the 4413 magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an in dividual worker of posting are likely to be high, 4414 including the marginal benefits of posti ng when REIs are between 48 and 72 hours. 4415

4416*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

121 

### 4.3.2 NOTIFY-03: Posted Notification Timing – Enclosed Space Production 4417

4418 The current rule requires posting of the warni ng sign for all applications in enclosed space 4419 production (greenhouses and enclosed nurseries). EPA proposes to relax this requirement and 4420 allow employers the options of oral or posted noti fication if the product app lied has a REI of four 4421 hours or less. This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would 4422 accrue to small businesses who can easily inform a few workers that a REI is in effect. 4423

4424 Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently 4425 enter unposted treated areas. Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without 4426 increasing workers’ risk of exposure. 4427

4428


### 4.3.3 NOTIFY-04 and NOTIFY-05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification 4429

4430 To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs 4431 shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA consider ed requiring that agricult ural employers create 4432 and retain records of the oral warning pr ovided, signed by the workers who received the 4433 notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY-04) or 5 ye ars (NOTIFY-05). Gi ven the frequency of 4434 pesticide applications, a large qu antity of records would be requi red. As explained in Chapter 3, 4435 these provisions would cost about $20.0 to $20.3 million per year, respectively. 4436

4437 The addition of the proposed recordkeeping co mponent for oral notification could encourage 4438 employers to ensure workers receive accurate in formation, which in turn could lead to fewer 4439 workers entering fields under a REI and fewer in cidents of occupational exposure. EPA has 4440

insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncomplia nce with the existing 4441 requirements and that there would be high benefits associated with these alternatives. Posting 4442 for long REI (NOTIFY-01) and training (TRAIN-06) are likely to provide similar benefits at 4443

lower cost. 4444

4445



### 4.3.4 NOTIFY-06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs 4446

4447 EPA is proposing minor modifications to the cu rrent WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon 4448 as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase “Entry Restricted” in place of the blanket 4449 “Keep Out.” The cost is likely to be inconseque ntial, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be 4450 about $0.25 per WPS farm per year. 4451

4452 EPA also considered using the skull and crossb ones symbol, but more critically considered 4453 requiring the REI signs to include information on the pe sticide used to treat the field. As a result, 4454 the cost of this option is estimated to be a bout $8.00 per year per WPS farm. As noted in 4455 Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on th e REI warning sign is not likely to help the 4456 worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits. 4457

4458*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

122 

### 4.3.4 NOTIFY-08 vs 09: Lo cations of Warning Sign 4459

4460 When the WPS requires a warning sign to be pos ted, the signs must currently be placed where 4461 they are visible from all usual points of worker en try to the treated area, the corners of the treated 4462 area, or an area affording maximum visibility and when treated areas are adjacent to worker 4463 housing. EPA proposes to revise the WPS to speci fy that warning signs must be posted in a 4464

visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is w ithin 100 feet of a treated area 4465 (NOTIFY-08). This is a clarifyi ng revision and EPA anticipates ne gligible impacts. It will 4466 largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations. 4467

4468 EPA also considered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and 4469 every 100 feet along the field peri meter (NOTIFY-09). EPA estimates that this provision would 4470 cost about $648 per year per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typically preclude 4471 walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would 4472 substantially reduce the likelihood th at workers inadvertently enter a field under REI. Posting in 4473 cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY-01) is likely to result in higher benefits. 4474

4475



### 4.3.6 NOTIFY-10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to performing early entry 4476


### tasks 4477

4478 The WPS prohibits employers from directing worker s to enter a treated area where an REI is in 4479 effect except for cases of “limited contact,” “no-contact,” “short-term,” “irrigation,” or 4480 “agricultural emergency activitie s” as defined under the regula tions (40 CFR § 170.112). The 4481 WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these 4482 exceptions with the label-required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed 4483 on the label, and to provide water and decontam ination supplies nearby for when the worker 4484 exits the field. EPA is proposing that agricultur al employers provide more detailed information 4485 to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI. This additional 4486 notification includes the type of contact perm itted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with 4487 which workers must be provided. NOTIFY-10 woul d require that this information be provided 4488 orally and is estimated to cost $698,000 annua lly or about $1.80 per WPS farm. NOTIFY-11 4489 would require the information be provided both orally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 4490 million per year or $2.70 per WPS farm per year. 4491

4492 Entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide-related illness in 4493 workers (Calvert et al. , 2008). Providing workers with more information about how to protect 4494 themselves from pesticide exposure would ultim ately lead to a reduc tion in the number of 4495 pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. Given the 4496 differences in language and frequent low Eng lish literacy rates among farmworkers, written 4497 information may not be useful and could dist ract workers from the oral information. 4498

4499


### 4.3.7 NOTIFY-12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks 4500

4501 Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verifying and insuring compliance will 4502 provide substantial benefits. EPA proposes to require agricultural em ployers to obtain the 4503*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

123 signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required 4504 information and keep this record on file for 2 years (NOTIFY-12). The estimated national cost 4505 for this requirement is $469,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average. 4506 Extending the retention period to five years ( NOTIFY-13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm 4507 per year, but the longer period appears to provi de no significant bene fits. According to 4508 discussions with state agencies, a two-year tim eframe is adequate for enforcement needs. 4509

4510


### 4.3.8 NOTIFY-14: Revise safety display 4511

4512 The WPS currently requires agricultural establishm ents to post a pesticide safety poster listing 4513 basic pesticide safety information. With NOTIFY-14, the Agency is proposing to augment the 4514 required content to provide additional medical information and emergency contact information, 4515 including contact information fo r the state or tribal regulato ry agency. This additional 4516 information will reinforce the safety training in aspects that are not part of routine activities, i.e.

, 4517 recognizing pesticide poisoning a nd knowing whom to call in case of a pesticide exposure 4518 incident. If there are any change s in contact information, posters mu st be updated promptly. It is 4519 critical that such information be readily ava ilable because workers and handlers are unlikely to 4520 retain emergency contact information if it is only presented orally. 4521

4522

The incremental cost of NOTIFY-14 would be th e time required to include this information on 4523 existing safety programs, which would be done by the WPS farm. The annualized cost is 4524 estimated to be about $108,000 or about $0.30 per WPS farm per year. 4525

4526



### 4.3.9 NOTIFY-15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays 4527

4528 Currently, safety information must be displa yed at a central locati on on the WPS farm, along 4529 with any application-specific information (s ee HAZCOM-01, Section 4.2.1). EPA proposes that 4530 employers maintain the central safety disp lay and also display the information at 4531 decontamination sites. NOTIFY-15 governs si tes for field workers and NOTIFY-16 addresses 4532 handler sites. The value of displaying the in formation in a main area through which workers will 4533 frequently pass is to reinforce pesticide trai ning. However, it is al so important that the 4534 information be displayed at sites where the info rmation will be most useful, that is, along with 4535 decontamination supplies. 4536

4537 The cost of these requirements comes from the co st of new posters or di splays and the labor to 4538 post them. On an annual basis, the cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY-15) is 4539 estimated to be $1.9 million or $4.90 per WPS farm . EPA anticipates that these requirements 4540 will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation. The smallest WPS farms, for example, 4541 with two or three workers may need only one safety display, and will incur costs below the 4542 average. The cost for handler decontamina tion sites (NOTIFY-16) is estimated to be $784,000 4543 or $2.00 for WPS farms that employs handlers. 4544

4545 An alternative (NOTIFY-17) would be to require safety information to be posted along with REI 4546 warning signs. Although the additional safety di splay would help to re inforce safety training 4547 because they would increase the nu mber of times they were seen, there is no particular value to 4548*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

124 associating the displays with RE I warnings as accidental exposu re can occur in many situations, 4549 not just entry into a recently tr eated field. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option to 4550 be about $4.7 million annually, or around $11.80 per WPS farm, on average, or nearly double the 4551

cost of NOTIFY-15 and 16 combined. 4552

4553



### 4.3.10 NOTIFY-18: Notifica tion by commercial applicators 4554

4555 The WPS currently requires handler and worker employers to exchange information about 4556 pesticide applications before the applicat ion takes place and immedi ately upon any change, 4557 including minor changes in the start and end time of an application. EPA is proposing to codify 4558 existing guidance regarding when information must be transmitted. For example, minor changes 4559 in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not aff ect the REI would not have to be reported. No 4560 costs are anticipated; benefits are mainly the resolution of re gulatory uncertainty. 4561

4562



### 4.4 Age Requirement Options 4563

4564 The WPS does not currently establish age restri ctions on workers or handlers covered by the 4565 regulation. This is problematic for two reasons. First, young people may be more susceptible to 4566 pesticides because their systems are still developing. Second, adolescents generally take more 4567 risks than do adults; they may not accurately gauge risks and they may discount the potential 4568 consequences of those risks. Minimum age requirements for certain activities could have 4569 substantial benefits, specifically workers performi ng tasks in fields during a REI and as pesticide 4570 handlers where exposure may be high. 4571

4572 Under the proposal, these age re strictions do not apply to pe rsons covered by the immediate 4573 family exemption. 4574

4575



### 4.4.1 AGE-01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities 4576

4577 Early entry activities are allowed under certai n situations, including ag ricultural emergencies 4578 where, for example, a freeze is expected to cause damage to a crop. The fact that the REI has not 4579 expired indicates that there is heightened risk from exposure to pesticide residues. Precluding 4580 adolescents from these activities protects their mo re susceptible systems from this exposure. 4581 Reduced exposure can reduce the number of chil dren who suffer occupati onal pesticide-related 4582 illnesses, as well as protect them from chronic a nd developmental effects that may be associated 4583 with children’s exposure to pesticides. 4584

4585 EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for workers to engage in early entry 4586 activities (AGE-01), which is estimated to cost about $163,000 per year, or $0.40 per year per 4587 WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of empl oying adults at a higher wage rate for these 4588 activities. However, the cost of this provision is actually one of scheduling available workers 4589 rather than employing different workers. Th is option would potent ially protect about 19,000 4590 workers under the age of 16, and cost about $8.60 per adolescent. A second option, to establish a 4591 minimum age of 18 (AGE-01), is estimated to cost $760,000 per year, or $1.90 per year per WPS 4592*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

125 farm. This option would cover about 86,900 workers under the age of 18 at a cost of $8.70 per 4593 adolescent. Thus, the cost -effectiveness of the two options is very similar. 4594

4595 Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 4596 exemption would not be prohibited from enga ging in early entry ac tivities under the EPA’s 4597 proposed option. 4598

4599


### 4.4.2 AGE-03 vs AGE-04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides 4600

4601 Similarly, EPA considered two options for a mi nimum age requirement for WPS handlers, AGE4602 03, a prohibition on persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pe sticides and AGE-04, 4603 which limits WPS handling activities to i ndividuals 18 years of age and older. 4604

4605 The benefits of an age restrict ion for handlers are similar to th ose for workers engaged in early 4606 entry activities. Moreover, since handlers work di rectly with pesticides, there is greater potential 4607

for risks to themselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit pers ons younger than 16 from 4608 handling pesticides (AGE-03). EP A estimates that this restric tion would protect more than 1,000 4609 adolescents currently handling pesticides. Th e alternative, a minimu m age of 18 (AGE-04), 4610 would protect about 4,800 adoles cents, including around 200 adol escents working for CPHEs. 4611

4612 The total cost of the propos ed minimum age is estimated to be $466,000 per year and would 4613 likely only cost WPS farms about $2.40 per year , on average. Given the small number of 4614 adolescents under 16 tasked with handling pesticides , the cost is about $ 460 per adolescent. The 4615 estimated cost of limiting handling to persons over 18 years of age is $3.1 million per year 4616 nationally. This would cost an average W PS establishment about $11.20 annually and a CPHE 4617 about $317 annually, although the latter estimate in particular is lik ely to be highly conservative 4618

because of the number of hours adolescents are a ssumed to work. Considering that nearly 4,800 4619 adolescents may be engaged in handling activitie s, the cost is about $630 per adolescent. The 4620 cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adol escent protected, is somewh at less for the proposed 4621 option. However, the estimate for the minimu m age of 18 is heavily influenced by the 4622 assumptions about the number of hour s worked by adolescents in CPHEs. 4623

4624 Children less than 16 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 4625 exemption would not be prohibited from e ngaging in handling activities under the EPA’s 4626 proposed option. 4627

4628



### 4.5 Entry Restriction Options 4629

4630 Existing entry restrictions are primarily aime d at protecting farm workers during and after 4631 pesticide applications. The goal of the revi sions is to strengthen those protections. 4632

4633



### 4.5.1 ENTRY-01 and 02: Entry restricted areas 4634

4635 While the WPS currently includes requirements fo r entry-restricted areas around the treated area 4636 during applications to nurseries and in greenhous es, there are no entry-re stricted areas during 4637*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

126 applications on farms and forests. Currently, a wo rker on a farm may be assigned to work in an 4638 area immediately adjacent to the tr eated area where a pesticide application is taking place. Many 4639 incidents of drift and off-target applications have resulted in reported worker illnesses. Drift is 4640 cited in a SENSOR-Pesticides/CDPR publications as the leading factor co ntributing to pesticide 4641 poisoning incidents reported among agri cultural workers from 1998-2005 (Calvert et al. , 2008). 4642

4643 Additionally, the current ru le requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to 4644 contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately 4645 trained and equipped handler.” However, the current regula tory language fails to provide 4646 handlers with a clear course of action if they obs erve a person, other than a trained and properly 4647 equipped handler, to be present in the entry-restricted area. 4648

4649 EPA proposes ENTRY-01, the establishment of entr y-restricted areas during applications for 4650 farms and forests. Extending the protection of entry-restricted areas for all WPS-covered 4651 workers is a simple way to improve worker sa fety. A second revision, ENTRY-02, specifies that 4652 handlers must “cease application” if a non-handler enters the treate d and entry-restricted areas. 4653 The revisions entail minor regulatory improveme nts and clarifications while resulting in 4654 potentially significant impacts on reducing incident s of worker exposure to drift. The cost 4655 estimated for restricting entry to perimeters adjacent to an ar ea being treated is negligible, 4656 because workers can be reassigned temporar ily while the application takes place. 4657

4658



### 4.5.2 ENTRY-03 vs 04 and 05: Du ration of Early Entry Activities 4659

4660 As described above (Section 4.3.6), the WPS provides for exceptions to entry restrictions so that 4661

certain activities consider ed critical to successf ul agricultural production can take place during a 4662 REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions a llow entry into an area under an REI for activities 4663

with limited contact with treated surfaces, irrigation activities, certain short-term activities, and 4664 activities associated with agricultural emerge ncies. The “limited contact” and irrigation 4665 exceptions allow workers to be in a treated area for up to eight hours but existing regulations do 4666

not establish a limit on the duration workers are al lowed in the treated area for agricultural 4667 emergencies. Since length of exposure is a fact or in the amount of residue a person may contact, 4668 limiting the time in the field effectively reduces the dose a worker may receive. 4669

4670 EPA considered two options. ENTRY-03 woul d impose a four-hour time limit in a 24-hour 4671 timeframe for an individual early entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while 4672 ENTRY-04 would impose an eight- hour time limit for the agricultur al emergency exception if a 4673 product requiring double no tification (both oral an d posting) was utilized. 4674

4675 As explained in Section 3.3, neither option entails measurable cost s, given the rarity that double 4676 notification products are used combined with the occurrence of an emerge ncy, and the possibility 4677 of rotating workers if the activity is longer than normal. Thus, ENTRY-03, which would provide 4678

some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY-04, is proposed. 4679

4680 Another option would simply be to eliminate the exceptions to the REI and avoid all associated 4681 exposures (ENTRY-05). Agricult ural production is subject to many weather-related risks and 4682*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

127 problems cannot always be foreseen. EPA estimat es that eliminating th e exception to the REI 4683 could cost almost $250 million annually in lost production. 4684

4685



### 4.5.3 ENTRY-06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition 4686

4687 EPA considered requiring a monitoring program for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers 4688 working regularly with certain organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. If a 4689

handler’s cholinesterase levels dropped below a set threshold, th ey would be restricted from 4690 further applications until their levels returned to normal. EPA estimates that a national program, 4691 modeled on the current program operating in Washington State, would cost about $95 per 4692 handler involved in the progr am, or $15.2 million annually. 4693

4694 The Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarely drop below the threshold 4695 of concern; only one percent of pa rticipating handlers had cholines terase depression at the trigger 4696 level in 2007 (Furman, 2007). A secondary benef it of the program, according to the Washington 4697 experience, is the identification of farms that may need to alter their pesticide application 4698 practices, identified by handlers sh owing some cholinesterase i nhibition, but not sufficient to 4699 warrant removal from further handling ta sks. Most recommendations stemming from 4700 Washington farm evaluations are for increased training and proper use of PPE. EPA is 4701 proposing significant expansions to the current WPS requirements to impr ove handler training 4702 and encourage the proper use of PPE on all agri cultural establishments covered by the WPS. 4703 Together, the training and PPE pr oposals are expected to address pesticide exposure risks faced 4704 by all handlers, including the sel ect population of handlers that ar e at risk for cholinesterase 4705 inhibition. The proposed handler training and PPE requirements ar e proactive and are expected 4706 to prevent handler exposure wher eas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem 4707 after the exposure has occurred. 4708

4709 EPA also considered restricting the number of hours handlers may work with OPs and N-methyl 4710

carbamates to no more than 30 hours over a 30- day period (ENTRY-07). This option is 4711 estimated to cost about $4.2 million annually. Howe ver, the benefits of the approach are highly 4712

uncertain. Data to establish a specific limit of this type of proposal are not available. 4713

4714



### 4.6 PPE Options 4715

4716 Personal protective equipment (PPE) can be crit ical for reducing exposure by routes such as 4717 inhalation and dermal exposure. Pesticide product labels provide directions for the appropriate 4718 equipment and the situations in which it is re quired. Provisions in the WPS support the label 4719 directions by setting criteria to ensure that PPE is of good quality and is used appropriately. 4720 Potential revisions reflect the goal of enha ncing protections for workers and handlers. 4721

4722


### 4.6.1 PPE-01: Require fit test for handl ers using products requiring respirator 4723



### PPE 4724

4725*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

128 Handlers can be exposed to signi ficant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, loading, and 4726 application. The current WPS requires handler empl oyers to ensure that ha ndlers’ respirators fit 4727 correctly and that the handler is trained to use it, but the regulati on does not explicitly require fit4728 testing. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assume that respirators fit. Respirators that do not 4729 fit properly may result in preventabl e handler exposure to pesticides. 4730

4731 EPA is proposing to incorporate OSHA’s standa rds for respirator fit testing into WPS 4732 requirements. The proposal will establish a consis tent approach for all employers to follow that 4733 will improve protection when a handler uses a pe sticide product that requires a respirator. 4734 OSHA’s standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, includes a specific standard for fitting the respirator on the 4735 user, instruction on how to recognize when the resp irator seal may be brok en, and what steps to 4736

take if this occurs. There is al so a requirement for the respirator user to be medically evaluated 4737 to ensure the handler is healthy enough to use a respirator. EPA estimates the annual cost to be 4738 about $82 per handler that obtains a fit test or $10.6 million per year. The average annual cost 4739 would be about $54.40 for WPS farms that hire ha ndlers. CPHEs are assumed to follow OSHA 4740 guidelines currently, given the nature of the business. 4741

4742 Ensuring that respirators fit properly will increase their effectiveness, ultimately leading to a 4743 reduction in occupational pestic ide-related illnesses. 4744

4745



### 4.6.2 PPE-02 and PPE-03: Eliminate ex ceptions from PPE for employees acting 4746


### under CCAs 4747

4748 The current PPE exemptions for employees wo rking under the supervis ion of certified crop 4749 advisors (CCAs) may result in reduced safety due to informational gaps. Employees may be 4750 unaware of the risks posed by pesticides while th e supervisor may be unaware of the level of 4751 contact the employee has with treat ed surfaces. This is different from the ability of the CCA to 4752 make appropriate judgments regarding personal ri sk and the revisions will retain the exemption 4753 for certified or licensed crop advi sors to enter and perform crop a dvising tasks during an REI. 4754

4755 The Agency is proposing to eliminate the exemp tion for the employees of WPS farms (PPE-02) 4756 and employees of commercial CCAs (PPE-03) w ho are not certified but are working under a 4757 CCA. Such employees would be required to us e the label specified PPE and have available 4758 decontamination supplies and emergency assistan ce would be provided in case of a suspected 4759 pesticide-related illness. 4760

4761 As discussed in Section 3.3.7, the costs associated with these revisions is likely negligible 4762 because PPE and decontamination supplies would already be available and because entry to 4763 perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for uncertified employees 4764 (Jones and Smith, 2006). 4765

4766


### 4.6.3 PPE-04: Standards for closed system exceptions 4767

4768 The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label- specified PPE when using a closed system for 4769 mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, however, does not provide specific criteria for 4770*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

129 an acceptable closed system. State enforcemen t agencies have expressed concern that the 4771 existing language is vague, impractical, and une nforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs 4772 may have inadequate systems resulting in inadve rtent exposure of handlers and others in the 4773 area. The proposed revision, PPE-04, would establish specific criteria for cl osed systems that are 4774 enforceable ensure and ensure that a system is protective of handlers. The proposed standards 4775

are based on California criteria. Properly designed and employed closed systems afford superior 4776 protection for handlers, other i ndividuals, and the environment 4777

4778 EPA estimates the cost of this proposal to be equivalent to about $6.9 million per year, with 4779 average annualized costs of about $25 for larg e and large-small WPS farms (those making more 4780 than $100,000 in annual sales), $12 per year for large family farms (those making more than 4781 $750,000 in annual sales), and about $48 per year for CPHEs. The costs incl ude the purchase of 4782 new systems by some firms or farms and some incr ease in costs for the more frequent utilization 4783

of the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their systems. In terms of cost4784 effectiveness, considering the number of handler s, including self-employed commercial handlers 4785 and handlers on family farms, the cost per handler of improved protection is about $20 per year. 4786

4787



### 4.6.4 PPE-05: Render cont aminated PPE unwearable 4788

4789 The WPS requires employers either to clean contam inated PPE or to dispose of it properly. PPE 4790 can become contaminated with pesticides from routine use or spills, a nd if re-worn, can expose 4791 the wearer to those pesticide residues. EPA propos es to require that contaminated PPE, if it 4792 cannot be properly cleaned, be rendered unusable be fore disposal. This clarification is in 4793 response to concerns raised by State agencies that contaminated PPE may be reused if not 4794 destroyed. 4795

4796 This would protect workers, handlers and othe rs from unnecessary exposure resulting from the 4797 wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from 4798 overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are discarded in a trash bin, a person in need of 4799 additional clothing may find the discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment 4800 apart would make it less likely that a person woul d attempt to wear it and be exposed to the 4801 pesticide residues. 4802

4803 The cost is expected to be negligible. The employer must dispose of contaminated PPE under 4804 the existing requirements and there is expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer 4805

to render the PPE unusable. 4806

4807



### 4.7 Decontamination Supply Options 4808

4809

On-site decontamination can be a critical first step in mitigating exposure to pesticides. The 4810 WPS and associated guidance specifies the materials that should be available. 4811

4812



### 4.7.1 SUPPLY-01 and SUPPLY-02: Dec ontamination supplies for workers 4813

4814*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

130 The WPS requires that water for decontamination be available for workers engaged in tasks in 4815 fields previously treated with pesticides, but does not specify the quantity of water that is 4816 necessary. Existing guidance indi cates that one gallon per worker is enough for such routine 4817 situations. SUPPLY-01 would incorporate this guidance into the WPS to eliminate any 4818 regulatory uncertainty. No cost is expected with this revision. 4819

4820 Currently, the same standard applies to workers engaged in activities in fields during a REI. 4821 Given the potential for higher levels of residue remaining on plant material, accidental contact 4822 ( e.g. , a worker slips and falls into foliage) could result in higher exposure than might occur in 4823

routine situations. SUPPLY-02 would increase th e amount of water that must be available to 4824 three gallons per worker. In Chapter 3, EPA estimates the cost for the additional water would be 4825 less than $0.01 per WPS farm. Water is generally av ailable at negligible pu mping cost or from a 4826 water district while the benefits from potential mitigation of accidental exposure appear high in 4827 comparison. 4828

4829



### 4.7.2 SUPPLY-03 vs 04: Decont amination supplies for handlers 4830

4831

Similar to the situation for wo rkers, WPS requires water be available for handlers without 4832 specifying the quantity. Guidance indicates th ree gallons per handler is enough for routine 4833 washing, and emergency decontamination. SU PPLY-03 would incorporate this guidance to 4834 eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. As above , no cost is expected with this revision. 4835

4836 EPA considered adding a requirement for handler employers to provide shower facilities for 4837 handlers, SUPPLY-04. The benefits of this op tion are highly uncerta in. Provisions for 4838 emergency decontamination, including eye rins ing, are already in place or proposed (see 4839 SUPPLY-05 below). Showering pr ior to going home would reduce the likelihood of transporting 4840 pesticide residues to the handler ’s home, but it is questionable whether many employees would 4841 routinely utilize showers even if they were avai lable. Representatives of agricultural employers 4842 on the SBREFA panel noted that in their experi ence, when showers are available that handlers 4843 opt not to use them. There are a number of reas ons people may not avail themselves of shower 4844 facilities, including the need for a change of clothes or a simple preference for showering in the 4845 privacy of their own home. Some cultural beliefs and practices ma y factor into th is decision not 4846 to utilize existing show er facilities (Arcury et al . 2001). 4847

4848 Requiring employers to provide sh owers would be costly; the es timated cost of building each 4849 shower facility is $105,000. Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for 4850 construction alone, with WPS farm s bearing the vast majority of the burden. The cost for 4851 CPHEs to install showers would be about $2.5 billi on. This estimate does not include the cost of 4852 maintenance. SBREFA panelists commented that if the shower option were to become a WPS 4853 requirement, many agricultural employers would a void the high cost of compliance by choosing 4854 not to employ handlers on their establishment. If this were to occur, a requirement for shower 4855

facilities for handlers would cause employers to avoid hiring handl ers and could lead to job loss 4856 of over 150,000 handlers in the agricu ltural industry. As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.9), this 4857 may not be direct job losses, but rather the loss of higher-paid pos itions. Less expensive options, 4858 such as simple outdoor showers w ith privacy screens, might be us ed. But such options are even 4859 less likely to be used by an employ ee than a more complete facility. 4860*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

131 4861 The additional training content for handlers that is proposed in TRAIN-14, including take-home 4862 exposure information to protect the children and families of workers, along with the proposed 4863 clarification to the eye-rinsing requirements in SUPPLY-05 were also considered in comparing 4864 the relative costs and benefits of requiri ng showers for handlers. These provisions can 4865 effectively achieve similar benefits at a lower cost. 4866

4867



### 4.7.3 SUPPLY-05 vs 06: Emergency eye flushing 4868

4869 The current rule requires employers to provide wa ter to handlers for use in case of an ocular 4870 exposure to a pesticide when th e pesticide label calls for eye protection. Stakeholders have 4871 indicated that, even with protective eyewear, ha ndlers, particularly those mixing and loading 4872 pesticides, can be exposed from splashes that ente r the eye. This can result in serious injury to 4873 the eye. 4874

4875

For similar ocular risks in industrial situati ons, OSHA establishes eyeflush requirements that 4876 specify the length of flushing and flow rate. EPA proposes, under SUPPLY-05, to adopt these 4877 requirements for establishments with permanent pe sticide mixing sites. As discussed in Section 4878 3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no co st since these sites w ould typically have a 4879

source of water. 4880

4881 An alternative (SUPPLY-06) would be to require portable eyewash stations that could be moved 4882 to temporary sites, i.e. , fields to be treated. As mentione d in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.2), however, 4883

there are some drawbacks to the us e of portable stations. Accordi ng to state field personnel, they 4884 are difficult to maintain, especially to keep clean and of a temperature safe to use in the eye. It is 4885 also not clear that they are subs tantially more effective than the traditional water bottle in rinsing 4886 the eyes. Moreover, they are expensive. EP A estimates the cost to be about $13.6 million per 4887 year nationally, or over $55 per year per fa rm or CPHE. The stations cost about $280 4888 (Gempler’s, 2008) and EPA assumes that mainte nance costs are ten percent of the purchase 4889 price. The cost estimate also assumes that th e stations last ten year s, which may overestimate 4890 their durability. 4891

4892



### 4.8 Emergency Assistance Options 4893

4894 The current WPS requires the agricultural or handler employee to provide “prompt” 4895 transportation to a health care f acility in the event of a pestic ide exposure emergency. The term 4896 “prompt” lacks specificity and any delay in s eeking medical attention during an emergency may 4897 endanger the exposed worker or handler. The ti me between an accident and receipt of medical 4898 care may be critical in treating a person with pesticide poisoning. 4899

4900 OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive medi cal treatment, clarifying the 4901 requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if the inju ry is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not 4902 life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). Based on the physical differe nces between a WPS 4903 establishment and typical indus trial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow 4904*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

132 agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker 4905 and to provide transportation. 4906

4907 EPA proposes EMERG-01 and EMERG-03, which woul d require employers to begin transport 4908 for workers and handlers to a medical facility with in thirty minutes of learning of an exposure. 4909 The employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable 4910 information, to the treating medical personne l (see HAZCOM-02). EPA also considered 4911 requiring agricultural and handler employers to provide transpor tation to workers and handlers 4912

within one hour in the event of an exposure emergency (EMERG-02 and 04). A shorter time 4913 frame is clearly preferable. Neither time fr ame is expected to impose measurable costs, 4914 particularly as cell phones become more readil y available and service becomes more reliable. 4915

4916*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

133 

## Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule 4917

4918 This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the co st of proposed changes to the worker protection 4919

standards. EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed rule to be between $61.9 and 4920 $72.4 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates 4921 for farms and farm labor estimated from a longer se ries of data that show slower declines over 4922 time (see Chapter 3), the cost of the proposed rule is to be $63.6 to $74.1 million per year. Using 4923 a seven percent discount rate, th e rule is estimated to cost between $60.8 and $73.1 million per 4924 year. The range of costs reflects the difference of a two year delay in the implementation of the 4925 proposed training and notification requirements versus immediate implementation. A major 4926 driver of the total cost is the large number of establishments that are c overed by the WPS, nearly 4927 400,000 farms, not counting those eligible for the immediate family exemption, and over 40,000 4928 commercial pesticide application firms including se lf-employed commercial applicators. Given 4929 a three percent discount rate, the cost for large WPS farms, define d as those with annual sales of 4930 $750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $350 and $400 per year. The incremental cost to 4931 small WPS farms is estimated to be between $13 0 and $150 per year. For small farms, the cost 4932 represents 0.1 percent of average annual sales. As noted in Chapter 1, the farms impacted by the 4933 WPS are those agricultural establishments, incl uding crop farms, livestock operations with crop 4934 production, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pestic ides. The impact on family 4935 farms is limited to changes in the standard for cl osed systems and is estimated to cost about $60 4936 per year, on average, to approximately 9,000 fa rms out of about 500,000 family farms that use 4937 pesticides. Commercial pestic ide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected by the 4938 WPS, with an annual incremental cost between $170 and $190, although self-employed 4939 commercial applicators w ill face costs of only about $80 per year. Forestry operations are also 4940 covered by WPS, but we lack th e data on co-occurrence of pest icide use and covered activities 4941 (hand labor) on these establishmen ts to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. 4942 Pesticide use in forestry operations is likely to be widely separate d from worker activities in both 4943 time and space, with the exception of seedling nurseries. 4944

4945

These costs amount to an aver age expenditure of approximate ly $25 to $30 per year per 4946 employee, not including self-employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family 4947 farms) who benefit from some of the revisions. 4948

4949 The national incremental costs presented in this chapter should be considered an upper bound for 4950 two reasons. First, EPA has generally made c onservative assumptions about the impact of 4951 individual requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we 4952 have assumed that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, 4953 farms that do not need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do not need to provide 4954 safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the 4955 farm throughout the growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify all workers of 4956 all applications at the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed 4957 temporarily for certain peak act ivities, such as weeding, thin ning, and harvesting. Employers 4958 will only need to notify those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications 4959 to specific fields) and can do at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated 4960 assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crop s and all employees of 4961*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

134 those farms. In reality, most WPS requirement s cover farmworkers who engage in hand labor 4962

activities associated with crop production. 4963

4964

A more realistic estimate would c onsider that much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and that 4965

workers are not involved in hand labor activitie s. For example, the primarily livestock 4966 operations that also produce crops likely grow fo rage crops or field crops like corn and soybean 4967 that are highly mechanized. Since they are no t engaged in hand labor activities, employers and 4968 employees would not be covered by the field work er requirements of the WP S. Only the handler 4969 requirements would apply. They would be required to: 4970

 Conduct handler pesticide safety training; 4971

 Maintain records of pesticide applications; 4972

 Provide handler pesticide safety training; 4973

 Provide handler safety displays and decontamination supplies; 4974

 Comply with minimum age requirements for pesticide handlers; and 4975

 Comply with all PPE requirements. 4976 However, farms without fieldworkers engaged in hand labor activities w ould not be required to: 4977

 Conduct worker pesticide safety training; 4978

 Provide worker pesticide safety displays; 4979

 Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor 4980

 Provide notification of REIs, ei ther orally or by posting. 4981 If we separate the 153,000 prim arily livestock farm s from the 242,000 primarily crop farms and 4982 their 1.8 million workers, and assume that only the latter represent the farms with hand labor 4983 activities, the total incremental cost of th e proposed revisions is around $51.2 to $58.8 million 4984 per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively 4985 conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requirements and includes many crop 4986 farms that will not be using hand labor in production. 4987

4988 A lower bound estimate would include the 157,000 fa rms producing field crops , such as grains, 4989 oilseeds, forage, and potatoes, in the same cate gory as the predominantly livestock operations. 4990 Production of these crops is highly mechanized a nd such farms may have pesticide handlers, but 4991 not fieldworkers of the kind covered by the WP S. In this scenario, which assumes over 84,000 4992 farms with 1.3 million, fully covered, worker s and 310,000 farms with handlers only, total 4993

incremental costs are estimated to be between $39.9 and $44.6 million annually. It is difficult to 4994

assess the extent of bias in this estimate. It maintains the conservative assumptions about the 4995 individual requirements, but many farms that ma inly produce field crops will also produce fruit 4996 and vegetable crops that utili ze hand labor. On the other hand, some farms that primarily 4997 produce fruit and vegetable crops will also produ ce field crops and some portion of their work 4998 force may not be covered by the WPS. Further, within the covered fa rms we include nearly 4999 11,000 farms that primarily produce cotton and/or t obacco as our categorization of the data does 5000 not allow us to separate farms of these type s. Cotton is highly mechanized, but tobacco 5001 production often entails hand labor activities, so we include th em in the covered farms. 5002

5003 It should be noted that, as the scenarios focu s on a subset of farms, the estimated per-farm 5004 impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ 5005 more workers per farm than do livestock operations . If we consider the livestock operations to 5006 be ‘handler only’ farms, the impacts on them is much smaller, on average, than to crop farms. 5007*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

135 Large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to in cur impacts of $180 to $190 per year, on average, 5008 while the estimated average impact to small ‘handl er only’ farms is less th an $50 per year. Large 5009 crop farms, in contrast, are estimated to b ear additional cost of $370 to $440 per year, on 5010 average, which is slightly highe r than the range presented in this chapter. The estimated 5011 incremental cost to small crop farms is $140 to $160 per year, very close to that associated with 5012 the upper bound of the national incremental cost. 5013

5014 This chapter provides the costs of the suite of revisi ons to the WPS that were selected on the 5015 basis of the costs, estimated in Chapter 3, and be nefits, described in Chapter 2, as well as other 5016 considerations explained in the NPRM. It does not provide costs of alternative packages of 5017

revisions as this would not cont ribute additional information to the decision-making process. 5018 The relative net benefits of the options for the individual requirements, discussed in Chapter 4, 5019 are largely, although not entirely, independent of each other. Fo r example, the relative net 5020

benefits of annual to biennial training (TRAIN-03 and 04, se e Section 4.1.2) would not be 5021 substantially altered if paired with written information abou t a pesticide if entering a field under 5022 a REI (NOTIFY-11) instead of oral informa tion (NOTIFY-10) (see Se ction 4.3.6). Pesticide 5023 safety training provides workers with generic in formation about potential effects of pesticides 5024 and how to reduce exposure, but people tend to fo rget such lessons over ti me. Providing specific 5025 information at the time of potential exposure make s the training lessons actionable, but merely 5026 making the specific information mo re tangible will not make two- year old generic lessons more 5027 memorable. Thus, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed package of selected 5028 revisions to alternative packages of th e rejected options would be redundant. 5029

5030 To formalize this mathematically, let the net bene fits of Option A be designated NB(A). Then, if 5031

5032 NB(A) > NB(B) for Component 1, and 5033

5034 NB(C) > NB(D) for Component 2, then 5035

5036 NB(A & C) > NB(B & D) or any othe r combination for the two components. 5037

5038 Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, that is, the option of making no 5039 changes to existing requirements. 5040

5041 This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 explains the methodology used to estimate the 5042 cost of the proposed revisions. Section 5.2 pres ents the estimation wher e Section 5.2.1 addresses 5043 the proposed training component, Section 5.2.2 pr esents the costs of the proposed hazard 5044 communication and notification components, Se ction 5.2.3 summarizes the cost of proposed 5045 minimum age, entry restricti ons, and PPE requirements, a nd Section 5.2.4 addresses the 5046 proposed decontamination supply and emergency response requirements. Section 5.2.5 sums up 5047 the components and presents the total estimated cost of the pr oposed rule. Section 5.3 then 5048 discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Section 5.4 presents the analysis of small 5049 business impacts. 5050

5051



### 5.1 General Methodology 5052

5053*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

136 The most straightforward approach to estimating th e cost of the proposed rule is to sum the costs 5054 of the individual regulations cont ained therein. While largely inde pendent of each other, the cost 5055 of a suite of regulations is not necessarily th e sum of the costs of individual regulations, 5056 however. In some cases, ther e is duplication as, for example, in the documentation of 5057 application information. Agricultural employers are required to have the information available 5058 for employees and to retain the information in th eir records, but the same document can be used 5059 for both purposes. For these cases, EPA identifies the duplication and subtracts those costs from 5060

the total. 5061

5062 In other cases, there is over lap without complete duplication as, for example, when one 5063 regulation requires additional content on a sign, wh ich increases the material cost, and another 5064 regulation requires more freque nt use of signs. These cases require a more complicated 5065 adjustment in which common costs are subtracted ( e.g. , the cost for the lower number of signs), 5066 but additional costs must be included ( e.g. , the higher cost of the signs). In the case of worker 5067 and handler training, the inter actions between increased freq uency and increased content 5068 (duration) are particularly complex and the simple st approach is to re-estimate the incremental 5069 costs for a subset of the regul ations before summing them with the other regulations. 5070

5071 That said, the simple sum of the proposed revi sions is $63.7 million dollars, which is slightly 5072 lower than the estimated range of the total cost. 5073

5074 The general methodology for estimati ng the cost of a suite of indi vidual requirements is similar 5075 to that for the potential requirements. We begi n by estimating the cost pe r actor of the suite of 5076 requirements by summing over the regulations in cluded in the regulatory option and adjusting 5077 for any common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this 5078 is done for the proposed requirements and for the baseline accounting for state requirements that 5079 may be more stringent than the current fede ral standard. Actors, again, are the various 5080 establishments, i.e. , farms and commercial pesticide handling establishments, and their 5081 employees. 5082

5083 Step 1. Calculate the expected cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements 5084 within a protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for dupl icate or additional costs. 5085

5086

ܿݐݏ݋ ோ,a ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௑

௧

௥ ൅

െ ⁄ ෍ ቎෍ ݓ

a · ܪ ௦,a,௝ ௑

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ ൅෍ܿ

௠ · ܯ ௦,a,௠ ௑

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݉ሻ

௠ ቏

௥א௦ 5087

where cost R, a

X

t is the expected annual co st for the proposed requireme nts in protective category R 5088 = training, notification, age, entry, PPE, emerge ncy preparedness, and decontamination supply. 5089 All other variables are as previ ously identified. The superscript X designates P, proposed, and B, 5090 baseline, and s  r indicates that the activity or material required in regulation s is also an element 5091 in regulation r , which duplicates or adds to the costs in r . Duplicate costs ar ise when different 5092 regulations require the sa me activity or material, e.g. , a document or a sign. Additional costs 5093 arise if different regulations in crease costs in different ways, e.g. , requiring more information in 5094 one regulation and more frequent dissemination in another. 5095

5096*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

137 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for th e baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted 5097 per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors. 5098

5099

ܥܴ ௜,ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,a ஻

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a 5100 for X = P and B. National level compliance costs may be estimated by summing across regions. 5101

5102

ܥܰ ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܴܥ

ோ,௜ ௑

௧
௜ 5103 Step 3. Calculate the present value (PV) of regiona l costs for the baseline and proposal. As with 5104 the individual requirements, we use a ten-year time horizon. 5105

5106

ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 5107

5108 Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs. 5109

5110 ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ ோ,௜ ൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ஻ ൯

5111 National incremental cost, PV ( NIC R ), is calculated the same way. 5112

5113 Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements. 5114

5115

ܥܫܣ ோ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ ோ ሻ ൈ ߩ · ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ் െ 1

5116

where AIC R is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all ot her variables are as 5117 previously defined. 5118

5119 Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule. 5120

5121

ܸܲ ሺ ܴܥܫ ௜ ሻ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ

ோ,௜ ൯

ோ 5122 Again, this is done for national level cost , as well as for annualized costs. 5123

5124 Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 5125 number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 5126 entity. 5127

5128*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

138 ܥܧ ௘,ோ ௑ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,௔ ௑ ൈ ܰ ௔,௘

a 5129

where EC R,e X

is entity cost, N a,e is the number of actors per en tity, and other variables are as 5130 previously defined. An entity is an establis hment, primarily a WPS farm, of a certain size 5131 category, based on SBA criteria. The actors within an entity include the establishment and the 5132 workers, by type, in its employ. We then calcul ate the PV of costs over a ten-year time horizon, 5133 assuming that the number of workers will not change for a specific entity. Finally, we annualize 5134 the NPV to arrive at a cost per year. This has the effect of spreading the cost of any required 5135

investments across the time horizon as a busin ess would in making a capital investment. 5136

5137 Step 8. Incremental cost per entity is simply th e difference between the cost of the baseline 5138 regulations and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective 5139 categories. 5140

5141

ܥܫܧ
௘ ௑ ൌ ෍ ܥܧ

ோ,௘ ௉ െ ܥܧ ோ,௘ ஻

ோ 5142 For the purpose of the per-entity analysis, EP A requested a special tabulation from the 2007 5143 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obt ained information on th e average number of 5144 workers employed by various type s and sizes of operations. Si ze is based on annual revenues, 5145 where a small farm makes less than $750,000 in gr oss sales and a small feedlot makes less than 5146 $2.5 million in gross sales. This corresponds to the SBA definition of small business for the 5147 agricultural sector (SBA, 2008). Table 5.1-1 presents the characteristics used for the per-entity 5148 analysis. 5149

5150 Table 5.1-1. Average Number of Workers a nd Handlers per WPS Farm by Farm Size. 5151

Farm Size 1 Annual Revenue Workers Handlers
Large ≥ $750,000 20.0 2 Small < $750,000 3.6 0.41

Large-Small ≥ $100,000 and < $750,000 4.7 1

Medium-Small ≥ $10,000 and < $100,000 3.2 0 Small-Small < $10,000 2.5 0

1 Feedlots are considered large if annual revenue is more than $2.5 million. EPA divides small feedlots 5152 into large-small entities with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million, medium-small 5153

entities with annual revenue betw een $50,000 and $500,000, and sm all-small entities with annual 5154 revenue less than $50,000. 5155

5156 Large WPS farms employ a substantially greater nu mber of workers than do small farms. This 5157 distinction holds for nearly all types of farms, except for farm s producing oilseeds and grains 5158 where even large farms employ, on average, fewer than five workers. Greenhouses employ the 5159 largest number of workers. Vegetable, fruit, and nut producers and nurseri es also employ a large 5160 number of workers, although some are likely temporary workers employed at harvest or for 5161 certain seasons. Temporary workers also likely explain how small-small farms, with annual 5162 sales of less than $10,000, still employ between tw o and three workers, on average. Certain 5163*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

139 provisions, especially the no tification requirements, only a pply if the worker is on the 5164 establishment during applicati on, REI, or within 30 days of expiration of the REI. 5165

5166

EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pest icides, but assume that large 5167 farms employ two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Throughout 5168 this analysis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on averag e, 20 pesticide applications per 5169 year. Most, but not all, woul d occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that 5170 applications are made slightly less than once per week, on average. It seems reasonable that one 5171

or two handlers could make or assist in this numbe r of applications, especially as the employer is 5172 likely to be an applicator and as commercial appli cators are likely to be hired for applications of 5173 some of the more hazardous pesticides such as soil fumigants. 5174

5175



### 5.2 Cost Estimation 5176

5177 This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We begin with a fairly 5178 detailed presentation of the estimation of th e training component. The results of other 5179 components are presented in more summary fashi on. Details of the estimation can be found in 5180 Appendix B. 5181

5182


### 5.2.1 Training Component 5183

5184 As an example, we explain the estimation of cost s associated with training requirements in some 5185

detail. 5186

5187 The proposed changes to the training requirement s consist of several options pertaining to 5188 worker training: TRAIN-02, Elimination of th e grace period before training with exceptions; 5189 TRAIN-03, Annual worker training; TRAIN-06, Expanded worker training content (increased 5190 duration of 15 minutes); TRAIN-08, Stricter requirements for worker trainers; and TRAIN-10, 5191 Record keeping for two years. It also includes several options pertaining to handler training: 5192 TRAIN-12, Annual handler traini ng; TRAIN-14, Expanded handler training content (increased 5193 duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN-16, Record k eeping for two years. EPA is also proposing 5194 to require employers to provi de verification of training, i.e. , a copy of the training register, to 5195 their employees, TRAIN-20. 5196

5197 Step 1. Calculate the cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a 5198 protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs. 5199

5200

ܿݐݏ݋ ோ,a ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

௥,a ௑

௧

௥ ൅

െ ⁄ ෍ ቎෍ ݓ

a · ܪ ௦,a,௝ ௑

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݆ሻ

௝ ൅෍ܿ

௠ · ܯ ௦,a,௠ ௑

௧ · Prob ௧ ሺ݉ሻ

௠ ቏

௥א௦ 5201 for X = proposed and baseline. 5202

5203 Table 5.2-1 presents the baseline unit costs for establishments for the proposed training 5204 regulations for all regions except California. To better understand the distribution of impacts 5205*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

140 across farms, we modify the baseline for TR AIN-03, Annual Training, along the lines of that 5206 shown in Appendix A, Table A.1.a-21. Otherwis e, there are clearly common baselines for the 5207 differing worker training and handler training elements. Th e proposed requirements merely 5208 extend current practices in different ways, e.g. , in the content, which determines the duration of 5209 the training, and in the frequency with which workers are trained. TRAIN-02, 03, 06, and 08 all 5210 represent the same baseline for WPS establishments, which entail the provision of worker 5211 training. Thus, the baseline costs for the last three proposed requirements are subtracted from 5212 the total. Similarly, TRAIN-12 and 14 represent the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide 5213

handlers and the cost of TRAIN-14 is simply subtracted from the total. 5214

5215 Table 5.2-1. Baseline Costs for Training Regu lations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5216 (WPS Farms), Year 1 5217 Requirement Large WPS

Farm Large-Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farms CPHE

TRAIN-02 15.23 15.23 15.23 0.00

TRAIN-03 36.15 10.93 10.93 0.00

TRAIN-06 15.23 15.23 15.23 0.00

TRAIN-08 15.23 15.23 15.23 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 105.88 67.88 56.62 48.18 Duplicate Costs TRAIN-02, 06, 08 duplicate TRAIN-03 45.69 45.69 45.69 0.00

TRAIN-14 duplicate

of TRAIN-12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

cost TRAIN ,a

B 48.17 16.56 10.93 24.09

cost TRAIN ,a

B

Ca

l 81.12 34.13 16.39 44.68
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5218

5219 The last row of Table 5.2-1 presents the total for the California baseli ne. California already 5220 requires an extended training for both workers and handlers, hence the baseline is based on the 5221 cost of proposed requirements. California also requires records to be ke pt for handler training. 5222 See Appendix B.1. 5223

5224 Table 5.2-2 presents the baseline costs pertaining to WPS and CPHE employees. For simplicity, 5225 we present the common baseline for multiple requir ements, rather than repeat them. The main 5226 difference between regions is participation in the voluntary training verification program 5227 (TRAIN-18) and the extended trai ning required in California. 5228

5229 Table 5.2-2. Baseline Costs for Training Regu lations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5230 (Employees) 5231*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

141 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

cost TRAIN ,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

cost TRAIN ,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

cost TRAIN ,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

cost TRAIN ,a

B 3.40 5.12 4.94
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5232

5233 The same process applies to th e cost of complying with the proposed regulations, although for 5234 ease, EPA firsts re-estimates the per-actor cost for worker training, covered by TRAIN-02, 03, 5235 06, and 08, and for handler training covered by TRAIN-12 and 14. The proposed worker 5236 training requirements include immediate training with lim ited exceptions, annual training, 5237 increased training content (dura tion), and heightened standard for trainers. Because of the 5238 requirement for annual training and reduced flexib ility to delay the training of newly hired 5239 employees, EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct an average of 3.2 trainings per 5240 year, in lieu of 2.4 sessions in the baseline, a nd a small WPS farm will conduct an average of 5241 1.15 trainings per year, up from 0.7 sessions in the baseline. As fo r TRAIN-08 individually, 5242 EPA assumes that 85 percent of worker trainings will be conducted by a trainer of handlers and 5243 15 percent by people who have completed a Trai n-the-Trainer program. These percentages are 5244 multiplied by the average number of trainings per year to obtain the annual frequency or 5245 probability that a given training will be conducted by one of the two require d trainers. The per5246 farm cost for the revised worker training is es timated to be about $90 pe r year for large farms 5247 and $33 per year for small farms (Table 5.2-3). Record keeping costs, TRAIN-10, are similarly 5248 adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm sizes. 5249

5250*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

142 Table 5.2-3. Per-WPS farm Costs for pr oposed worker training requirements. 5251 Action/Material wage/price unit time/quantity probability cost

Large WPS Farm Training by handler trai ner $37.87/hr 45 min 2.692 $ 76.47Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0.475 $ 13.49

cost TRAI N

,a

P $ 89.96

Small WPS Farm Training by handler trai ner $37.87/hr 45 min 0.980 $ 27.83Training by Train-theTrainer $37.87/hr 45 min 0.173 $ 4.91

cost TRAI N

,a

P $ 32.74

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5252

5253 The per-worker unit cost is similarly estim ated to be $9.43, as shown in Table 5.2-4. 5254 Considering the expanded content and annual training requirement, workers will spend 45 5255 minutes of time in training every year. EPA estimates that 90.3 per cent of workers will be 5256 trained each year, accounting for returning ha ndlers and those who fall under the exception to 5257 immediate training and leave empl oyment after two days or less. In addition, EPA assumes that 5258 about five percent of workers will fall unde r the exception, although most will receive full 5259 training within a couple of days. Those not i mmediately trained will re ceive written and oral 5260 safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis. 5261

5262 Table 5.2-4. Per-worker Costs for prop osed worker training requirements. 5263 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

cost TRAI N

,a

P $ 9.43

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5264

5265 Similarly, the combined handler training revisions increase the content and frequency of the 5266 trainings. The combined costs are shown in Ta ble 5.2-5 for WPS farms, depending on size. As 5267 noted in Chapter 3.3, the training cost borne by th e establishment will depend on the number of 5268 handlers employed. The probability that a WPS fa rm holds a training session will increase in 5269 comparison to the baseline, but there will be some sharing of resources. Thus, EPA assumes that 5270 there will be four handler trainings for every fi ve large WPS farms and one handler training for 5271 every two large-small WPS farms. The annual frequency of training is then weighted by the 5272 probability the training is led by a particular cat egory of trainer, which is unchanged from the 5273

baseline. 5274

5275*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

143 Table 5.2-5. Per-Establishment Costs for proposed handler training. 5276 Action/Material wage/price unit time/quantity probability cost

Large WPS Establishments Training by handler trai ner $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.112 $ 4.24Training 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

cost r ,a

P $24.43 Large-small Establishments Training by handler trai ner $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.070 $ 2.65Training 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

cost r ,a

P $ 15.27

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5277

5278 The combined effect of the handler training wi ll result in per-firm costs of $41.75 for CPHEs, 5279 assuming the firms conduct 1.3 trainings per year , on average. The per-h andler unit costs are 5280 estimated to be $20.83 for WPS handlers and $20.10 for CPHE handlers, which is simply the 5281 wage for one hour spent in training. 5282

5283 Table 5.2-6 presents the per-establishment unit co sts and their sum, given the new unit costs 5284 estimated for the combined worker training re quirements and the combined handler training 5285 requirements. 5286

5287 Table 5.2-6. Regulatory Costs for Training Re gulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5288 (Establishments) 5289 Regulation Large WPS

Farm Large-Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farms CPHE

TRAIN-02, 03, 06, 08 89.96 32.74 32.74 0.00

TRAIN-10 10.90 4.09 4.09 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

cost TRAIN ,a

P

127.77 54.58 36.83 44.40
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5290

5291 Finally, Table 5.2-7 presents the compliance cost s per employee for the proposed requirements. 5292 Compared to the individual requirements, higher costs for record keeping arise because more 5293 frequent trainings are requi red by TRAIN-03 for workers and TRAIN-10 for handlers. 5294

5295*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

144 Table 5.2-7. Regulatory Costs for Training Re gulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5296 (Employees) 5297 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

cost TRAIN ,a

P

9.93 21.73 21.03
Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5298

5299 These estimates are for immediate implementation of all requirements. Some elements will be 5300 delayed to allow for the development of new trai ning material and so that sufficient qualified 5301

trainers can be trained. For si mplicity, rather than develop estimates for each year during the 5302 implementation period that account for all interac tions, we evaluate the costs given immediate 5303 implementation of all requirements and then given a two-year delay in th e implementation of all 5304 requirements. The true estimate will lie in between these bounds. 5305

5306

These estimates also assume that all WPS farms provide workers with tr aining whether or not a 5307 pesticide application is made. That is, EPA assumes that WPS fa rms find it more cost-effective 5308 to prepare workers in advance rather than attempt to bring everyone into compliance at the 5309 moment a pesticide application is made. As a sensitivity analysis, we co nsider two alternative 5310 scenarios. In the first, the WPS farm, as a cost-minimizing agent, will delay training until a 5311 pesticide application is necessar y, thus saving the cost of traini ng if pesticides are not needed 5312 during the year. This in volves adjusting the probab ilities used to estimate the expected cost to 5313

account for the farms that hire labor but do not a pply pesticides. In the second alternative, we 5314

assume that WPS farms could de lay training in the baseline, but that under the proposal, 5315 especially the stricter requirements for immedi ate training and on trainer qualifications, delaying 5316 training may prove costly because workers cann ot be brought into compliance with sufficient 5317 speed. Under this scenario, onl y the probabilities in the baselin e are adjusted to account for 5318

farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. As explained later, the cost estimates are 5319

similar across these three scenarios. 5320

5321 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for th e baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted 5322 per-actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors. 5323

5324

ܥܴ ௜,ோ ௑

௧ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,a ௑

௧ ൈ ܰ a,௜ ௧

a 5325

for X = P and B. 5326

5327 Table 5.2-8 presents this calcula tion for the baseline. Costs pe r actor are given in the row 5328 immediately below the region(s) followed by the number of actors in each region. The sum of 5329 the products is given in the right-hand colu mn. EPA estimates that, nationally, current 5330 regulations cost about $18.3 million annually. If training is provided only if a WPS farm uses 5331 pesticides, the national cost is estimated to be $15.7 million annually. 5332*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

145 5333 Table 5.2-8. Regional Baseline Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only) 5334

Region Large

WPS

Farm LargeSmall

WPS

Farm Other

Small

WPS

Farms CPHE WPS

Worker WPS

Handler CPHE

Handler

RC Ri B 1 ($1,000)
South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a B $48.17 $16.56 $10.93 $24.09 $ 3.92 $ 5.48 $ 5.32

N

a , South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $2,361

N

a , Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 586
California

cost TRAIN,a B $81.12 $34.13 $16.39 $44.68 $ 5.56 $22.46 $21.80

N

a , California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $3,345
Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a B $48.17 $16.56 $10.93 $24.09 $ 3.66 $ 5.39 $ 5.22

N

a , Subtro p ical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 623

N

a , Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $1,906

N

a , Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1,765 Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a B $48.17 $16.56 $10.93 $24.09 $ 3.40 $ 5.12 $ 4.94

N

a , Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $2,871

N

a , Ohio Valle y 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3,171

N

a , Texas 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $1,681

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $18,310 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5335

5336 Table 5.2-9 presents the estimates of regional costs under the proposed training regulations. 5337 Summing the per-farm/firm and per-employee co sts results in an estimate of $50.9 million 5338 dollars for the first year, assuming full implem entation and all WPS fa rms conducting training. 5339 If WPS farms can delay training until necessita ted by a pesticide application, the cost is 5340 estimated to be $43.4 million. 5341

5342*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

146 Table 5.2-9. Regulatory Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only) 5343
Large

WPS

Farm LargeSmall

WPS

Farm Other

Small

WPS

Farms CPHE WPS

Worker WPS

Handler CPHE

Handler

UC

o P

a $127.77 $54.58 $39.83 $44.40 $9.93 $21.73 $21.03 RC oi P t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $6,865

California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $5,645

Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $1,674 Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $1,802

Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $9,010

Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $5,632

Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $9.930

Texas/Mt

West 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $5,266

Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $5,049

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $50,874 Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5344

5345 Step 3. Calculate the PV of regional co sts for the baseline and proposal. 5346

5347

ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑ ൯ൌ෍ ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௑

௧ ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ௧ିଵ ଵ଴

௧ୀଵ 5348 Costs may vary over time because a few requireme nts will not be implemented immediately. As 5349 noted above, for simplicity we estimate upper and lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes 5350 all requirements are implemented immediately a nd the lower bound assumes all requirements are 5351 delayed two years. Further, the number of entitie s and workers is expected to change over time, 5352 as discussed in Chapter 3.3.2. 5353

5354 Table 5.2-10 presents the PV of regional costs for the baselines and for compliance with the 5355 proposed package of training regulations. Over te n years, the PV of th e national cost in the 5356 baseline is estimated to be about $153 million a nd the estimate for the proposed requirements is 5357 $425 million. 5358

5359*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

147 Table 5.2-10. PV of Baseline and Proposed Re gulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN 5360 only) 5361

Region PV(RC
o P i ) PV(RC
o B i ) PV(RIC o i ) Annual RIC
($1,000) South 57,587 19,731 37,856 4,309 California 46,347 27,544 18,804 2,140

Southwest 13,971 4,871 9,100 1,036 Subtropical 14,884 5,132 9,752 1,110 Midwest 75,934 24,161 51,772 5,893 Northeast 46,924 15,839 31,084 3,538 Ohio Valley 83,550 26,649 56,901 6,476 Texas/Mountain West 44,315 14,131 30,184 3,435 Northwest 41,500 14,474 27,026 3,076
National 425,010 152,531 272,479 31,012
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5362

5363 Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs. 5364

5365 ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ ோ,௜ ൯ ൌ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܴܥ ோ,௜ ஻ ൯

5366 The final two columns of Table 5.2-10 present th e expected regional level incremental costs, i.e.

, 5367

the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs fo r the training 5368 components. Regional costs range from a low of $9.1 million over 10 years for the Southwest, 5369 which consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud 5370 Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes and the Three Aff iliated Tribes, to a high of $56.9 million in the 5371 Ohio Valley, consisting of Illinois, Indian a, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and 5372 Wisconsin. The primary reason for the regional variation is the differi ng number of farm and 5373 commercial pesticide operations and differing numbers of agricu ltural workers and pesticide 5374 handlers. The exception is California, which incu rs relatively low incremental costs because its 5375 training standards are higher than current federal requirements. 5376

5377 Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements. 5378

5379

ܥܫܣ ோ ൌ ܸܲሺܰܥܫ ோ ሻ ൈ ߩ · ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ்

ሺ1 ൅ ߩሻ ் െ 1

5380

where AIC R is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all ot her variables are as 5381 previously defined. 5382

5383 The right-hand column of Table 5.2-10 shows re gional and national annualized incremental 5384 costs. For the training requirements, the pr oposed regulations are expected to cost the 5385 agricultural industry between $23.9 and $31.0 million annually, given a 3% discount rate. The 5386 range stems from the implementation schedule, wh ere some requirements will be phased in over 5387 two years. For reference, the sum of the in cremental costs estimated in Chapter 3 is $22.2 5388 million per year. 5389*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

148 5390 The assumption that all WPS farms conduct trai ning before determining that a pesticide 5391 application is necessary does not have a major effect on the estimated cost of the proposed 5392 revisions. If WPS farms only c onduct training when necessary, the incremental cost is estimated 5393 to be between $20.2 and $26.3 million, given that so me requirements will be phased in over two 5394 years. If WPS farms are currently able to wait until a pesticide applicatio n is needed but will not 5395 risk delays under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $26.4 and $33.5 million 5396 per year. The ranges of cost under alternative assumptions overlap the range of EPA’s best 5397

estimate. 5398

5399 Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule. 5400

5401

ܸܲ ሺ ܴܥܫ ௜ ሻ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܴܥܫ

ோ,௜ ൯

ோ 5402 This step will be done after es timating the costs of the propos ed requirements in the other 5403 categories. 5404

5405 Step 7. Obtain per-entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 5406 number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 5407 entity. 5408

5409

ܥܧ ௘,ோ ௑ ൌ ෍ ܿݐݏ݋

ோ,௔ ௑ ൈ ܰ ௔,௘

a 5410 Initially, we will simply examine regional variat ion in cost-per-entity for farms in general, 5411 distinguishing between large and small farms. Large farms are defined as those with annual 5412 sales of more than $750,000 or feedlots with annu al sales of more than $2.5 million. In Section 5413 5.4, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 5414

5415 Step 8. We calculate the PV of per-entity costs be fore taking the difference between the baseline 5416 and proposed scenarios to determine the incremental cost per farm or firm. There are no data to 5417 indicate whether the number of employees per farm is changing over time and we assume it is 5418 constant for an individual farm. Large farms are assumed to employ two handlers and, according 5419 to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), large farms employ 20.0 workers, 5420 on average. Small farms employ 3.6 workers, on average (NASS, 2008b). Small farms also 5421 employ an average of 0.41 handlers, based on th e assumption that large-small farms employ one 5422 and other small farms employ none. 5423

5424 Incremental cost per entity is simply the differenc e between the cost of the baseline regulations 5425 and the cost of the regulations in the pr oposal, summed over the protective categories. 5426

5427 ܥܫܧ൫ܸܲ

௘ ௑ ൯ ൌ ෍ ܸܲ൫ܥܧ

ோ,௘ ௉ ൯ െ ܸܲ൫ܥܧ ோ,௘ ஻ ൯

ோ 5428*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

149 Table 5.2-11 presents the annuali zed per-entity costs associated with the training requirements 5429 for the average large WPS farm, with 20 workers, and the average small farm, with 3.6 workers. 5430 California is the only region that varies significantly from the other regions. The incremental 5431 cost per establishment, assuming immediate implemen tation, is shown in the final column. If all 5432 requirements were delayed two years, the annua lized incremental costs would be about $200 per 5433 year for large farms and $55 for small farms. The annualized cost to CHPEs would be around 5434 $84. 5435

5436 Table 5.2-11. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Prop osed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 5437 (TRAIN only) 5438

Farm size/Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

California 370 237 132 All Other Regions 370 130 240

SMALL WPS FARMS

California 89 53 36 All Other Regions 89 28 61

CPHE 173 63 110
Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate. 5439

5440



### 5.2.2 Hazard Communication a nd Notification Components 5441

5442 The rule changes that EPA is proposing include several requirements designed to improve 5443 information exchange (hazard communication and notification) to employees and between WPS 5444 farms and CPHEs. Proposed hazard communica tion requirements include making application 5445 information available (HAZCOM-01), augmenting th e application informati on with copies of the 5446 label and SDS (HAZCOM-02), and maintaining a record of the information for two years 5447 (HAZCOM-05). General notification requirements are: NOTIFY-01, Post field warning signs 5448 if the REI is greater than 48 hours, NOTIFY-03, Allow oral notification of greenhouse workers if 5449 the REI is four hours or less, NOTIFY-06, Revise the content on warning signs (phased-in over 5450 two years to allow farms to replace existing warning signs), and NOTIFY-08, specify that 5451 warning signs must be posted if the treated fiel d is within 100 feet of worker housing. For 5452 workers entering fields during the REI, re visions include NOTIFY-10, Provide additional 5453 information about the pesticide orally, and NOT IFY-12, Keep records of information provided 5454 for two years. EPA is proposing to revise th e content of safety posters, NOTIFY-14, which will 5455 be phased in over two years. EPA is also pr oposing to require additional safety posters: 5456 NOTIFY-15, additional safety pos ter at worker decontaminati on location and, in NOTIFY-16, at 5457

handler decontamination locations . Finally, EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to 5458 when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm empl oyer with information about a pesticide 5459 application, NOTIFY-18. 5460

5461 These two components can be addressed se parately because there are no overlapping 5462 requirements between the two or between the tr aining requirements. Overlap only occurs 5463*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

150 between elements within the comp onents, consisting, for example, of the same signs or posters 5464 adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements. 5465

5466 We present the results of the estimation. Deta ils showing the calculati ons are available in 5467 Appendix B. 5468

5469

Hazard Communication 5470

5471 Table 5.2-12 presents the annualized cost and the NPV of regional costs for the proposed and 5472 regional baselines for hazard communication re quirements. All requirements are imposed 5473 immediately. The proposed revisions are ex pected to cost about $8.0 million per year, 5474 accounting for the cost savings from eliminating the central posting requi rement (HAZCOM-01). 5475 On a regional basis, the states in the South and the Ohio Valley ar e expected to bear the majority 5476 of these costs, in part because of the large numbe r of WPS farms in these regions. Costs are also 5477 somewhat lower in many other regions because re presentative states already impose some of the 5478 requirements or require that SDS be available fr om pesticide distributors, which will facilitate 5479 compliance. Texas already meets the proposed requi rements so farms there, and in states with 5480 similar regulations, may see a reduction in cost s due the elimination of the central posting 5481 requirement. 5482

5483 Table 5.2-12. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. 5484 (HAZCOM only) 5485

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual RIC
($1,000) South 46,645 30,088 16,557 1,885 California 19,409 18,351 1,058 120

Southwest 10,018 6,462 3,556 405 Subtropical 7,826 7,092 735 84 Midwest 67,933 61,554 6,379 726 Northeast 32,245 20,799 11,446 1,303 Ohio Valley 72,316 46,646 25,670 2,922 Texas/Mountain West 38,506 40,083 -1,577 -180 Northwest 18,157 11,712 6,445 734
National 313,055 242,787 70,269 7,998
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5486

5487 Table 5.2-13 presents the per-entity costs of the hazard communication proposals and baseline. 5488 Several states have requirements that are simila r to the proposals and the impacts will be small, 5489 ranging from negative in Texas to less than $10 pe r year in Florida and Io wa. Other regions may 5490 face higher incremental costs to obtain the required information. EPA does not anticipate a 5491 distinct difference in costs between large and sm all farms. The cost of complying with the 5492 hazard communication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products 5493 used on a WPS farm, not the number of employees or revenue. However, small farms are less 5494 likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any year is lower for 5495 small than for large farms. 5496

5497*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

151 Table 5.2-13. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Prop osed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 5498 (HAZCOM only) 5499

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS CA, Subtropics, Midwest,

TX/Mountain West 108 102 5 All Other Regions 108 69 38

SMALL WPS FARMS CA, Subtropics, Midwest,

TX/Mountain West 90 85 4 All Other Regions 90 58 32

Source: EPA estimates. 5500

5501

Notification 5502

5503 The regional, incremental, and annualized cost s of the proposed notification requirements are 5504 shown in Table 5.2-14. The estimated annual costs of $15.1 million are somewhat overestimated 5505 since some requirements will be phased in over a two-year period. EPA also estimated costs if 5506 all requirements were phased in, which woul d somewhat underestimate the costs, at $11.7 5507 million per year. The simple sum of th e proposed costs is $14.6 million per year. 5508

5509 Table 5.2-14. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regu latory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY 5510 only) 5511

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual RIC
($1,000) South 65,885 45,413 20,471 2,330 California 42,690 37,062 5,629 641

Southwest 15,244 11,050 4,194 477 Subtropical 14,618 11,843 2,774 316 Midwest 90,539 59,721 30,818 3,508 Northeast 50,400 37,149 13,251 1,508 Ohio Valley 98,234 65,772 32,462 3,695

Texas/Mountain West 52,188 34,882 17,307 1,970 Northwest 38,669 33,114 5,555 632
National 468,466 336,006 132,460 15,076
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5512

5513 The final two columns of Table 3.5-14 present the expected regional level incremental costs, the 5514 difference between the cost of the proposed rule a nd the baseline costs. The regional incremental 5515

costs are a function of the number of WPS farms and CPHEs in the region. 5516

5517 Results of the per-entity analys is are shown in Table 5.2-15. La rge WPS farms are relatively less 5518 impacted by the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to 5519*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

152 save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs by pos ting because it is more efficient than orally 5520 informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relatively higher due to the increased 5521 posting requirements for REIs and for worker and handler safety disp lays. Costs may be 5522 overstated, however, because small farms may rely more on temporary workers who will not be 5523 on farm when some applications are made or duri ng the REI and thus will have relatively fewer 5524 posting events over time. 5525

5526 Table 5.2-15. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Prop osed and Incremental Costs - All Sectors. 5527 (NOTIFY only) 5528

Farm size EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 272 254 18

SMALL WPS FARMS 120 78 42

Source: EPA estimates. 5529

5530 Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirements 5531 because revisions codify existing interp retations of applicable requirements. 5532

5533


### 5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE 5534

5535 The proposed rule includes several categories of re gulations that are intended to better protect 5536 workers and handlers. EPA is proposing AGE -01, Minimum age of 16 for workers entering 5537 fields during the REI, and AGE-03, Minimum ag e of 16 for handlers. The proposed entry 5538 requirements consist of ENTRY-01, Expand the re stricted area during ap plication; ENTRY-02, 5539 Limit worker time in fields during the REI; EN TRY-03, Halt applications if workers enter the 5540 restricted area; and ENTRY-05, Codify exception to REIs. Regarding PPE, EPA is proposing 5541 PPE-01, Require respirator fit test; PPE-02, Elim inate exemptions for WPS employees acting as 5542 CCAs; PPE-03, Eliminate exemptions for employ ees of CCAs; PPE-04, Revising standards for 5543 closed mixing and loading systems, PPE-05, Simp lifying enclosed cab substitutions for PPE, and 5544 PPE-06, Clarifying disposal of contaminated PPE. 5545

5546 None of the requirements within these categorie s overlap with any othe r proposed category of 5547 regulation. 5548

5549

Age 5550

5551 The two proposed age requirements do not interact w ith any other regulations . In this case, the 5552 regulatory costs can simply be summed. Tabl e 5.2-16 presents the NPV for the baseline and 5553 proposed costs. As explained in Section 3.3.5, the impacts are estimated as an increase in labor 5554 costs, not compliance costs. 5555

5556*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

153 Table 5.2-16. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only) 5557

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000) ($1,000) South 7,568 6,788 780 89 California 4,447 3,948 498 57

Southwest 1,718 1,538 180 20 Subtropical 1,572 1,470 102 12 Midwest 10,561 9,487 1,074 122 Northeast 5,644 5,049 594 68 Ohio Valley 11,400 10,236 1,165 133 Texas/Mountain West 6,060 5,441 619 70 Northwest 4,052 3,600 452 51
National 53,023 47,558 5,465 622
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5558

5559 The annual cost of the age restrictions on handler s and on workers involved in early entry events 5560 is estimated to be $620,000. Annual per-entity costs are provided in Table 5.2-17. CPHEs are 5561 not expected to be impacted because few comm ercial establishments would employ adolescents 5562 under 16 years of age to handle pesticides. 5563

5564 Table 5.2-17. Annual Per-Entity Baseline and Pr oposed Labor Costs, Incremental Costs. 5565 (AGE only) 5566

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS 41.20 26.90 14.30

SMALL FARMS 7.95 6.90 1.05

CPHE 470 470 0

Source: EPA estimates. 5567

5568

5569

5570

Entry 5571

5572 The proposed entry restrictions ar e largely definitional. As expl ained in Section 3.3.6, there are 5573

no measureable costs to the indi vidual regulations. The total co st of the entry component is, 5574 therefore, also near zero. 5575

5576

PPE 5577

5578 There could be some overlap between reporting re quirements in the PPE category, but the effect 5579 on costs is minimal. Table 5.2-18 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten-year time 5580 horizon, at the regional and natio nal levels. Annually, the new PPE regulations are expected to 5581 cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million. 5582

5583*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

154 Table 5.2-18. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) 5584

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000)

South 41,429 18,913 22,515 2,563 California 18,860 16,899 1,962 223

Southwest 11,284 6,073 5,211 593 Subtropical 6,775 3,025 3,750 427 Midwest 96,435 57,979 38,456 4,377 Northeast 42,680 24,896 17,784 2,024 Ohio Valley 69,585 33,886 35,700 4,063 Texas/Mountain West 34,791 16,099 18,692 2,127 Northwest 30,174 19,186 10,988 1,251
National 352,013 196,955 155,058 17,648
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5585

5586 Table 5.2-19 presents the per-entity cost of the PPE requirements. The cost for small WPS farms 5587 represents the average cost over all small fa rms, including the medium- and small-small WPS 5588 farms that would generally not employ handlers. California’s requirement s are similar to those 5589 proposed, with the exception of some record keeping, so costs to farms will be substantially 5590 lower than in other regions. CPHEs will bear some costs, primarily to upgrade closed mixing 5591 and loading systems, with self-employed commer cial applicators facing a smaller incremental 5592 cost than enterprises with multiple employees. 5593

5594 Table 5.2-19. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Pr oposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) 5595

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS

California 173 143 30 All Other Regions 170 52 118

SMALL FARMS

California 45 39 6 All Other Regions 49 19 30 CPHE, multiple handlers 656 574 82 CPHE (‘self-employed’) 245 167 78

Source: EPA estimates. 5596

5597


### 5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamina tion Supplies and Emergency Assistance 5598*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

155 5599 Certain provisions of the WPS ar e intended to reduce the effects of any accidental exposure that 5600 occurs. In terms of supplies, the proposed rule includes two requirements when workers enter a 5601 recently treated field: SUPPLY-01, Water requ irements for routine decontamination, and 5602 SUPPLY-02, Water requirements for d econtamination during early entry ( i.e. , if the REI is still 5603 in effect). The proposal also includes tw o requirements for handlers: SUPPLY-03, Water 5604 requirements for routine decontamination, and SUPPLY-05, Water flow requirement for 5605 eyeflushing. EPA is also proposing to define “prompt” emergency assistance to be 30 minutes 5606 for worker emergencies, EMERG-01, a nd handler emergencies, EMERG-03. 5607

5608 There are no overlapping requirements for any of these regulations, so the total cost for each of 5609 these categories is the simple sum of the individual items. 5610

5611

Supply 5612

5613 The revisions to the requirements for supplie s for routine and emergency decontamination 5614 largely codify existing guidance. Howeve r, one provision, SUPPLY-02, will increase the 5615

amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers wh en entering a field under 5616

a REI. EPA estimates the costs to be a bout $2,500 annually, as shown in Table 5.2-20. 5617

5618 Table 5.2-20. PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only) 5619

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000)

South 383 381 2.6 0.3

California 164 160 3.8 0.4

Southwest 83 82 0.8 0.1 Subtropical 65 64 1.1 0.1

Midwest 557 554 2.9 0.3

Northeast 266 264 2.7 0.3 Ohio Valley 593 590 3.4 0.4

Texas/Mountain West 316 314 1.8 0.2

Northwest 153 149 3.3 0.4
National 4,795 4,773 22 2.5
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5620

5621 The per-entity costs of these requirements are negligible. Table 5.2-21 presents the estimated 5622 baseline and proposed costs per y ear. Costs are largely proportiona l to the number of employees. 5623 The per-handler costs for the water flow require ment are negligible, as can be seen by the 5624 estimated incremental cost to a CPHE, because r unning water is typically available at mixing and 5625 loading sites so that concentrated fo rms of pesticides can be diluted. 5626

5627 Table 5.2-21. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY 5628 only) 5629

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

156 LARGE FARMS All Regions 2.25 2.20 0.02

SMALL FARMS All Regions 0.46 0.45 0.01

CPHE 7.50 7.50 0.00
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Rows may not sum due 5630 to rounding. 5631

5632

Emergency Assistance 5633

5634 The new regulations dealing with emergency assi stance are all definitiona l in nature and EPA 5635 does not anticipate measureable impacts. See Section 3.3.8. 5636

5637


### 5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule 5638

5639 Having accounted for the overlap between the in dividual components of the proposed rule, the 5640 total cost can be estimated by su mming the costs of the eight com ponents. Table 5.2-22 presents 5641 the NPV of the baseline and pr oposed regulatory costs, assuming all elements are implemented 5642 immediately. Nationally, the proposed rule is es timated to increase the cost of complying with 5643 the worker protection standard by $636 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three 5644 percent discount rate and assu ming all requirements are implemented immediately. The annual 5645 incremental cost under this assumption is estima ted to be about $72.4 million. If implementation 5646 of all the training and notifica tion requirements is delayed for 2 years, the 10 year cost is 5647 estimated to be $544 million and the annual increm ental cost is estimated to be about $61.9 5648 million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed 5649 regulations is estimated to be between $60.1 and $73.1 million. 5650

5651 Table 5.2-22. PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total) 5652

Region RC
o P i RC
o B i RIC o i Annual IC
($1,000) South 219,496 121,314 98,183 11,175 California 131,918 103,963 27,954 3,182

Southwest 52,317 30,075 22,242 2,531 Subtropical 45,740 28,626 17,115 1,948 Midwest 341,958 213,456 128,502 14,626 Northeast 178,158 103,996 74,163 8,441 Ohio Valley 335,679 183,779 151,901 17,289

Texas/Mountain West 176,176 110,950 65,226 7,424 Northwest 132,704 82,236 50,468 5,744
U.S. 1,614,148 978,395 635,753 72,359
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5653

5654 Figure 5.2-1 shows the contribution of the eight categories of th e proposed rule to the total 5655 incremental cost. The informational regulations, i.e. , the training, hazard communication, and 5656*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

157 notification requirements, make up almost three -fourths of the total incremental costs. The 5657 protective regulations (minimum ag e, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of 5658 the remaining cost, with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly on e-fourth of the total 5659 incremental cost. The requirements focused on m itigation are largely definitional in nature and 5660

contribute less than one percent of the cost. 5661
5662 Figure 5.2-1. Contribution of components of th e proposed Worker Protection Standard to 5663 total annualized incremental cost, $72.4 million. 5664

5665 5666

5667 Average per-entity costs are presented in Tabl e 5.2-23. As explained above, these costs are 5668 calculated by taking the per-farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per-worker and handler 5669 costs, multiplying by the average number of workers and handlers given the type and size of the 5670 operation. Each regional baseline varies accordi ng to existing state regulations, but often only 5671 slightly. We present Californi a and the Texas/Mountain West re gions, where the per-entity costs 5672 are below the national average, and the regions where per-entity cost is highest. The cost 5673 estimates assume that all requirements become effective immediately and that the WPS farms 5674 make pesticide applications every year over the ten year time horiz on, which overstates the 5675 expected cost of the proposal. Incremental co sts for large farms are expected to average less 5676 than $400 per year, ranging from an additional $200 per year in California to about $430 per year 5677

in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley. Small farms are likely to face impacts 5678 of under $150 per year, on average, ranging from $90 per year in California to $170 per year in 5679 the Ohio Valley. If implementation of all traini ng and notification requirements is delayed for 2 5680 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $345 for large farms and $130 for small 5681 farms. In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 5682

5683 

## Training

43% HazCom

11%

Notification

21%

Age

1% Entry

0% PPE

24%

Supply

0% Emergency

0% 

## Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$23.9 - 31.0 million

$11.7 - 15.1 million

$620,000 $17.6 million

$2,500 $8.0 million*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

158 Table 5.2-23. Annual Per-Entity Baseline, Pr oposed and Incremental Costs by Region. 5684 (Total) 5685

Region EC
o P i EC
o B i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS

California 965 770 200 Ohio Valley 960 530 430

Texas/Mountain West 960 575 390

National 960 560 400

SMALL FARMS

California 350 260 90 Ohio Valley 355 190 165

Texas/Mountain West 355 225 130

National 355 205 150 CPHE, multiple

handlers 1,310 1,120 190 CPHE (‘self-employed’) 250 175 80
Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 year s using a 3% discount rate. Row calculations 5686 subject to rounding. 5687

5688 The incremental cost to CPHEs with multiple ha ndlers is estimated to be between $170 and $190 5689 per year. The incremental cost for self-employe d commercial handlers is low because they will 5690 already meet the increased trai ning requirements through the applic ators certification process. 5691

5692 Table 5.2-23 presents the incremental costs to the average farm in the nation if it were located in 5693 various regions, given those regi ons current regulations. Table 5.2-24 presents the costs to the 5694 average farm in each region, which considers how differences in workers per farm affect the 5695 results. These results indicate that typical farms in the Ohio Valley will be less impacted than is 5696 suggested by Table 5.2-23 because farms there have relatively fewer workers than do states like 5697 Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest. 5698

5699 Table 5.2-24. Average Worker Per-Farm an d Incremental Costs by Region. (Total) 5700 Region Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm

workers/farm EIC o i workers/farm EIC o i South 15.8 385 2.9 160

California 54.8 350 10.0 94

Southwest 21.2 420 3.9 160 Subtropical 38.3 505 7.0 150

Midwest 11.9 340 2.2 135

Northeast 23.3 440 4.2 165 Ohio Valley 13.1 375 2.4 160

Texas/Mountain

West 13.0 335 2.4 125

Northwest 51.3 620 9.3 180

U.S. 20.0 390 3.6 145*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

159 Source: EPA estimates. Row calculations subject to rounding. 5701

5702 A final way to consider the costs of the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is 5703 the cost per employee covered by the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 5704 17,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the 5705 average cost to be between $26.50 and $31.00 pe r year per employee, including handlers 5706 employed at CPHEs. 5707

5708 All estimates are subject to considerable uncerta inty due to the lack of data regarding many 5709 current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. EPA has made a number of 5710 assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state 5711 regulators and other stakeholders . Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline 5712 and the proposed rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost. While 5713 assumptions attempt to represent the average or typical farm or CPHE, in practice EPA has 5714 tended to use values that are probably more indi cative of high and frequent pesticide use than 5715 would be usual. As a result, the cost may be overestimated, but the magnitude of bias is 5716

unknown. 5717

5718



### 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment 5719

5720 EPA also calculates the per-employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal 5721 incremental cost per WPS farm wo rker (not considering the costs incurred at the farm level) is 5722 estimated to be less than $5.00 per year, which w ould not be expected to have an impact on 5723 employment decisions. The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training 5724 requirements, which are expected to cost about $5.50 per year. Th is is offset by a reduction in 5725 the per-worker cost of the notification require ments of $1.20 per year as greater emphasis is 5726 placed on posting REI information. Age restrict ions will, on average, add less than $0.10 per 5727 year to the cost of employment. We estimat e the supply requirements to cost under $0.01 per 5728 year. Table 5.3-1 presents this information. 5729

5730 Table 5.3-1. Annualized Per-Employee Cost of Proposed Requirements 5731 Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler Training 5.48 15.11 15.03

Hazard Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notification -1.15 0.00 0.00 Age 0.07 1.88 0.00 Entry 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPE 0.00 42.27 0.00 Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4.41 59.26 15.03

Source: EPA estimates. 5732

5733 The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but is still relatively 5734 minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $15.10 per year to employment costs, but 5735 the main driver is the PPE categor y at $42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed 5736*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

160 requirement for fit testing respirators. The age restriction may add about $2.00 per year to 5737 employment costs by restricting farms from us ing lower-wage adolescents to mix, load, and 5738 apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around $60 per 5739 year, assuming the average baseline standards. We estimate that the cost to employers of a 5740 handler is $20.83 per hour including wages and other costs. At ei ght hours per day and assuming 5741 only 150 days of employment, a ha ndler would cost about $25,000 per year. An increase in cost 5742 of $60 per year represents about 0.2 5 percent of the total cost, a marginal increase that would not 5743 be expected to have an impact on jobs. 5744

5745 The incremental cost per CPHE ha ndler is estimated to be about $15 per year, all of which is a 5746 result of increased training. 5747

5748



### 5.4 Small Business Impacts 5749

5750 This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the WPS rule may have on 5751 small entities by examining the relationship betw een the compliance costs and revenue for small 5752

WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should 5753 have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions. 5754

5755 Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Section 5.4.1, 5756 and the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in 5757 September 2008. The current analysis presente d here takes into account comments received 5758 from the panel that influenced the proposed re quirements. For example, the requirement for a 5759 sufficient flow rate at permanent mixing and lo ading sites was suggested by the panel as an 5760 alternative to a requirement for portable eyewash stations. Ba sed on the current analysis, EPA 5761

concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities. 5762

5763 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 5764 Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requi res regulators to a ssess the effects of 5765 regulations on small entities, in cluding businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments. 5766 When significant economic impacts on a substan tial number of small entities are expected, 5767 agencies are also required to examine regulator y alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 5768 effects on significantly impacted small entities. 5769

5770 The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 5771 economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 5772 incremental compliance costs of th ree percent or more of annual sales as significant, costs less 5773 than one percent of annual sales as not signifi cant, and costs between one and three percent of 5774 sales as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one per cent of annual sales, EPA 5775
considers both the number of affected firms and th eir proportion of all sma ll firms to determine if 5776 a substantial number of firms will be impacted. 5777

5778 Consistent with a previous an alysis on the farm sector (Wya tt, 2008), we use the following 5779 thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not consid ered “substantial”: 5780

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 5781 30% of all small farms; 5782*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

161  Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affe cted, provided the number represents 5783 less than 20% of all small farms; or 5784

 More than 1000 small farms may be affect ed, but the number represents less than 5785
10% of all small farms. 5786 If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 5787

substantial number of small farms wo uld not be affected are as follows: 5788

 Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 5789 20% of all small farms; 5790

 Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but acc ount for less than 10% of all small 5791 farms; or 5792

 More than 1000 small farms may be affecte d, but the number represents less than 5% 5793

of all small farms. 5794

5795 Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 5796 incremental costs on a per-company basis is compar ed to the annual sales for small businesses to 5797 develop cost-to-sales ratios. 5798

5799 In the next section, we present the number and ty pe of small entities in the agricultural sector. 5800 We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA 5801 estimates that small CPHEs will not face a signifi cant impact as a result of this rule. The 5802 estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, less than $200 per year, is on ly 0.10 percent of the 5803 average annual revenue for sma ll CPHEs, $354,000 per year (D&B, 2010). 5804

5805 In Section 5.4.2, we present the estimated complia nce cost by type and size of WPS farms and 5806 estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a pe rcentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are 5807 estimated assuming both immediate implementati on of the proposal as well as a two-year 5808 delayed implementation of the trai ning and notification requirements. 5809

5810


### 5.4.1 Industry Profile 5811

5812 EPA uses data from the 2007 Census of Agricu lture (NASS, 2008b) to id entify the number of 5813 small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The Census of Agriculture is 5814 conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as well as the people who 5815 operate them. The Census also examines la nd use and ownership, operator characteristics, 5816 production practices, income and e xpenditures and many other areas. 5817

5818 EPA requested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles 5819 for the agricultural sector covered by the WP S (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 5820 greenhouses, and nurseries). Crop producing farms were then separated into two main size 5821 classifications (large and small) according to the SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined 5822 as those with annual gross revenue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 5823 million in annual sales. Table 5.4-1 presents the number of farms, by type, and the proportion of 5824

the total that are small farms. 5825

5826 Table 5.4-1. Crop-producing farms, by type and size, and average number of employees. 5827 Farm Type Number of Small Farms 1 Average Number of Employees*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

162 Farms (%) Large Farms Small Farms All Crop Farms 1,564,178 95.7% 16.1 0.8 All Crop Farms using pesticides 788,582 92.6% 17.6 1.4

WPS Farms 2 394,658 86.2% 20.0 3.6

WPS Farms 2 using pesticides 304,348 83.9% 20.9 3.9

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). 5828

1 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue. 5829

2 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 5830

5831

The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests 5832 and efficient management of these pests is neces sary for any successful agricultural enterprise. 5833 If pesticides (or some other e ffective means of pest control) are not used, pest damage can 5834 jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of food produced. Similarly, labor 5835 remains an important input into crop producti on, despite mechanization. To better understand 5836 the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms, i.e.

, 5837 those with less than $750,000 in a nnual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 5838

define ‘small-small’ farms as those with annua l sales of less than $10,000, medium-small farms 5839 as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large-small farms as those with 5840 annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.4-2 presents the number of farms, annual 5841 value of crops sold, and number of workers, by ty pe and size. These categories of farms provide 5842 the typology we use to characterize the impact s of revisions to the WPS on small farms. 5843

5844 Table 5.4-2. Average annual sales and workers, by Farm type and size. 5845 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
Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (2008b). 5846

1 The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three 5847 subgroups: large-small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per 5848*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

163year; medium-small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small5849 small farms, with annual sales less than $10,000 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 5850
those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large-small 5851 feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year ; medium-small feedlots, with 5852 annual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small- small feedlots, with annual sales less than 5853 $50,000 per year. 5854 2 EPA defines WPS Farms to be those farms, incl uding nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 5855 WPS provisions, however, do not apply unless a pesticid e application is made within a specified time 5856 and distance from where employees are working. 5857

5858 It is worth noting that small-small WPS farms, defined as those repor ting less than $10,000 in 5859 annual sales, also employ an aver age of nearly three laborers. It is so mewhat difficult to 5860 reconcile the low revenue with multiple employees. It may be that these employees are very 5861 temporary and are associated with a few tasks su ch as harvest that dema nd relatively high labor 5862 input over a short period of time. Non-farm income is also important for these enterprises. 5863 USDA reports that off-farm income for all vegetable and melon farms averaged over $55,000 per 5864 year in 2005-2007, accounting for 55 percent of household income (Ali and Lucier, 2011). For 5865 smaller vegetable farms, defined by USDA as those with average farm sales between $40,000 5866 and $249,000 per year, off-farm income accounts for 94 percent of household income. In 5867 general, the portion of income generated off-farm is higher for other t ypes of farming (Ali and 5868 Lucier, 2011). Thus, employees may also be engage d in other activities as well as in agriculture 5869 or instead of in agriculture. 5870

5871


### 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost 5872

5873

EPA estimates the incremental cost for th e various WPS farm si zes according to the 5874 methodology described in Section 5.1. Per-entity un it cost is added to th e per-worker cost times 5875 the number of workers. Large-small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler, on average, 5876

while medium-small and small-small WPS farms ar e assumed to rely on commercial applicators 5877 or the owner/operator to ma ke pesticide applications. 5878

5879 Table 5.4-3 presents the number of WPS farms, average sales, and annual incremental cost of the 5880 rule by farm size for all farm types. Annual in cremental costs are based on existing requirements 5881 in most areas of the country except for Califor nia. As shown in S ection 5.2.5, the incremental 5882

cost for a small WPS farm in California is substa ntially less than the national average due to the 5883 regulatory baseline even accounting for the relativel y higher number of workers per farm. States 5884 in Texas and the Mountain West region are also expected to have increm ental costs per entity 5885 less than the national average. 5886

5887 EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales re venue. Over all types of small 5888 farms, the impact of the rule is 0.1 percent of sale s, which is not considered significant. Only the 5889 very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $4,500 per year, may face impacts above one 5890 percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one percent of sales 5891 could be over 40,000, given the number of small-sma ll establishments. However, this is likely 5892 an overestimate of the number of farms imp acted as it does not account for the nearly 5,000 5893

small-small farms in California that would face impacts well below the national average. 5894

5895*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

164 Table 5.4-3. Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms making pestic ide applications 5896

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 $ 147 $ 231 $ 110 $ 81

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.8% Two-Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 125 $ 201 $ 90 $ 66

Percent of Sales 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b); EPA calculations. 5897

1 Training and Notification only. 5898

5899 It is also standard practice, when evaluating im pacts per firm, to consid er the revenues of the 5900 parent company, which may be involved in other ac tivities than the one being regulated. In that 5901 context, it is worth noting that farm income represents only a portion of total household income 5902 for small operations. As noted in the precedi ng section, USDA reports that off-farm income 5903 accounts for 94 percent of income for farm s making between $40,000 and $249,000 per year in 5904

farm sales and that off-farm income for ve getable and melon farms averaged over $55,000 per 5905 year (Ali and Lucier, 2011). Thus, comparison of the rule costs to farm income alone will 5906 typically, and perhaps substantiall y, overstate the impacts on the sma llest entities. If, on average, 5907 farm income represents even 25 percent of household income, the smallest WPS farms total 5908 income is estimated to be about $17,800 per year. This implies off-farm income of about 5909 $13,300, well below that reported by USDA (Ali and Lucier, 2011). An incremental increase in 5910 costs of $81 per year as a consequence of the proposed rule, and assuming 20 pesticide 5911 applications each year over the 10-year period of analysis, represents about 0.5 percent of annual 5912 income and would not be considered significant. 5913

5914 EPA also examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small-small farms in order 5915 to gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two 5916 sources of overestimation in the estimated impact s on small-small WPS farms. First, is whether 5917 WPS training requirements will apply to small-sma ll farms every year of a ten-year time period, 5918 which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 5.4-3. Less than 55 percent 5919 of small-small WPS farms used pesticides in 2007 (NASS, 2008b) and if these farms hire 5920 workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety 5921 training if an application has been made. Unde r this scenario, the incremental cost to small5922

small WPS farms would av erage under $60 per year. 5923

5924 A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small-small farms 5925 employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary 5926 basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications 5927 made well before workers are hired. For small-small farms, the hazard communication and 5928*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

165 notification requirements comprise a large sh are of the cost at $40 per year, based on 20 5929 pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. It is likely that small-small 5930 farms will make fewer applications per year when workers are or will be present and will thus 5931 have fewer occasions when they must generate in formation. If small-small farms make only five 5932 applications per year for which hazard co mmunication and notification are required ( e.g. , in the 5933 30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incrementa l cost of the proposed rule is 5934 also less than $60 per year. If training is conduc ted only when pesticide applications have been 5935 made and only five applications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements, 5936 the incremental cost of the rule for small-small farms averages only $35 per year. 5937

5938 Given that, for small-small WPS farms, annua l incremental costs, particularly hazard 5939 communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated and that total household income 5940 is substantially underestimated, EPA concludes that, even for the smallest WPS farms, the 5941 proposed rule would not ha ve a significant impact. 5942

5943*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

166 

## Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule 5944

5945 Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in both acute health effects to workers and 5946 handlers as well as health problems that occu r later; if the propos ed rule changes are 5947 implemented, agricultural workers and pesticid e handlers will have better information and 5948 protections that will enable them to reduce thei r occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to 5949 improved health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes will 5950 provide a range of benefits to agricultural farm workers a nd handlers. The proposed rule 5951 changes would ensure that work ers and handlers have the inform ation needed to best protect 5952 themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. 5953

5954 By proposing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the revised rule is expected to 5955 substantially mitigate for these workers and handl ers the potential for adverse health effects 5956 (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include 5957 requirements intended to reduce exposure by: 5958

 Ensuring that workers and handlers are inform ed about the hazards of pesticides –The 5959 proposed rule changes the c ontent and frequency of re quired training, as well as 5960 proposing changes to ensure that th e training is more effective. 5961

 Reducing exposure to pesticides – Among othe r things, the proposed rule changes and 5962 clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when 5963 pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and ot her provisions should 5964 directly reduce exposure to the agricultural workforce. 5965

 Mitigating the effects from exposures that o ccur – Accidental exposures are inevitable, 5966 and the proposed rule increases safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to 5967 respond to exposures. 5968

5969 The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to agricultural 5970 workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals 5971 considered by the Agency in developing this rule . The preamble to the proposed rule describes in 5972 detail the proposed requirements, and how they ar e expected to better inform workers about the 5973 risks and causes of pesticide exposure, protect th em against exposure, and mitigate the effects of 5974 exposure. This chapter discusses how these three approaches can reduce the health effects of 5975 exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that exposure can have. The 5976 proposed changes include proposals for improve d training requirements, in terms of the 5977 frequency of training agricultur al workers receive, and the co ntent of that training. Other 5978 proposed requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in 5979 combination with training to improve farmworker s’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect 5980 themselves. There is evidence that training can be an effective tool to increase workplace safety. 5981 Within agriculture, Barnett et al . (1984) found a pilot education project dramatically increased 5982 the understanding of routes of expos ure, safer storage of pesticid es, and a greater understanding 5983 of how to protect child ren from take home exposure. Both Strong et al . (2008) and Salvatore et 5984

al . (2009) report better self-p rotection practices after safety training for Hispanic farmworkers. 5985

5986*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

167 

### 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified 5987

5988 EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers 5989 and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 5990 families. However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This 5991 section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced 5992 acute exposures to workers and ha ndlers) and those that cannot. 5993

5994 Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by: 5995

 avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resu lting in acute pesticide exposure to farm 5996

workers and handlers. 5997

 mitigating the severity of unavoidable o ccupational pesticide incidents through a 5998 better, faster, and more informed emergenc y response for farm workers and handlers. 5999

 avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents ( e.g. , 6000 developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers. 6001

 reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers, handlers and their families. 6002

6003 Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pe sticide exposures that 6004 have been reported to databases that count poiso ning incidents; these only represent a portion of 6005

the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 6006 as developmental effects resulting from acute ex posures to pregnant women or to children and 6007

adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small expos ures over time are unlikely to 6008 appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databa ses, including the ones we use for developing 6009 the benefit estimates in this chapter. 6010

6011 Also, provisions in the proposed rule are designe d to clarify emergency response procedures and 6012 or the amount of decontamination supplies availa ble. These provisions can reduce the severity 6013 of the accidental poisoning events, and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. 6014 Because our estimates are based on preventable inci dents, the benefits to reduced severity are 6015 underestimated. There is not enough available information to determin e how much severity 6016 would be reduced in a given incident. 6017

6018 The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, 6019 are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may en ter the database with uncertain 6020 causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore it is 6021 impossible to quantify many important health eff ects from reduced pesticide exposure. These 6022 health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to workers and handlers 6023 will be discussed in a semi-quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are 6024 described, but cannot be quantified. 6025
6026
The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticide expo sure, followed by a discussion of 6027 the effects of acute exposure to workers and ha ndlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 6028

families. Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 6029 benefits can be quantified. Sec tion 6.6 discusses the potential long-term effects that may result 6030 from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature, are unlikely to be reported to 6031 surveillance databases, but are po tentially very important to human health, and may be reduced 6032*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

168 by the proposed rule. The final se ction of the chapter presents a break-even analys is that shows 6033 some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness. 6034

6035



### 6.2. Who is at Risk? 6036

6037



### 6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture 6038

6039 Pesticides of one type or another are used on th e majority of farms in the United States, so a 6040 large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the 6041 approximately 2.3 million farm workers (see Ta ble 3.3-4) that are hired by agricultural 6042 establishments, all of whom are potentially expose d to the risks of adverse health effects from 6043 pesticide exposure (NASS, 2008b). Agricultural workers do not necessarily handle pesticides 6044 directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural-plant pesticid es either through contact with 6045 residues on treated plants, soil, or water or thr ough accidental contact from drift or misdirected 6046 application. EPA assumes ther e are nearly 250,000 pesticide ha ndlers, included in the farm 6047 worker population, that handle pesticides dire ctly; another 72,000 handlers are employed at 6048 commercial pesticide handling establishmen ts (D&B, 2010, See Section 3.3.2). The 6049 agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pest icides and pesticide residues 6050 and that exposure can pose significan t long and short term health risks. It is diffi cult to quantify 6051 a specific level of risk and project the risk re duction that will result from this rule, because 6052 workers and handlers are potential ly exposed to a wide range of pesticides with different 6053 toxicities and risks and are exposed for wide ly ranging durations and at a wide range of 6054 frequencies. There is, however, strong overall evidence that such risks can occur and that they 6055 can be substantially reduced; the provisions in the proposed rule will help reduce these risks by 6056 reducing exposure. 6057

6058



### 6.2.2. Children and families 6059

6060 Several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 6061 for children. These include training component s designed to minimize exposure to family 6062 members to pesticides that get taken home; measures that reduce exposure to workers and 6063 handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits for certain 6064 worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are 6065 particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn 6066 children are particularly sensitive to pesticid e exposure. Children may experience different 6067 exposures than adults due to be havioral differences like crawli ng on the floor and putting objects 6068 into their mouths, and they can be more sensitiv e to these exposures because their organ systems 6069 are still developing, and they have relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et 6070 al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are 6071 exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative hea lth effects from this pesticide 6072

exposure. 6073

6074

Children and adolescents at vari ous stages in development o ffer “windows of opportunity” for 6075 chemical exposures to have particularly signifi cant effects on growth and development, which 6076 means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 6077*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

169 lesser health impacts. Also, at various deve lopment stages, children metabolize differently, 6078 allowing for chemical exposures to have more or less effect. The proposed changes to the WPS 6079

also include restrictions on allo wing adolescents to serve as pest icide handlers. These changes 6080 are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, 6081

which is also discussed below. 6082

6083

Take Home Exposure 6084

6085

Several recent studies have s hown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 6086 exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al

., (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 6087 urine of farmworker children, with the most co mmon result being four different metabolites in a 6088 sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non-dietary 6089 sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 6090

Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pestic ide exposure models, found 29 different 6091 pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of California, 6092 and pesticide metabolites in th e urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 6093 non-farm households in Iowa, test ing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 6094 significantly higher levels of at razine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 6095 farm households. The distribution of the samp les in the various room s of the house (higher 6096 levels in the worker changing ar ea and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 6097 transported home on farmers clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 6098 pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the take home exposure 6099 pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results that indicate that ta ke home exposure is an 6100 important source of exposure for children. Th e studies cited above c onsistently found higher 6101 levels of pesticides in the ag ricultural households compared to non-agricultural households, and 6102 that levels of Organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agri cultural activity. The highest 6103 levels of azinphos-methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a 6104 farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al ., 2004, Coronado et al ., 2006). Curl et 6105

al ., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which 6106 suggest the take home pathway is the sour ce for the residues. Exposure studies on 6107 organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home 6108 pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; 6109

Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007). 6110

6111 Research has shown that agricu ltural workers are gene rally unaware that occupational exposure 6112 to pesticides can lead to excess pest icide exposure in the home. Snipes et al ., 2009 conducted 6113

interviews with 99 farmworkers and handler s in the Yakima Valley and found several 6114 misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed 6115 through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry pow der pesticides are much less 6116 harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regula rly worn when there is financial pressure to 6117 work quickly, and farmworkers were unwilling to wash their hand and bodies immediately after 6118 work. Quandt et al . (1998) found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for 6119 their intended target, and that acute (not chroni c) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in 6120

Rao et al ., 2007). Other exposure rout es for pregnant women and children may include spray 6121 drift from nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to wh ere their parents are 6122*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

170 working. Prenatal exposures (discussed below) may be particularly important for long-term 6123 development. 6124

6125

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 6126

6127 Young pesticide handlers face more risks from pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by 6128 proposing a minimum age for pestic ide handlers. There is eviden ce that adolescents and children 6129 do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 6130 to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 6131 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Inst itute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 6132 context, adolescents working on farms have show n awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 6133 risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 6134 risks while playing on the farm; the play ofte n uses farming equipment and occurs during 6135 worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al. , 1998). As reported in Reed et al . (2006), “young 6136 agricultural production workers we re 3 times more likely to die on the job than their 6137 nonagricultural counte rparts.” This statistic includes d eaths from all work related causes, and 6138 suggests that younger workers take mo re risks or behave in a more dangerous fashion than older 6139 workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high-risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and 6140 Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and 6141 symptoms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al ., 2006). When teens were asked 6142 whether they used PPE when it was required, th e median self-reported frequency for use of 6143 respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the la st ten occasions when its use 6144 was required. According to the auth ors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 6145 teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 6146 attributed to that exposure. The authors also s uggest that PPE may not properly fit female teens, 6147 leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006). 6148

6149 The cognitive development of adol escents affects behavior, particul arly in the areas of judgment, 6150 risk-taking and decision making ab ility (Steinberg, 2005). The pa rts of the brain going through 6151 these maturation processes in adolescents are impor tant for the perception of risk, evaluation of 6152 risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international 6153 setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an associati on between cognitive deficits, 6154 neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure am ong child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 6155 applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not refl ect use patterns or regulations 6156 in this country, but it does s uggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high 6157

levels. 6158 6159
Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group st udying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 6160 teens knew of the risk associated with pestic ide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 6161 among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to 6162 be at risk, even when presented with warni ngs. In the focus group, when asked whether they 6163 washed their hands in between pesticide exposure and meals, participants responded that they did 6164

not have the time and/or that th ey were unaware of the conseque nces of not doing so. In addition, 6165 participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fiel ds without washing because they 6166 appeared to be clean. The adolescents also repor ted that when safety training was provided, it 6167 was not understood due to the use of “big wo rds,” and that while the boss would discuss 6168*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

171 machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste th eir time” on health and safety issues (Salazar et 6169

al ., 2004). 6170

6171 According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveilla nce data shows that working 6172 youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pestic ide illness, attributed 6173 to lower levels of experience with pesticides, an d greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The 6174 literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. 6175

Therefore it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 6176 decisions. It is not certain why risky behavi or is more common among adolescents, but it is a 6177 consistent finding. It seems that adolescents ar e aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors 6178 and consequences, and process the information availa ble to them in ways very similar to adults, 6179 but take greater risks anyway (Ste inberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). The 6180 cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which 6181 indicates that emotional development and surrou ndings are important parts of the risk taking 6182 process for adolescents. This pi cture of the adolescent developm ent and behavior implies that 6183 more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, will not 6184 protect adolescents to the degree they will protec t adults. These potentially at risk adolescents do 6185 not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections, such as the 6186 establishment of minimum age for certain activit ies (with an exception for adolescents covered 6187 by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety. 6188

6189



### 6.3. What are the Risks? Pesticide Risk s to Workers, Handlers, and Families 6190

6191 This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 6192 exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposures to workers and handlers and their families, 6193 including pesticide expo sures that have reprodu ctive effects or effects on children. Some of 6194 these effects may be lifelong, although they ma y be a result of acute (in the case of 6195 developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic 6196 occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 6.6 and Section 6197

6.8. 6198

6199



### 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects 6200

6201 The use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 6202 narrowly targeted to specific life forms or pr ocesses while others have effects across a broad 6203 spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handler s and workers can be exposed many ways, to 6204 multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al ., 2010). Exposures to some 6205 pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute symptoms from 6206 overexposure to pesticides vary, a nd can range from mild skin irrita tion to more severe effects. 6207 Severity of symptoms depends largely on th e dose and route of exposure. Exposure to 6208 organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, 6209 nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impair ed vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Severe 6210 acute exposures can result in seizures, respirator y depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart 6211 and Roberts, 1999). In rare case s, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are 6212 just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by pesticide exposure; the 6213*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

172 Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different 6214 symptoms that a medical professi onal could expect to see follow ing an acute exposure (Reigart 6215 and Roberts, 1999). Although this brief discu ssion focuses on acute exposure, workers and 6216 handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including 6217

several forms of cancer. These are discusse d in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 6218

6219

Further evidence that adverse e ffects of pesticide exposure occu r is that pesticide-related 6220 illnesses can be observed. Although illness resu lting from pesticide exposure to workers and 6221 handlers is underreported (see be low), there are peer-reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 6222 reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 6223 Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pest icide poisoning incident s in the agriculture 6224 industry “continues to be an important problem.” This st udy looked at pes ticide poisoning 6225 incidents among agricultural workers from 1998- 2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates 6226 varied across time, age, and region, but for agricu ltural workers, risks of poisoning were an order 6227 of magnitude higher than for non-agricultural wo rkers (except for farm owners (3% of the 6228 sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illne ss cases among California farmworkers 6229 for 1998-1999, based on a surveill ance program with mandatory reporting by physicians. Das et 6230

al . found that about half of all occupational pest icide related illness cases in the California 6231 surveillance system were agricultural (the rest we re in other industries). Over a quarter of the 6232 poisonings were to those mixing, loading or ap plying pesticides. The most common symptoms 6233 were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastroin testinal (about 38%), 6234 and the most common route of exposure was sk in contact, followed by inhalation and eye 6235

contact. 6236

6237 Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 6238 high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 6239 period were low severity (87%), 12% were medi um severity, and 0.6% we re high severity, with 6240 one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, it 6241 is important to note that the severity categorie s can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 6242 can reflect significant morbidity, w ith the exposure resulting in h ealth care treatment and the loss 6243 of work days. To be included in the SENSOR-Pes ticides database used for the Calvert study, at 6244 least two post-exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health-care professional. 6245 Symptoms categorized as “low severity” incl ude abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 6246 and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 6247 up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severity” cases 4

. 6248 The impact on the financial situation of a low-income farmworker can be dramatic. 6249

6250



### 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families 6251

6252 This section discusses reproductive and other risks to children of workers and handlers. These 6253 are just a subset of diseases that have an asso ciation with pesticide exposure to farm families; 6254 many others, including some cancer s also have an association w ith pesticide exposure. The 6255 discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers is in Section 6.6, because 6256

4 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www .cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest-sitablev6.pdf*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

173 most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides a nd cancer has been based 6257 on occupational exposure. 6258

6259

Reproductive Risks 6260

6261 Reviews have been conducted examining the e ffects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 6262 reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al . (2007) found 59 studies that examined the relationship 6263 between pesticides and reproductive outcomes and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. 6264 A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3-1. 6265

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 associa tion 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 an d infertility.
6266 As seen in Table 6.3-1, fourteen out of fifteen st udies that were reviewed reported an association 6267 between maternal pesticide exposure and an increa sed risk of birth defects. The specific birth 6268

defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 6269 nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 6270 studies showed an association between pest icide exposure and fetal death which includes 6271 “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 6272 preconception exposure was associat ed with early first-trimeste r abortions and post-conception 6273 exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most 6274 effects, half or more of the studies evaluate d by Sanborn show an associ ation between pesticide 6275 exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. Th ese authors note several limitations of each of 6276 the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 6277 publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Ther efore, while these results are 6278 suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 6279

6280

Potential Health Effects in Children 6281

6282 There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre-natal occupational exposure to 6283 pregnant women may affect child ren. Pre-natal exposure may have particularly important 6284 effects on the neurological development of childre n (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) studies 6285*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

174 have found an association between pre-natal exposure to the mother and future childhood 6286 leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 6287 of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functi onal deficiencies, altered growth 6288 and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 6289 pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptib ility of fetal development during pregnancy. 6290 Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft pala te, exencephaly (brain 6291

tissue outside the sk ull), hydrocephaly (swell ing of the brain), micr ophthalmia (abnormal eyes 6292 often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 6293 occur, for example, should a pregnant farmwo rker enter the treated area too soon after an 6294 application or through drift of a pesticid e applied to an adja cent field. 6295

6296 Children and adolescents are going through import ant developmental changes, and pesticide 6297 exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing physiol ogical systems than on 6298 the systems in adults. Alt hough adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than younger 6299 children, there are important de velopment processes continue unt il adulthood. In particular 6300 brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic 6301 pruning and myelination, an important physio logical process that reduces excess neuron 6302

connections in the brain and encl oses individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increases 6303 the efficiency of information processing (G olub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 6304 during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 6305 particularly harmful (Golub, 2000) . In addition, occupational e xposure beginning in adolescence 6306 gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves 6307

over a full lifetime. 6308

6309 Several studies investigating the link between fetal and ch ildhood pesticide exposure and 6310 development are on-going. Three key cohorts, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 6311 are looking at pre- and post-n atal pesticide exposure in minor ity mothers and infants, birth 6312 outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long-term childhood neurobehavioral and 6313 neurodevelopment outcomes. The cohorts are: 6314

6315

 The Columbia University NYC cohort incl udes predominately African American and 6316

Dominican women and children. This team ha s reported indoor air, maternal and cord 6317 blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmental 6318 outcomes. This cohort was exposed duri ng pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 6319 pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 6320 comparisons between pre- and post-cancella tion of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 6321

 Mount Sinai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, 6322 African American, and Caucasian. This t eam has associated urinary metabolites (TCP 6323 and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelo pmental outcomes. The enrollment of the 6324 Mt. Sinai cohort overlapped with the cancellation of residen tial uses of chlorpyrifos. 6325 However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase-out of residential 6326 uses of chlorpyrifos on the health outco mes measured in th eir publications. 6327

 The CHAMACOS cohort include s mothers and children from farm families who live in 6328 the Salinas Valley, California and who are pr edominately of Mexican descent. This 6329 cohort is exposed to many pesticides from multiple pathways such as occupational 6330*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

175 exposures and take-home exposures. This team has, however, associated urinary 6331 metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. 6332

6333

The cohort most relevant to the WPS rule is th e cohort associated with the Center for Health 6334

Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salin as (CHAMACOS). The CHAMACOS cohort, 6335 being studied by researchers at the University of California, Berkele y, includes 601 primarily 6336 Latina women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from 6337 this cohort, several studies ha ve investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during 6338 pregnancy on childhood development. Topics in cluded take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi 6339

et al ., 1999; Bradman et al ., 2007), urinary metabolites of pestic ides in mothers and theirchildren 6340 (Bradman et al ., 2005; Eskenazi et al ., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2004; Young and 6341 Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2007). These studies have 6342 investigated the effects of organophosphate pest icide exposure during pregnancy on fetal growth 6343 and gestational dur ation (Eskenazi et al ., 2004), and the relationship between prenatal and child 6344 organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et 6345

al ., 2007). 6346

6347 The published exposure studies from the CHAMAC OS cohort have focused on the six generic 6348 organophosphate dialkylphosphate ( DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as 6349 well as specific metabolites of malathion (malat hiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos 6350 (TCP), and parathion (4-nitrophenol) metabolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 6351 commonly used agricultural pesticides found in hous e dust and the urine of farmworker children 6352 (Bradman et al ., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007; Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007). 6353

6354 The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young childre n in a farmworker community are exposed 6355 to pesticides brought home by thei r parents, and that the pestic ide exposure may be associated 6356 with reduced mental developm ent among young children (Eskenazi et al ., 2007), abnormal 6357 reflexes (Young et al ., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al ., 2004). 6358

6359 Similar research in other cohorts is being c onducted by both Columbia Un iversity and the Mt. 6360

Sinai School of Medicine. This research is fo cused on urban women and their children, so the 6361 pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are 6362 exposed are smaller, but these st udies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three 6363 cohorts report delayed mental development a ssociated with an increased exposure to OP 6364 pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Engel et al ., 2007). The CHAMACOS and 6365 Mt. Sinai cohorts both report posi tive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes 6366 in children (Engel et al ., 2007, Young et al ., 2005). Increased developmental disorders were 6367 reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al

., 6368 2006, Lovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). 6369

6370

Several recent studies have shown an associa tion between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and 6371 the development of behavior related to attenti on deficit/hyperactivity di sorder (ADHD), such as 6372 hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded 6373

that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postn atal levels were 6374

associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al ., 2010). Similar 6375 associations are seen in a study of the exposur e of children to the or ganophosphate pesticide, 6376*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

176 chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attentio n-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 6377 pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, Levasi, et al

., 6378 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (2010), 6379

found an association between OP metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to 6380 children with undetectable metabolite levels, childre n with levels higher than the sample median 6381 had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. 6382

6383 The biological mechanisms to cause such ne urodevelopmental findings reported in these 6384 epidemiology studies are not well understood and t hus far causality has not been established. 6385 However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link 6386 between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 6387 that children exposed to OPs ma y be at a higher risk of a dverse neuro-developmental and 6388

neurobehavioral outcomes than ch ildren with lower exposures. 6389

6390



### 6.4. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoi ding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 6391

6392 In the next section, a quantified estimate of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 6393 these quantified estimates are based only on the va lue of reduced illness from acute pesticide 6394 exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 6395 sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide ex posure exists to make a reasonable estimate. 6396 The estimates, however, exclude many real health be nefits that may result from the rule, but for 6397

which sufficient data are not availa ble to quantify these benefits. 6398

6399 The non-quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects describe d in the prior section, 6400 when they are not acute exposure to a worker or handler that is easily observed and reported. 6401

Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will 6402 result from the WPS, and dose/response relati onship between exposure and illness, the value of 6403 reducing pesticide exposure that may have repr oductive effects for wo men is impossible to 6404 quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to 6405 families can result in lifelong developmental, ne urological, and behavioral effects in children, 6406 and it is impossible to quantify the benefits from the proposed WPS rule changes that may 6407

reduce these effects. 6408

6409 The benefits that can be quantified are presen ted in the next section. Other non-quantifiable 6410 benefits from chronic exposures to workers an d handlers are discussed in Section 6.8, based on 6411 the possible chronic effects of pesticid e exposure presented in Section 6.6. 6412

6413



### 6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoidi ng Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 6414

6415 EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to re sult in benefits by further protecting workers 6416 and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 6417

families. EPA estimates that the benefits fr om reduced acute pesticide exposure to be $11.3 6418 million annually, although important non-quantifiable bene fits are discussed late r in the chapter. 6419 This section quantifies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 6420

handlers associated with acute pesticide exposure. 6421*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

177 6422



### 6.5.1. Methodology and Data 6423

6424 We use a two-step process to estimate the benef its of the proposed ru le that accrue through 6425 avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates th e number of acute pes ticide poisoning incidents 6426 that will be avoided through provi sions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of 6427 pesticide incident reports to id entify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines 6428 whether the provisions of the pr oposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of 6429 pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of 6430 reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 6431 6.5.2, underreporting is likely larg e, which will lead to a downw ard bias in the estimated 6432

benefits. This downward bias could be elimin ated, if the amount of underreporting was known. 6433 A discussion of underreporting and the effect on es timated benefits is provided at the end of 6434

Section 6.5. 6435

6436 The second step is to estimate the value of avoide d incidents, given the seve rity of the effects. 6437

The estimates here are based on avoided medical co st and avoided productiv ity loss and thus will 6438 underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 6439 valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL). 6440

6441 For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use two complementary databases: 6442 one that gathers sufficient detail on the exposures th at led to the incident report but lacks national 6443 representation (NIOSH’ Sentin el Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure, 6444 SENSOR), and one that is nationally representa tive, but lacks the necessary exposure detail 6445 (American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Pois on Data System, NPDS). Data 6446 for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for 6447 Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 6448 and Health. SENSOR is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to 6449 pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a three-year period, 2003 to 2005, during which time 6450 nine states (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexi co, New York, Oregon, Texas, and 6451 Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Da ta from California were submitted in 2003 and 6452 2004. SENSOR reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide 6453

involved in the incident and to ev aluate the circumstances of the in cident. These data are used to 6454 estimate the proportion of incidents that w ould be avoided under the proposed rule. 6455

6456 Because of the limited geographic coverage of the SENSOR data, EPA relies on data from the 6457 National Poison Data System (NPDS) to estimate th e annual number of pest icide incidents in the 6458 United States. NPDS is a comprehensive surve illance system developed in 1983 and maintained 6459 by the American Association of Poison Contro l Centers (AAPCC) to track acute illness and 6460 injury related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information system with 6461 geographically specific and near real-time reporting. The system c ontains detailed toxicological 6462 information on poison exposures reported to poison centers around th e country, capturing an 6463 estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poi son centers in the United States. 6464
The NPDS data does not have sufficient informa tion to determine whether a reported incident 6465 could be prevented. NPDS data are also used to estimate the distributi on of effects, including 6466 death, resulting from pesticide incidents. This is explained in more deta il in Section 6.5.4. 6467*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

178 6468

The value of avoided incidents is measured as av oided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 6469

Information on medical costs comes from two sources . Cost of inpatient care comes from the 6470

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 6471 related software tools and produc ts developed through a Federal- State-Industry partnership and 6472 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). HCUP databases bring 6473 together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital as sociations, private data 6474 organizations, and the federal government to crea te a national information resource of patient6475 level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 6476 the United States, with all-payer, encounter-l evel information beginni ng in 1988. Outpatient 6477

costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedur e Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 6478 for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classi fication system used for identifying medical 6479 services and procedures furnished by physic ians and other health care professionals. 6480

6481 Finally, data to estimate the value of productiv ity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 6482

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4. 6483

6484



### 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents 6485

6486 There is concern that pesticide incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 6487 particular are underreported. At least four step s are necessary before an occupational pesticide6488

related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they have 6489 treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medi cal attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 6490 the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4 ) the physician or the in jured person must report 6491 the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide 6492 related. A breakdown at any of th e steps would prevent a pestic ide poisoning case from being 6493 tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al ., 2001). 6494

6495 (1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illness. 6496 Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 6497 uniquely indicative of pesticide e ffects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 6498 rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 6499 common pesticides results in flu-like or cold- like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 6500 dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper-respiratory 6501 problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or de rmatologic effects similar to those caused by 6502 exposure to poison ivy. Many farm workers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to 6503 pesticide exposures because, unlik e handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and 6504 may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues. 6505

6506 (2) Workers and handlers must seek medical atte ntion. Except in life-threatening emergencies, 6507 many pesticide-related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical 6508 intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibite d by pesticide exposure, 6509 causes some of the more common acute system ic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this 6510 inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of 6511 exposure) recover without treatme nt. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will 6512 gradually disappear when exposure to the cau sal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many 6513*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

179 agricultural workers with trea table symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of 6514

California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance system showed that in 6515 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment 6516 (Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. 6517

6518 Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handler s’ access to medical car e is poor. A report on 6519 migrant farmworkers found that 85 % of migrant agricultural wo rkers were uninsured, and only 6520 20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 6521

reduced health care access were cost and language difficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005). 6522

6523 The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low-income persons. 6524 Although low-income, many agricultural workers ar e not eligible for Me dicaid assistance or 6525 have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs: 6526

 Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are no t eligible for Medica id. One significant 6527 barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to non6528 disabled low-income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 6529 immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 6530 five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligib ility perspective, 6531 some states use monthly budge ting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it 6532 difficult for low-income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for 6533 employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify. 6534

 Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. 6535 Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are elig ible for Medicaid may have difficulty 6536 completing the application and enrollment proce ss. Given their limited English skills, 6537 it can be very difficu lt for them to comple te long application forms or meet extensive 6538 verification requirements, partic ularly if there is limited availability of language 6539

assistance. Inaccessible site locati ons can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and 6540 Shin, 2005). 6541

6542 A survey in Washington State identified seve ral key barriers to seeking medical care for 6543 agricultural workers, including th e loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through 6544 retaliation, cost, lack of transpor tation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington 6545 State Department of Health, 2003). 6546

6547 Many agricultural workers average 6-day work w eeks during their peak work season. Without 6548 sick leave or similar benefits and often already be low the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 6549 miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek 6550 medical care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey we re unaware that their 6551 medical bills would be covered by workers comp ensation and feared employer disapproval if it 6552 were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an unsafe practice on the farm 6553 (Washington State Department of Health, 2003). 6554

6555 (3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 6556 treatment is sought, the treating medical personne l may not specifically diagnose the illness or 6557 injury as being caused by an occupational exposu re to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 6558 such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 6559*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

180 drawn. Like their patients, physicians and othe r healthcare providers often have difficulty in 6560 ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 6561 those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 6562 poisonings for other causes, but physicians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide 6563 poisonings. The person seeking ca re may not know or identify th e cause of the poisoning as a 6564 pesticide. In addition, there may not be labora tory tests to confirm su spicions of pesticide 6565 exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming 6566

the causes. 6567

6568 (4) The physician must report th e incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 6569 recorded as pesticide related. Occupational dise ases in general are more likely to be under6570 reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and sa fety in the State of 6571 Washington says: "Frequently, occupational dise ases simply do not appear in workers' 6572 compensation records, even when clear-cut. This is due to reporting disi ncentives and inherent 6573 difficulties in health care provide rs recognizing conditions as wo rk-related." (Washington, 1991) 6574

6575 Barriers to accurate reporti ng by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 6576 requirements and opportunities, relu ctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 6577 bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constrai nts on physicians that may prevent them from 6578 completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For 6579 example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 6580 healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because health care professionals fear 6581 becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational inju ry claim in which they might have to defend 6582 an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 6583 statement" (Arizona, 1990). 6584

6585 If any of the four steps needed for accurate r ecording of an occupationa l pesticide incident are 6586 not completed, then it will not appear in surv eillance databases. There is evidence in the 6587 literature that occupational medical incidents, es pecially exposures to po isons, are underreported, 6588 although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 6589 to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute 6590 symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms which may occur 6591 many years after exposure, as discussed belo w. Exposures that do not cause immediate 6592 symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under-reporting of illness is 6593 common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, w ith an estimate of 6594 underreporting ranging from 20 – 70%. These st udies are summarized in Table 6.5-1. 6595

6596*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

181 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 PoisonInformation 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 relaye d to the regional PCC; resulting in underreport of 74%

b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospi tal’s poisoning reports and the hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of O ccupational Injuries and Il lnesses, conducted by BLS
6597

The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of O ccupational Injuries and Illnesses 6598 (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser estimates that 6599 the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent 6600 (Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illne sses on a national scale, the SOII 6601 omits some groups from the survey entirely. Self-employed, household and small-farm workers 6602

are not recorded in the SOII. Work-related deat hs are also unaccounted for within the survey. 6603 The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused 6604 by exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some 6605 correlation may exist. 6606

6607

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimat es that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 6608 injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 6609 According to experts, a major cause of underrepor ting may be due to the f act that employers may 6610

have certain incentives to mini mize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and 6611 illnesses are less likely to be inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 6612 (OSHA). 6613

6614*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

182 There have been three studies on undercounts invo lving poison control data. The studies each 6615 focus on a specific region and compare cases repo rted to poison control with those poisonings 6616 for which there are hospital records. In all th ree cases, the studies indicate a substantial 6617 underreporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only esti mate the underreporting 6618 by physicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded) – poisoned people 6619 not seeking medical care or wher e the cause is misdiagnosed w ould not be counted in these 6620

studies. 6621

6622

Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Po ison Control Center s (PCC), of actual 6623 toxic exposure results do cumented by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 6624 470 exposures that were observed by the em ergency department, only 26% were ever 6625 documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 6626 exposure on the part of the potenti al callers are probably the majo r cause for non-reporting. 6627

6628

Chafee-Bahamon et al . (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 6629 similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identificati on of poisonings 6630 among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 6631 hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 6632 hospitals or hospitals far from poison control cen ters were identified as being less likely to call 6633 poison control centers, so the cases were less lik ely to be recorded in poisoning databases. 6634

6635 The third study, by Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 6636 illnesses and injuries. This study suggests th at not only underreporting but misreporting may 6637 occur. In this case, only a bout one-third of the cases evalua ted at a regional medical center 6638 could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifica tions of illnesses and 6639 injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence , which indicates that ex isting data on pesticide 6640 poisonings may be consistently low 6641

6642

There are several reasons to thi nk that pesticide incidents spec ifically are unde rreported. The 6643 OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 6644 incidents to be underreported, most of which ar e consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 6645 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 6646

6647

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents; 6648

 No central reporting point for all incidents; 6649

 Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes; 6650

 Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects; 6651

 Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 6652 effects; 6653

 Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects; 6654

 Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; 6655

 Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. 6656

6657 There are good reasons to think th at underreporting is at least as significant in the agricultural 6658 sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general populati on, due to the characteristics of 6659 the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) de scribes the hired farmworker population as “... 6660*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

183 younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign- born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized 6661

to work in the United States.” These attrib utes point toward a re latively disadvantaged 6662 workforce that may be less likely or able to s eek medical care or report pesticide incidents to 6663 their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and immigration status 6664 described in Chapter 1 create challenges for wo rkers who wish to seek medical care, which 6665 would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and availa ble to be counted in 6666 poisoning databases. USDA resear ch based on NAWS data also re ports that farmworkers have 6667 difficulty entering the health care system to recei ve treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for 6668 two-thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to 6669 receiving care. The problem is more seve re among unauthorized wo rkers (NASS, 2008a). 6670

6671 Although these characteristics do not describe al l farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a 6672 population that does not have a lot of resources to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to interact 6673 with health workers because of their immigrati on status, or have difficulty communicating with 6674 health workers when they do seek medical assi stance as a result of a pesticide exposure. 6675

6676 The limited available data for pesticide poisoni ngs of farmworkers are consistent with the 6677 conclusion that only a small fraction of the sympto ms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to 6678 medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of acute benefits from 6679 avoided pesticide incidents are pr ovided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 6680 underreporting on those estimates is pr ovided at the end of Section 6.5. 6681

6682



### 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided 6683

6684 EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pest icide incident cases 6685 for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 6686 annual average of 2,170. EPA reviewed all pestic ide incident cases repo rted to SENSOR from 6687 2003-2005 and identified a total of 460 occupational cases of which 263 of the cases, 57 percent, 6688 occurred in agricultural settings where WPS is applicable. Thus, of all occupational pesticide 6689 incidents found in NPDS, EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 incidents occur on farms, 6690 nurseries, and greenhouses annually. 6691

6692

The review of the SENSOR data identified 63 ca ses that would likely have been avoided under 6693 the proposed revisions to the WPS, as explaine d below. Another 84 cases might possibly have 6694 been avoided. Thus, EPA concludes that 24 to 56 percent of agricultural incidents, or 14 to 32 6695 percent of all occupational cases , would be likely or at leas t possibly avoidable through the 6696 proposed changes. Given the number of occ upational incidents reported in NPDS, EPA 6697

estimates that 297 to 693 acute incidents would be prevented annually under this rule, before any 6698 adjustment is made for under-reporting. 6699

6700 By reviewing the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR, EPA was able to identify the 6701 proximate causes of the exposure causing the incide nt. EPA then reviewed these cases for the 6702

cause of the incident and determined whether th e provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 6703 the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “lik ely”, “possible” or “not 6704 likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments . Categories were assi gned using the following 6705 guidelines: 6706*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

184 6707

 Likely: 6708

o A technical proposed requirement, such as re spirator fit testing or training, field 6709 posting, or extension of the entry –restr icted area to forests and fields could 6710 mitigate the exposure. If the details of the case were not robust, the case was 6711 downgraded to “possible.” 6712

 Possible: 6713

o More frequent or more comprehensiv e training could mitigate the exposure. 6714

 Unlikely 6715

o The exposure was caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a gust of wind 6716

o The incident was dermatitis caused by dust exposure 6717

o The exposure was to the neck of a handler as a result of applica tion to row ends in 6718

orchards 6719

o The exposure was caused by malfunctioning equipment. 6720

o Consensus of the reviewers was not achieved in the review 6721

o The information in the case report was insufficient to determine if the changes 6722 would mitigate the exposure. 6723

6724

6725 EPA did not use all the available cases for this determination. Certain pesticides, identified as 6726 Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be app lied by certified applicat ors or applicators under 6727 their direct supervision and these applicators are subject to separate regu lations, which are also 6728 being revised. Although WPS training could be a factor in avoiding or mitigating incidents 6729 involving RUPs, EPA excludes them from consider ation here so as not to double count avoided 6730

incidents. The incidents that remain here are those that involve farmwo rkers or handlers that 6731 were not applying RUPs. 6732

6733 Cases deemed “likely” to be a voided were used to calculate th e low-end ratio of acute exposure 6734 cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents. The combination of cases deemed “likely” and 6735 “possible” to be avoided was used to calculate th e high-end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 6736 unintentional pesticid e incidents. 6737

6738 The grey box below provides examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis. 6739

6740*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

185 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.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

186 6741 Table 6.5-2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation 6742 of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 24% and 56% of pesticid e poisonings where the 6743 WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. 6744

6745

Table 6.5-2: Estimated SENSOR Cases Avoi ded 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.

6746

To estimate the annual national numbe r of pesticide incidents that w ould be avoided by this rule, 6747 EPA multiplies the percentages in Table 6.5-2 by th e annual number of incidents obtained from 6748 the NPDS data, or an annual average of 2,170 o ccupational incidents. Given that 14 to 32 6749 percent of comparable SENSOR cases, i.e. , all occupational cases, ar e likely and/or possibly 6750 avoided by revisions to the WPS, EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS can 6751 prevent between 297 and 693 incidents annually (S ee Table 6.5-4). This estimate accounts only 6752 for reported incidents, which likely make up le ss than 20 percent of all incidents occurring on 6753

WPS farms. 6754

6755



### 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided 6756

6757 As explained in Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 6758 medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoi ded, and the reduction in premature mortality. 6759 These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; ot her, unquantifiable benefits are 6760

discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of a voided incidents depends on the severity of the 6761 effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 6762 require more treatment, including hospitalizatio n. Workers and handlers suffering from more 6763 severe effects are more likely to seek medical tr eatment. Further, one would expect that a more 6764

severe effect would result in a longer period of recovery during which the victim is unable to 6765 work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute 6766 incident will prove fatal in orde r to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality. 6767

6768 Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable source s of value from avoiding pesticide incidents 6769 given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the valu e of an avoided case is given by 6770

6771

ܸ ௜ ௩஺ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯሾܧ ൌ ௜ ܮܸܲ ൅ ሿ ௜ 6772*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

187 where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] is the expected medical cost for the 6773 case, and VPL i is the value of productivity lo st as a result of the case. We identify four severity 6774 levels as described below: No Effect, Mino r Effect, Moderate Effect, and Major Effect. 6775

6776 The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 6777

6778

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ

6779

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed vis its a health care facility given the 6780 severity of the effect, OutPtnt i is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and 6781

InPtnt i is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self6782

treatments. 6783

6784 The value of lost productivity is 6785

6786

VPL i = ( ω w ·work + ω H ·housekeeping + ω L ·leisure)·DUR i 6787

6788

where VPL is the value of productivity, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time 6789 spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, 6790

and DUR is the duration of the effect. 6791

6792 The value of a reduction in premature mortalit y, the fifth possible outcome of exposure, is 6793 simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value 6794 of small changes in mortality ri sk experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates are 6795 derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For 6796 example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, 6797 then the value of saving one statistical li fe equals $500 times 10,000—or $5 million. Note that 6798 this does not mean that any identifiable life is va lued at this amount, but ra ther that the aggregate 6799 value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical 6800 case. This analysis uses $7.9 million for th e VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This 6801

value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VS L, and then adjusted 6802 from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars ) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010). 6803

6804

Probability of Effect 6805

6806 EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 6807 for 2000 – 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 6808 annual average of 2,170. As shown in Table 6.5-3, about 14 percent of the acute cases 6809 considered resulted in “no health effects,” 65 percent in “minor effect s,” about 20 percent in 6810 “moderate effects,” fewer than 1 percent in “m ajor health effects,” and about 0.05 percent of 6811 cases per year result in “death.” The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of minor 6812

or moderate effects. 6813

6814*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

188 Table 6.5-3: Average Annual Estimate of An nual Pesticide Related Poisoning Incidents

based on NPDS Data

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

No effect 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

6815 The five severity categories in the NPDS data are defined as follows (A merican Association of 6816 Poison Control Centers, undated): 6817

6818

 No effect: The patient did not develop any signs or symptoms as a re sult of the exposure. 6819

 Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure, 6820 but they were minimally bothersome and ge nerally resolved rapidly with no residual 6821 disability or disfigurement. A minor eff ect is often limited to the skin or mucus 6822 membranes (nausea, diarrhea, drowsiness, sk in irritation, first-de gree dermal burn, sinus 6823 tachycardia without hypotension, and transient cough ar e all examples of minor effects). 6824

 Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that 6825 were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more systemic in nature than minor 6826 symptoms. Usually, some form of treatmentis indicated. Symptoms were not life6827 threatening, and the patient had no residual di sability or disfigurement (corneal abrasion, 6828 acid-base disturbance, high fever, disorienta tion, hypotension that is rapidly responsive to 6829 treatment, and isolated brief se izures that respond readily to treatment are all examples of 6830 moderate effects). 6831

 Major effect: The patient exhibited signs or sy mptoms as a result of the exposure that were 6832 life-threatening or resulted in significant residual disa bility or disfigurement ( e.g. , 6833 repeated seizures or status epilepticus, respiratory co mpromise requiring intubation, 6834 ventricular tachycardia with hypotension, car diac or respirator y arrest, esophageal 6835 stricture, and disseminated intravascular coagulation). 6836

 Death: The patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the 6837 exposure (NPDS annual report terminology, undated). 6838

6839 Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5-3 and 6840

the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the distribution of 6841 cases across the five severity le vels. As shown in Table 6.5-4, the estimated number of national 6842 incidents that may be prevented with the rule are between 297 and 693. The estimates, except 6843 for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 6844

6845*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

189 Table 6.5-4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prev ented 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 effect 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 3.2 and 3.3.

Note: Estimates are rounded to wh ole numbers, except for “Death.”

6846

Valuation of Effect 6847

6848 The value of the illnesses prevented is pres ented below (in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10). The 6849 estimates presented are almost surely underestim ates for two reasons. First, the estimated 6850 number of cases prevented is ba sed on the estimated number of re ported cases annually, which is 6851 likely to be a poor estimate , as discussed Section 6.5.2. 6852

6853 Second, the estimates are based solely on the co st of medical care and lost wages to those 6854 affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 6855 illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 6856 for a variety of reasons (EPA 2010). In particular , these estimate do not: (1 ) address the value of 6857 avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness ( i.e.

, 6858 defensive or averting expenditures) ; (3) reflect aversion to risk (t he fear of becoming ill); (4) 6859 consider ex ante values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment 6860 returns individuals to their original health state ( i.e. , is equivalent to avoiding the illness 6861 entirely). 6862

6863 It is also important to rec ognize that the financial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 6864 farmworkers harder than the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 6865 paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 6866 jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care can have a 6867 greater proportional impact on ag ricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 6868 because agricultural work is often seasonal. 6869

6870 In Table 6.5-4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 6871 rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 6872

are estimated here. These costs include avoi ded outpatient physician visits and inpatient 6873 hospitalizations, lost productivity, and prematur e mortality. For each severity level except 6874 “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, ba sed on the probability that medical treatment is 6875 sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each se verity level except “death,” the value of lost 6876*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

190 productivity is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 6877 illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 6878 For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 6879 work, household activities, and leisure. 6880

6881

Direct Medical Costs 6882

6883 As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by 6884

6885

E ሾ ݐݏ݋ܥ݁݀ܯ ௜ ሿ ܾ݋ݎܲ ൌ ሺ ܨܥܪ | ݅ ሻ ݐ݊ݐܲݐݑܱሾ ൈ ௜ ݐ݊ݐ݊ܲܫ ൅ ௜ ሿ

6886

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of vis iting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 6887 treatment costs, and i indicates the level of se verity of the effect. 6888

6889 In order to determine the probability of visiting a h ealth care facility for each severity level, we 6890 utilized the NPDS data for 2000-2005, which has information on whether cases were treated at 6891

health care facilities. Table 6.5-5 presents the number of NPDS cases that were seen at a health 6892 care facility (1,307 cases), the total number of cases over th ese years, as well as the each 6893 category’s percentage of the tota l by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the 6894 probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i) , we use the share of cases from 6895

NPDS that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5-5. 6896

6897 Table 6.5-5: Medical Outcome by Manageme nt 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 effect 107 309 34.6%

Minor 826 1416 58.3%

Moderate 359 429 83.7% Major 14 15 93.3%

Source: NPDS data, 2000 - 2005

6898 Inpatient costs were obtained from the Hea lthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 6899 specifically the cost for hospita l stays from the HCUP 3 – Hosp ital Inpatient St atistics, 2007. For 6900 Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non- medical substances) the average charges 6901 reported by Clinical Classificati ons Software was $23,101 in 2007. 6902

6903 Outpatient unit costs were estimated using da ta from physician visit benchmark fees for 6904 evaluation and management cost s by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a 6905

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 6906 medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other hea lth care professionals) 5

. 6907

5 The average facility charge for all providers in 2 007 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

191 Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service re quired for both new and 6908 established patients. Outp atient unit costs are obtaine d for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 6909 describes a patient visit with an evaluation a nd management based on a focused problem. For 6910 2007, the average medical facility ch arge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category 6911 was $42.48 for patients with an existing relationshi p with a doctor and $67.60 for new patients. 6912 Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the 6913 average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $55.10. That cost seems low, but the data 6914

reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services, 6915 payments that reflect the care that low income patients receive. This may be an underestimate, 6916 especially for moderate cases, where some tr eatment is required, which would imply that the 6917 outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on addition al treatment costs. 6918

6919 Expected medical costs, based on th e probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 6920 treatment, are shown in Table 6.5-6. 6921

6922 Table 6.5-6 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect Clinical Effect Prob(HCF| i ) Outpatient Cost Inpatient Cost Expected Medical

Cost 1

No effect 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].
6923

The Value of Lost Productivity 6924

6925 The value of lost productivity is estimated as th e value of various activities in which a person is 6926 typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 6927 As noted above, we calculate this value as 6928

6929

E ሾ ܸܲܮ ௜ ሿ ൌ ሺ߱

௪ ݎ݋ݓ݇ ൅ ߱ ு ݄ݏݑ݋݁݇݁݁݌݅݊݃ ൅ ߱ ௅ ݈݁݅ݎݑݏ݁ሻ ൈ ܦܷܴ ௜ 6930

Where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the 6931 time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 6932 activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 6933
6934 BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 6935 leisure for a typical working a dult. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2007b), 6936 an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a seven6937 day week. The National Agricultural Workers Survey reports the average workweek for 6938 farmworkers to be similar, at 42 hour per w eek (DoL, 2005). We use the BLS figure here 6939 because it corresponds to the BLS Time of Use Su rvey discussed in the next paragraph. The 6940 estimates are not sensitive to this assumption, b ecause leisure and household activities also have 6941 a value in our analysis. 6942

6943*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

192 Time spent in housekeeping activitie s varies considerably by gender. According to the American 6944 Time of Use Survey (BLS, 2007c), employed ma les aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 6945 hours per day in household activities 6 and employed females aged 16 and over engage in 2.94 6946 hours per day of household activities. Ther e are 78.25 million men employed in the United 6947 States and 67.79 million women (BLS, 2007a). T hus, the weighted average of time spent in 6948 housekeeping is 2.31 hours per day. 6949

6950 Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, a ssuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 7.46 6951 hours per day. 6952
6953 The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and 6954 handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic an alysis), or $10.01 per hour. This analysis 6955

assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. For farmworkers, this may be an underestimate, 6956 but the results are not sensitive to this assumpti on, because we are also measuring the value of 6957 lost leisure and housekeeping time. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for 6958 a personal/home care aide, $9.50 (BLS, 2007a). This labor category was chosen as most closely 6959 representative, given the occupati ons available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an 6960 injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the 6961 after-tax wage rate for workers, because theoretica lly the take home pay is the rate at which work 6962 and leisure are traded. The overall average tax ra te in the United States is 30.8 percent (Tax 6963 Foundation, 2008), which leaves an af ter-tax return of $6.93 per hour. 6964

6965 Table 6.5-7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthetical term 6966 in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 6967 Table 6.5-7 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven-day 6968 week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity. The sum over the three activities is 6969 estimated to be $135.69 per day. 6970

6971

6 Household activity is a broad category th at includes all tasks to maintain a household, such as cooking, cleaning, home and vehicle maintenance, decoration, and yard car e, as well as organizationa l activities like paperwork.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

193 Table 6.5-7: Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value ( ω ) Total Value per Day

Work 5.60 a $10.01 c $56.07
Housekeeping 2.94 a $9.50 d $27.93

Leisure 7.46 b $6.93 e $51.69

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $135.69

Sources:

a BLS, 2007, Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times 7 days per week and subtracting the weekly time known for work and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

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%).
6972 The duration of illness by medical outcome/severity is derived from severity definitions for the 6973 NPDS data. The NPDS data repor t the duration of clinical effect s for minor, moderate and major 6974 severity levels as a range, such as “greater than 8 hours and less th an or equal to 24 hours.” For 6975 the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basically a 6976 weighted average of the possible durations in the NPDS data. Th e weights are the share of cases 6977 reported in the NPDS that have th at duration for each severity leve l. For example, for moderate 6978 clinical effects, 6.1% of patients have duration of effects for less than two hours, while 28% have 6979 durations between 2 and 8 hours, etc. 6980

6981 Since exposure durations by clinic al effect were reported with the NPDS 2006 Annual Report as 6982 a range of time ( e.g. , > 8 hours, <= 24 hours), we created a low-end and high-end scenario for 6983 each duration category. The low-end scenario us es either the low-end estimate if an exact 6984 duration range was given ( e.g. , > 24 hours, <= 3 days; the low-end is 1 day) or if the range is 6985 one-sided ( e.g. , < 2 hours), then the midpoint was used ( e.g. , for < 2 hours; the low-end is 1 6986 hour). The high-end scenario uses the high-end of the duration range given ( e.g. , > 8 hours, <= 6987 24 hours; the high-end is 1 day). For this anal ysis, one month was assumed to be 30 days; a 6988 duration of greater than 1 month was assumed to be 1-3 months, with one month for the low 6989 estimate, and 3 for the high estimate; anticipated permanent was assumed to be 1 year at the high 6990 end. The unknown duration was excluded from the analysis. 6991

6992

There are no data available on th e duration of clinical effects fo r “no effect.” However, people 6993 who visited a health care facility for “no eff ect” (34.6%) were assumed to experience reduced 6994 productivity for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low-end dura tion of one hour (about 6995 .04 days) and the high-end duration is 2 hours (a bout 0.08 days). Because only 34.6% of cases 6996

with “no effect” visited a health care facility, the average durati on for no effect is 34.6% of .04 6997 days for the low end (0.014 days) and 34.6% of .08 days for the high end (0.029 days). 6998

6999

Table 6.5-8 shows the estimated av erage duration of clinical eff ects at each level of severity, 7000 with a high end and a low end estimate, as discu ssed above. The time of effects, measured in 7001*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

194 days, is multiplied by the value of a full da y of productivity ($135.69) to yield high and low 7002 estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 7003

7004 Table 6.5-8: Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by Clinical

Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Average Duration

of Clinical Effect (Days) a E[VPL i ] c

No Effect Low-End 0.014 b $1.96
High-end 0.029 b $3.92

Minor Low-End 0.52 $70.39 High-end 1.78 $242.07

Moderate Low-End 1.05 $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, th e average duration in days was calculate d 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).

7005

The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality 7006

7007 The value of reduced premature mortality is simp ly the value of a statistical life, which EPA 7008 (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 7009 reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 7010 resulting in death, because any me dical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 7011 productivity is included in the VSL. 7012

7013

Annual Average Benefits, Avoide d Acute Effects of Incidents 7014

7015 The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5-9 and 6.5-10. For each 7016 level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost pr oductivity costs, and the value of 7017 premature mortality multiplied by the number of cas es avoided. We then sum across all severity 7018

levels to estimate the total avoided costs for th e rule. Table 6.5-9 shows the low end estimates, 7019

which are based on the low end estimates of cost s and the low end estimate of the number of 7020 prevented cases, while Table 6.5-10 shows the high end estimates. 7021

7022*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

195 Table 6.5-9: “Low-End” Estimate of Avoi ded 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 effect 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.

7023

7024
Table 6.5-10: “High-End” Estimate of Avoi ded 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 effect 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.

7025 The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 7026 to 2.8 million. Over a ten year period of analysis , the present value of th ese benefits is between 7027 $10.2 million and $24.9 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $8.7 7028 million and $21.3 million when a 7 percen t discount rate is applied. 7029

7030

There are limitations to these estimates. As disc ussed above we expect that a large proportion of 7031 accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning of worker s and handlers never get reported to a national 7032 poisoning center for various reasons. Migrant farm workers and handlers may be less likely to 7033 report acute poisoning cases to poison control centers. Othe r workers with incomplete 7034 information on the requirements of the WPS may also not report poisoning cases for fear of 7035 reprisal. All indications are th at underreporting is s ubstantial. Unreported cases are therefore 7036*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

196 not included in the NPDS or SENSOR databases a nd, hence, not included in this analysis. This 7037 underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward. 7038

7039 In Table 6.5-11, we show the effect of under-re porting at different rates on our monetized 7040 estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings . With 100% reporting (or 0% underreporting), 7041

then the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is 7042 underreporting, then the actual bene fits can be substantially highe r. Table 6.5-11 shows a range 7043 of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 7044 10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about 7045 underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and u nderreporting is equally 7046 likely in all poisoning cases, then the actual valu e of prevented poisoning due to the rule would 7047 be over $28 million per year, substantially higher than those estimated here, which assumes 7048 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these unreported acute 7049 exposures of workers and handlers are also not known. If reporting rates vary by severity, in 7050 such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, then the effects 7051 of underreporting would be corres pondingly lower. For example, if deaths were never under7052 reported, but all other severity levels of illness were under-reported, the actual value of prevented 7053 poisonings with only 10% reporting would be about $5.7 million per year. This is because the 7054

value of a statistical life is so high, the results change dramatica lly with changes in the estimated 7055 number of deaths prevented. Later in this ch apter we will use of $11.4 million as our estimate of 7056 acute benefits after adjusting for underreporting, which corresponds to a reporting rate of 25%, 7057 which is a plausible estimate. 7058

7059

Table 6.5-11. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about Underreporting

Share of Cases Reported High-End Estimate of Prevented Cases High-End estimate of Benefits

100% 693 $2,838,400

50% 1,386 $5,677,800

25% 2,772 $11,353,600

20% 3,465 $14,192,000

10% 6,930 $28,384,000

Source: EPA Calculations

7060 All estimates presented in this chapter include only the effects of reduced illness from acute 7061 exposure – the effects of chronic exposure are disc ussed in the next sectio n. There is no attempt 7062 to measure the willingness to pay to avoid symp toms, which is likely to be substantial; we 7063 calculate only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productiv ity to workers. 7064

7065 It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesse s are borne primarily by 7066 farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the me mbers of our society with the least ability to 7067 absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005) 7068 farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 7069 a relatively larger share of thei r overall working year. The financ ial impact is also relatively 7070 greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families are 7071*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

197 below the poverty line. Average individua l income is between $10,000 - $12,499 per year, and 7072 average family income is $15,000 -$17,499 per year , which means that medical expenses can 7073 consume a substantial part of their annual income (DoL, 2005). 7074

7075 Some of the proposed requirements will be implem ented later than others. Most requirements 7076 have an effective date 90 days after the rule is signed; some pr oposals will be effective two years 7077 after signature. The delayed requirements include the changes to training topics and materials, 7078 requirements on who can train workers, change s to the content of warning signs, and the 7079 requirement that a handler suspend or cease applic ation if a person enters the treated area. The 7080 quantified benefit estimates presented in this sec tion are not adjusted for this change. This is 7081 because most of the delayed changes, such as training materials on how to safeguard the families 7082 of workers and handlers are unlikely to show up da ta used for estimating illnesses, as discussed 7083

in that section. Of the cases that were used to generate the estimates of illnesses prevented, only 7084 six would possibly have been prevented by the in dividual items that are required two years after 7085 signature of the rule. In all case s the relevant provision is that an application be suspended if a 7086 person enters the treated area. In at least three of these six cases, other provisions of the 7087 proposed rule would likely have prot ected against the exposu re. If all six cases are classified as 7088 unlikely to be prevented until year three, the quan tified estimates of benefits change slightly. 7089 They are reduced, because some exposures will not be prevented for two years. The change in 7090 estimates is relatively small, however; annual ized benefit estimates are reduced between $12,000 7091 and $30,000 per year, depending on the discount rate and whether the high or low end estimates 7092

are used. 7093

7094

The next section will discuss the risks of chroni c pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 7095 families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 7096

7097



### 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pestic ide Exposure and Risks to Workers 7098


### and Handlers 7099

7100 In the previous section, estimates of reduced i llness from acute exposur es to pesticides are 7101 presented. Although these estimates are based on th e best available data, there are uncertainties 7102 reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under-reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 7103 are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generali zed pesticide exposure. 7104 EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to ag ricultural workers from reduced chronic health 7105 effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not re flected in the acute poisoning 7106

surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects 7107 to farmworkers, pesticide handl ers and their families from pe sticide exposure. Following this 7108 section, EPA presents a semi-quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break-even analysis”) 7109 to chronic health conditions, i.e. , chronic cases avoide d due to the rule. 7110

7111 It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 7112 outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a 7113 causal link between these exposures and the he alth outcomes. However, information linking 7114 pesticide exposure is compelling enough to suggest some of the st atistical associations may at 7115 some point in future be determined to be causa l in nature. Therefore, overall pesticide exposure 7116 reduction through WPS may have subs tantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time. 7117*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

198 7118 While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 7119 pesticide exposures and adverse ch ronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 7120

evidence of well-documented associations betwee n pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 7121

non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. Typically several 7122 epidemiology studies conducted over time, using di fferent study designs, and taking place within 7123 different study populations in addi tion to other streams of scientific eviden ce are usually required 7124

before researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a cau sal determination. The 7125 environmental epidemiology literature is growing ra pidly in terms of both quantity and quality of 7126 pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA believe s additional causal links between pesticide 7127 exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time. 7128

7129 Even though there have been rela tively few proven cause and eff ect associations between real 7130 world pesticide exposure and long-term health effects in human populations, many exposure7131

chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 7132 the scientific peer reviewed lite rature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 7133 collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 7134 issue of chronic, long-term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency 7135 for Research in Cancer (IARC) currently lists di oxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite 7136 carcinogens, and several other pe sticides are listed as probabl e carcinogens. Research is 7137 underway to determine if other pesticides ar e also carcinogenic. There is a large body of 7138 epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long-term health effects (such as cancer, 7139 neurological, respiratory, fertilit y, behavioral, and other long-term health effects) that may result 7140 from pesticide exposure, but the state of the scien ce at this time yields fe w causal relationships to 7141 specific pesticides, which highlights the importan ce of reduced general pe sticide exposure. 7142

7143 There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by fe deral governments in the U.S. 7144 and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest severa l plausible hypotheses to link 7145 pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is 7146 the Agricultural Health Study funded by the Nationa l Cancer Institute (NC I), National Institute 7147 of Environmental Health Sciences (NIE HS), and co-sponsored by EPA, among other 7148 collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, 7149 including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses, i nvestigating a broad 7150 array of potential illnesses. A cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 7151

links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, 7152 Nordby et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underw ay to investigate the links between 7153 agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean 7154

Multi-Center Cancer cohort is co llecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 7155 as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factor s associated with cancer risk 7156 (Yoo et al ., 2002). The National Cancer Institute recently initiated a collaborative effort, 7157 AGRICOH, which is designed to encourage in ternational collaboration. It encompasses 22 7158 cohorts from nine countries poolin g data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from 7159 pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al ., 2011). 7160

7161 Studying chronic health effects of long-term pesticide exposure in agricultural workers is 7162 complicated by many factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals, not just pesticides; 7163*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

199 exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e. , intermittent or sustained; and 7164 multiple routes of exposure, e.g. , dermal and inhalation. Many epid emiologic studies that include 7165 certified pesticide handlers and applicators su ch as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 7166 other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely re sult from appropriate, label use 7167 of pesticides, however, misuse does occur (Bell et al ., 2006). These certified applicators that 7168 form the core of the AHS cohort may face diffe rent exposure compared to other agricultural 7169

workers and handlers. 7170

7171 Another complicating factor is th at, over time, EPA and others, su ch as state governments, have 7172 implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 7173 protective equipment, revised re -entry intervals, and at time s the cancellation of pesticide 7174 products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 7175 contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 7176 necessarily have curren t regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or 7177 withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, ch anges in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 7178

and other factors have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several 7179 decades, which is the relevant period for investig ating chronic effects with typically long latency 7180 periods such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect pa st exposure scenarios must be 7181 interpreted with caution when app lied to current regulatory questions. 7182

7183 Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre-natal or in early childhood, may be 7184

linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early expos ures may occur from pesticides 7185

that are on the bodies or clothes of workers and handlers. A number of studies have shown the 7186 potential for “take home” exposures, where an ag ricultural worker brings pesticide residues 7187 home on their body or clothing (see S ection 6.2.2). Because one of th e changes in the rule is an 7188 increased focus on training about the take hom e pathway, this type of exposure should be 7189 reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including 7190

children. 7191

7192 These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and ot her scientific information all need to be 7193 evaluated to determine the potential for individua l pesticides to cause a dverse long-term health 7194 impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 7195 pesticides, but these reviews indicate there is cause for concern over generalized pesticide 7196 exposure, and in some instances shows the im portance of exposure mitigation for individual 7197 pesticides. The proposed WPS rule changes are de signed to protect agains t agricultural worker 7198 or handler exposures when the cu rrent state of the sc ience does not support action on individual 7199

chemicals. 7200

7201 Later in this section, EPA summ arizes some of the research on chronic health effects from 7202 pesticide exposure that have s hown possible links to blood and pr ostate cancers, neurological 7203

effects like Parkinson’s disease a nd attention deficit hype ractivity disorder, fertility effects like 7204 impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes, and respiratory problems like asthma. Although 7205

several other associations have been measured in the literature, these ar e selected for discussion 7206

here due to either the relative strength and plausibility of th e hypothesized link, the number of 7207 studies available, or the relatively high prevalen ce of either the health outcome or a particular 7208 pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggest s that the long term health of 7209*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

200 agricultural workers and their families will benefit fr om the rule, but, due to the state of scientific 7210 research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, quantitative benefits are not possible to 7211 estimate. A discussion of the plausibility of be nefits from a subset of disease reductions from 7212 reduced chronic exposure is presented in Section 6.8. 7213

7214



### 6.6.1. Cancer Risks 7215

7216 Although only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 7217 various peer-review bodies, ther e is a wide range of literatu re demonstrating statistical 7218 associations between pesticide e xposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in 7219 experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Re search on Cancer (IARC) has 7220 only identified two classes of pesticides to be human carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides 7221

and those with dioxin contaminan ts), but classifies non-arsenical pesticides as probable human 7222 carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999). However, many st udies have evaluated other possible links 7223 between pesticide e xposure and cancer. 7224

7225 Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticid e exposure, review 7226 articles and meta-analytic results indicate eviden ce of an association between various pesticide 7227 exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non -Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 7228 specifically); among solid tumors (brain and pros tate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 7229

cancer risk in associ ation with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational 7230 exposure (Bassil et al ., 2007; Blair and Bean e-Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010; Van Maele et 7231

al ., 2011, Wigle et al ., 2009, Turner et al ., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al

., 7232 2013). This section will discuss some of th e evidence for the possible connection between 7233 pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 7234

7235 Blair and Beane-Freeman (2009) provides a revi ew of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 7236 agricultural populations. They report that meta-a nalyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 7237 excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 7238 and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 7239 cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta-analyses 7240 of studies of individual cancers show the importa nce of identifying specific exposures that lead 7241

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these aut hors conclude factors other than 7242 pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 7243 engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane-Freeman 2009). 7244

7245 Initial evidence of a possible a ssociation between various pestic ide exposures and cancers of the 7246 lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pa ncreas have also been publis hed by the AHS researchers (for 7247 example, Alavanja et al ., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al ., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 7248 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmwork ers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 7249

stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009). 7250

7251

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 7252

7253*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

201 Over time, evidence of a link between pesticid e exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 7254 example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 7255 exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997). 7256

Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers ha ve increased between1973 -1990, a time period 7257 coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 7258

et al ., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Blair and Chui 7259 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal transl ocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 7260 as a result of pesticide exposure; however this is not known with certa inty at this time. 7261 Comparing rates of new blood cancers among pes ticide applicators rela tive to the general 7262 population, Koutros, et al . (2010) reports higher inciden ce rates for multiple myeloma and 7263 lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevat ed rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 7264 population-based case-control study in Sweden, in cluding increased risks for users of glyphosate 7265 (Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link between pe sticide exposure a nd these cancers, 7266 however additional research is necessary to unde rstand whether the link is causal in nature, and 7267 the degree to which pesticide exposures and othe r farm related exposures may contribute to the 7268

risk of these cancers. 7269

7270 In a review by Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 7271 leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case-control studies 7272 with statistically significant results. Several case- control studies looked at children that had been 7273 exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia whose parents used 7274 insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant 7275 (Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the 7276 systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether population bias was a factor in 7277

the results of this review. 7278

7279

In the Bassil et al . review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 7280 examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For 7281 the case-control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 7282 associations were statistically significant. In one study that ex amined children’s exposure to 7283 pesticides, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in homes where 7284 pesticides were used most days for professiona l home extermination, when children had direct 7285 postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 7286

risks found were over several cl asses of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007). 7287

7288 Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 7289 exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers’ s children. They found no evidence of a direct 7290

link between children’ s leukemia and all parents’ occupatio nal exposure, but they report an 7291 association between a mother’s occupational exposu re to general pesticides and insecticides and 7292 their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly hi gher for farm and other 7293 significant related exposures. 7294

7295

Prostate Cancer 7296

7297 For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 7298 are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 7299*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

202 disease, diabetes, mortality, etc. (Blair et al. , 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of 7300 prostate cancer which may be explained by pes ticide exposure, or possibly by other farm- or 7301 non-farm related exposures. Comparing the inci dence of prostate cancer in farmers with 7302 members of the general population, researchers ha ve estimated that farmers have a roughly 20% 7303 increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010). Case-control analysis within the AHS suggest 7304 exposure to several organophosphate pesticides ma y be related to prostate cancer, but only 7305 among men with a family histor y of the disease (Alavanja et al .. 2003). Additional follow-up 7306

within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007; 7307

Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate can cer with certain pesticide exposure 7308 varies by family history of pr ostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 7309 that may shed light as to the pot ential role of genetic variation in the associ ation. This work is 7310 not yet complete. However, initial investigatio ns recently released indicate that a genetic 7311 variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the associ ation between pesticide exposure 7312 and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010b). Although these genetic variations do not fully 7313 explain the cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environmental exposures may 7314 play an important role. Overall, however, acros s studies published, resu lts are not consistent, 7315 possibly due to differing study designs used. 7316

7317 In investigations of farmworker populations, pros tate cancer associations have also been found. 7318 For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in 7319 California, and concluded that high levels of exposu re to various types of pesticides left Hispanic 7320 workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer. 7321

7322 Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 7323 this time focusing upon more aggressi ve cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the 7324 purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cance r was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue 7325 outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poor ly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 7326

a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggr essive prostate cancer 7327 among those who reported using higher amounts of f our pesticides over thei r working lifetime. 7328 This work supports previous analyses noting li nks between specific orga nophosphate pesticides 7329 and prostate cancer. It also extends an understa nding of the possibility of a link with the 7330 aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 7331 slow-growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 7332 to distinguish clear causal pathways. Howe ver the study is supportive of previous work 7333 concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pe sticide applicators enrolled in 7334

the AHS. 7335

7336

Lung Cancer 7337

7338

There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al

. 7339 (2004), reported a positive associ ation between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 7340 AHS cohort. In this study, exposur e to these pesticides was associ ated with lung cancer risk in 7341 the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk fo r the cohort is lower than the 7342 population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an associat ion between pesticides and lung 7343 cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane-Freeman et al., 2005; (Lee et al., 2004). 7344

7345*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

203 

### 6.6.2. Non-Cancer Health Effects 7346

7347 Many epidemiological studies have posited a non-cancer chronic hea lth consequence of pesticide 7348 exposure, however none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 7349 investigations have identified elev ated risks of respiratory and neur ological effects; as these are 7350 preliminary investigations other explanations for th ese effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 7351 However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 7352 and some neurological outcomes in adults su ch as Parkinson’s dis ease (PD) and general 7353 neurological health (discussed below). To th e extent that the proposed changes to WPS rules 7354 reduce chronic exposure to pestic ides, they may reduce the incide nce of these chronic health 7355

effects as well. 7356

7357

Neurological Function 7358

7359 The possible connection between pe sticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 7360 spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al ., (2007), investigated the 7361 hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Stu dy participants included licensed 7362 private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 7363 contacted for a follow-up study from 1999 throug h 2003. They report a positive association of 7364 PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong associatio n” with PD for those 7365 who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative life time days of use was associated with a dose7366 response relationship in cases diagnosed afte r the beginning of the study, but there was no 7367 association with a dose-response function and cases diagnosed prio r to the study. This study has 7368 recently been updated with physician-diagnosed cas es of PD, as opposed to participant self7369 reporting of PD, and authors reported statistica lly significant 2.5-fold increased odds of PD if 7370 participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al ., 2011). 7371

7372 In a review study on the non-cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (2007) 7373 evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticide exposure, 7374 and reported a positive associati on in 15 out of the 26 studies re viewed. The authors conclude 7375 that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 7376 exposures of pesticides on the job.” 7377

7378

Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non-cancer health eff ects of pesticides in a review, and found 7379 most (39/41) studies displayed a positive increas e in one or more neurological abnormalities in 7380 association with pesticide expos ure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in 7381 preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 7382 depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al

., 7383 (2007a), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime 7384 pesticide exposure, with the greatest a ssociation for organophosphate pesticides. 7385

7386 In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nona gricultural Hispanic 7387 workers, Rothlein et al ., (2006) examined the possible neur obehavioral effects of low-level 7388 chronic organophosphate pesticide exposure. Resi dues of these pesticides were found in a 7389 substantial portion of workers’ homes. A signifi cant correlation was observed between urinary 7390 metabolite levels and total organophosphate hou se dust levels. Poor performance on five 7391*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

204 neurobehavioral tests was associ ated with higher levels of th e average combined thiomethyl 7392 metabolites in adult farmworkers. According to the authors, the correlation found between 7393

environmental contamination and levels of urin ary metabolites further demonstrates the take7394 home pathway of pesticide exposure and the need for better home hygiene practices. 7395

7396 Research on the neurological effects of pestic ide exposure continues. Three recent studies 7397 (Rauh et al. , 2011; Engel et al. , 2011; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the 7398 relationship between prenatal e xposure to organophosphate pesticid es including chlorpyrifos and 7399 neurological effects in children through the ag e of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et 7400

al ., 2011), using the AHS cohort reviews the possi ble relationship betwee n adult occupational 7401 exposure to pesticides and adverse neurol ogical symptoms. Th e authors acknowledge 7402 uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear 7403 biologically plausible mechanism of acti on, among other study characteristics. 7404

7405

Respiratory Function 7406

7407 Several studies have shown linkages with both perm anent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 7408 effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 7409 trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and sh ortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 7410 asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptibl e to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 7411

several studies have shown an association be tween pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et 7412

al ., (2008) reported an associati on between pesticide exposure to a range of pesticides and 7413 asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of 7414 asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spous es of pesticide applic ators and may show an 7415 important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworkers, 7416 rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as 7417
well. Salam et al ., (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among 7418 those risk factors were pesticid es, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children 7419 with early onset asthma. An international st udy on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 7420 (Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory symptoms. 7421

7422 Studies have also reported an association betw een pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 7423 inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. Wh ile acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 7424 a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructiv e pulmonary disease that makes 7425 it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 7426 Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant a ssociation between eleven pesticides and 7427 chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort – an a ssociation that was stro nger among those with a 7428 high pesticide exposure event. 7429

7430



### 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 7431

7432 Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clea r cause-effect relation 7433 between specific pesticide exposur e and certain chronic health outco mes. However, the totality 7434

of national and international res earch efforts and initial resear ch results in conjunction with 7435 plausible hypotheses, taken toge ther, suggest that pesticide e xposure may result in chronic 7436*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

205 adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical-specific label requirements 7437

and standards. 7438

7439



### 6.7. Non-Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 7440

7441 The proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides, 7442 as well as reduce the non-occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There 7443 is sufficient evidence in the peer -reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure 7444 would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In 7445 general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, 7446 the literature does not provide suffi cient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for 7447 use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the pr oposed WPS changes are a 7448 way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to occupational 7449

health. 7450

7451 The health effects potentially caused by occupa tional pesticide exposur e can have dramatic 7452

effects on the health and welfar e of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 7453 illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 7454 by family members or others. It is also impor tant not to underestimate the effects on those 7455 stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by 7456 tremors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, instab ility and falling, all of which result in difficulty 7457 performing everyday functions (P arkinson’s Disease Foundation). Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is 7458

a cancer that starts in the imm une system, with symptoms of swollen lymph nodes, weight loss, 7459 fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment for NHL, has 7460 a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National Cancer Institute, 7461 2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and th e treatment, the disease is often fatal. The 7462 five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of people diagnosed 7463 with NHL in 2003 died within five y ears (National Cancer Institute, 2011). 7464

7465

Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be caused by, and therefore 7466 prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 7467 pesticide-specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 7468 disease are great, in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous 7469 paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have 7470 been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 7471 estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressi ve NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower7472 growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. ) For prostate cancer, average co st of treatment over 5 and half 7473 years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al. ). These costs are very high, especially so 7474 relative to the income for workers and handlers, a nd the value of reducing these illnesses is likely 7475 to be substantial, as well. These costs are trea tment costs, which is likely an under-estimate of 7476

the true cost of illness. 7477

7478

The next section details the break-even anal ysis methodology, which considers the value of 7479 potentially preventing some of these illnesses, us ing estimates of the willingness-to-pay to avoid 7480

illness or death. 7481

7482*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

206 

### 6.8. Break-Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 7483

7484 In this section, EPA presents a “break-even” analysis. This an alysis shows that preventing a 7485 very small number of illnesses potentially associated with pes ticide exposure could result in 7486 benefits to human health equal to or greater th an the difference between the quantified benefits 7487

and the estimated costs of the rule. As describe d below, preventing only a few pesticide-related 7488 illnesses annually, less than one percent of the cas es of a handful of diseases, would generate 7489 enough in benefits to close the gap between th e estimated cost of the WPS changes and the 7490 quantified estimate of benefits from reduced ac ute exposures. The break-even number of cases 7491 is quite low, because the diseases under consider ation can have severe effects which persist over 7492 a long period of time, and the cost of health car e is great. For this exercise, we consider non7493 Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer , bronchitis, Parkinson’ s disease and asthma 7494 to demonstrate the potential bene fits in the proposed rule from reducing exposures to chronic 7495

illnesses. These are the illnesses for which there is evidence of an association with pesticide 7496 exposure and for which credible willingness to pay es timates exist in the peer-reviewed literature 7497 or may be transferred. 7498



### 6.8.1. Background 7499

7500 The break-even approach uses EPA’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute 7501 exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the proposed rule. 7502 The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from 7503 reduced chronic exposure would need to be for the total annual benefits of chronic illness 7504 reduction to equal costs. A break-e ven analysis is a useful altern ative when quantifiable data are 7505 lacking (OMB, 1996). Although we cannot quantify ne t benefits of chronic disease avoided, we 7506

can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes to cause the 7507 net benefits to become positive. This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also 7508 be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable bene fits, like reduced chronic exposures to 7509 pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits. 7510

7511 Break-even analyses have been used by EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all benefits 7512 could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water 7513 used this approach to highlight benefits th at could not be quantified (EPA, 2010; EPA, 2006; 7514 EPA 2005; EPA, 2000). For these cases, the break-even analyses were based on prevented 7515

illness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to 7516 what is done here. These examples have most of ten reflected acute health effects with a known 7517 causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g. , gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial 7518 contamination of water. The break-even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide 7519 exposure and chronic disease, where causal links ar e considered in the pe er-reviewed literature 7520 (see Section 6.7). 7521

7522 The costs of environmental regula tions are traditionally much simpler to quantify than benefits to 7523 health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily 7524 estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are often difficult to quantify due 7525 to data limitations, as noted a bove, or the non-pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as 7526 noted in Section 6.5 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide 7527*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

207 exposure and human health outcomes indicates that some degree of public health benefits will 7528 likely accrue as a result of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS. 7529

7530 Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the p ublic health benefit of pesticide exposure 7531 reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are 7532 unable to quantify the benefits fr om reducing chronic health eff ects for several reasons. While 7533 exposure reduction is an anticipat ed outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the 7534 magnitude of the exposure reduction b ecause the interventions are indirect, i.e. , they influence 7535 behavior associated with pesticid e safety practices. Similarly, wh ile statistical associations have 7536

been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic 7537 health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Sect ion 6.5, the causal nature of these associations 7538 have not yet been determined; thus calculating attr ibutable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic 7539 health risk reduction expected as a result of pe sticide exposure reduction, is premature at this 7540 time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk f actors for certain disease 7541 outcomes in the population ( i.e. , there is a multi-factorial web of disease causation), however it is 7542 plausible that some instances of disease (speci fic cases) could be attributable to pesticide 7543 exposure. Epidemiological research is particul arly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 7544

and their families. Relative to ot her studies of the effects of o ccupational exposure to chemicals, 7545

studies based on farmworkers are more difficult b ecause it is harder to estimate exposure to 7546 specific pesticides, because they were not applie d by the worker, and may not have been applied 7547 by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 7548 also difficult with this mobile population, ma king it harder to identify exposure based on 7549 available application data (Zahm et al ., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993). 7550

7551 The break-even analysis is meant for illustrative purposes. The analysis is designed to 7552 demonstrate the magnitude of potential health risk reduction which would be necessary to 7553 equilibrate the total WPS costs using traditional and conservative assumptions from the 7554 environmental economics peer-reviewed literature. 7555

7556 In Section 6.6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors report 7557 observations between pesticide expo sure and certain chronic health effects. Included in that 7558 discussion is information on the Agricultural He alth Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort 7559 study of about 90,000 farmers and their spouses in itiated in the early 1990’s. The study is 7560 recognized for its design and robustness, with ex posure measurements that have been extensively 7561

validated. Because of these characteristics and st rengths, it is appropriate to use the results and 7562 findings of this study in evaluati ng pesticide risks. OPP has been systematically evaluating this 7563 study in collaborative projects w ith the AHS investigators with respect to algorithms, exposure 7564 assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting 7565 epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound 7566 scientific principles and use of Bradford H ill criteria for evidence of causation. The work 7567 products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent 7568 Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakeholde rs. These data inform hazard identification and 7569 characterization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that 7570 past and current exposures differ from current an d future pesticide practices. Therefore, while 7571 studies such as the AHS are help ful for hazard characterization, a dditional information outside of 7572 any one epidemiology study may be needed to asse ss current, real-world exposure potential. The 7573*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

208 putative associations suggested in epidemiol ogy studies like the AHS can help in evaluating 7574 potential health outcomes associated with e xposures and assist in conducting an economic 7575 evaluation of possible benefits from reducing ex posure through an enhanced worker protection 7576

standard. 7577

7578



### 6.8.2. Method 7579

7580 For the acute estimates earlier in this chapte r, the number of cases prevented was found by 7581 evaluating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break-even 7582 analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end 7583 of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be prevented for the benefits 7584 to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the 7585 farmworker and handler populati on. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 7586

reduction for all diseases and their fatal effect s, if any, although it is likely that different 7587 exposure-response profiles exist for specific pest icide-chronic health effect association. 7588

7589 As discussed in Section 6.6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, 7590 non-specific pesticide exposure. For this break -even exercise, however, we will consider only a 7591 few illnesses associated with chronic pestic ide exposure: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 7592 cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Park inson’s disease and asthma. Numerous 7593 observational studies have been performed eval uating pesticide exposure in association with 7594

these human health outcomes. While scientific co nsensus has not established these associations 7595 as causal in nature, evidence is suggestive of an association. For illustrative purposes, these 7596

health outcomes are identified for the break-even analysis. 7597

7598 It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neur ological diseases, and pulmonary effects) 7599 included here are chosen as representatives of the range of diseases that may result from chronic 7600 exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have 7601 shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may 7602 not be as strong as the ones we have included here largely due to ch allenges of performing 7603 observational studies in the farm worker population. 7604

7605 To estimate the break-even number of prevente d cases, we will begin with national data on 7606 disease incidence, which describes how many cases of disease can be expected to be diagnosed 7607 each year. 7608

7609 Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduc ed illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use 7610 an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US 7611 Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure 7612 consists of four components: 7613

7614

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 7615

 “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 7616

 Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 7617 activities; and 7618

 Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 7619*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

209 7620 WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group woul d pay to receive the 7621 benefits resulting from a policy ch ange, without being made worse off. There are other values 7622 excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 7623 health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also 7624 value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they 7625 are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 7626 the WTP estimates presented here. 7627

7628 Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 7629 consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in th e study subjects. For 7630 example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 7631 non-fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In th ese cases, we will use 7632

benefits transfer to find estimates. This i nvolves applying available estimates of WTP for 7633 preventing illness to the relevant ones for the WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 7634

7635 For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benef its with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 7636 EPA currently recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 million (in 7637 2008 dollars) to value reduced mort ality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a 7638 distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 7639

7640 The benefits for preventing chroni c illness are simply the sum across illnesses of the value of 7641 prevention times the number of prevente d cases, which are the prevented share ( PrevShare ) 7642

times the number of cases: 7643 ߱ ෍ ൌ ݏݐ݂݁݊݁݅ܤ ݊݅ܿ݋ݎ݄ܥ

௜ ݏ݁ݏܽܥݒ݁ݎܲ · ௜

௜ ߱෍ ൌ

௜ ݁ݎ݄ܵܽݒ݁ݎܲ · ௜ ݏ݁ݏܽܥ · ௜

௜

where ω i can be WTP for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fataliti es. To perform the break7644 even analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater than or 7645 equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the esti mated acute benefits. 7646 The break-even point is where th e benefits of the chronic equa l the gap between the estimated 7647 cost ( Cost ) and the estimated acute benefits ( Acute ): 7648

݊݅ܿ݋ݎ݄ܥ ா஻ ݁.ݐݑܿܣ െ ݐݏ݋ܥ ൒

7649 The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to 7650 the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, Chronic BE . A simplifying 7651 assumption is that PrevShare i is equal for all diseases, which means that the percentage reduction 7652 in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary cause of 7653 lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other e nvironmental exposures combine with tobacco 7654 smoke to increase the risk of lung cancer, any change s to the WPS are likely to have little effect 7655 on cancer caused by smoking. For th at reason, we assume that the PrevShare Lung Cancer is 10% of 7656

the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the estimated 10 – 15% 7657 of lung cancers found in peopl e who have never smoked (Thun et al. , 2008). 7658

7659



### 6.8.3. Data 7660*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

210 7661 To perform the break-even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 7662 the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 7663 The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 5 an d the quantified acute bene fits of the rule were 7664

estimated in Section 6.5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly 7665

available. Estimates of WTP are from the Econom ic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 7666 and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate 7667

for which is taken from the academic literatur e (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used 7668 in the analysis are su mmarized in Table 6.8-1. 7669

7670

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 7671

7672 The American Cancer Society (2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 7673 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lympha tic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 7674 21,000) result in death (American Can cer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al ., 2011). An 7675 estimate of the WTP for reducing a case of non- fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million was derived in 7676 the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Di sinfectants and Disinf ection Byproducts Rule 7677 (EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al . (1996), from which it was determined that 7678 the median risk-risk trade-off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 7679 58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden d eath. Thus, WTP for non-fatal lymphoma was 7680 calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the current estimate of VSL of $7.9 million, we 7681 estimate a mean WTP for non-fatal ly mphoma of $4.6 million (VSL × 58.3%). 7682

7683

Prostate Cancer 7684

7685 Prostate cancer is a common cancer among Ameri can men and the second leading cause of 7686 cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003 – 2007 (U.S. Cancer 7687 Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were ab out 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, 7688 on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases 7689 reported in 2007. The American Cancer Soci ety (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 7690 cases in 2012. In addition, CD C reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer 7691 on average, where fatalities have been dec lining (U.S. Cancer Sta tistics Working Group, 7692 2010). For this analysis, we use the relati vely conservative figures of 223,000 non-fatal 7693 cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 7694 overall cancer incidence (all cancers combin ed) is lower than the general population, the 7695 incidence of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 7696

al ., 2003; Koutros, 2010). 7697

7698 An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 7699 Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 7700

is both a more common and less severe cancer th an lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is 7701 appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid prostate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 7702 lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al . (2006) 7703 estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 7704

Kutikova et al . (2006), the treatment costs for indol ent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 7705 under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non- 7706*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

211 Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 7707 yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $780,000. 7708

7709 This figure may be an underestimate. It is base d on the treatment cost fo r prostate cancer that 7710 may be low, considering several new treatment and drug regimes that are very expensive. 7711 Further, some prostate cancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more 7712 aggressive and require more expensive tr eatment than those found in elderly men. 7713

7714

Chronic Bronchitis 7715

7716

Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of ch ronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which 7717 bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long-term cough, shortness of breath, 7718 excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 7719 life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 7720

7721 Chronic bronchitis is common, with 9.9 milli on diagnoses a year (Centers for Disease 7722 Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per ye ar (639 from the same source). These figures 7723 are misleading, because the CDC criterion for a di agnosis is that a patient has been identified 7724 within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million 7725 diagnoses are more likely to reflect the number of patients with the disease, rather than new 7726 cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good estimates for the 7727

incidence of the chronic bronchi tis, and using the prevalence woul d be misleading, so for this 7728 analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This is disappointing, because reduced lung 7729 function can have important impacts on quality of life, and past EPA economic analysis has 7730 provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chroni c bronchitis. The Economic Analysis for the 7731 Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfecti on Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide 7732 estimates of the WTP of $800,000 to avoi d chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991). 7733

7734*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

212 Parkinson’s Disease 7735

7736 Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually 7737 (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 20 10). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality rates than 7738 the general population and the CDC classi fies Parkinson’s disease as the 14 th leading cause of 7739

death in the United States 7 , but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. 7740 The progressive neurologi cal effects of Parkinson’s, such as swallowing problems which lead to 7741 undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s 7742 Disease Foundation 2010 and University of Maryland Medical Center 2009). Because of these 7743 complications, we take a conservative approach in this break-even analysis, and ignore the 7744 fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, th ere was no available estimate of WTP to avoid 7745 Parkinson’s disease. We propose to use the WT P for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for 7746 Parkinson’s disease, because in some ways the e ffects on quality of life are similar: restricted 7747 mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity , for example. The WTP to avoid chronic 7748 bronchitis is $800,000, which we will us e for Parkinson’s disease. 7749

7750

There are reasons to think this va lue is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, 7751 and sometimes cured, while Parkins on’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, 7752

there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma 7753 above was based on a study by Magat et al . (1996), which compared risk-risk tradeoffs for 7754 curable disease and death, in that case for ly mphoma. That same study also included a non7755 cancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. Peri pheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 7756 nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 7757 reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Us ing the method EPA used for estimating WTP for 7758 avoiding lymphoma, would result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about 7759 $3 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $800,000 here. Moreover, possible 7760

fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis. 7761

7762

Lung Cancer 7763

7764 Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the Unit ed States, and the third most 7765 common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States 7766

Cancer Statistics , 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects a bout 226,000 new cases of lung cancer to 7767 be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate 7768 of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from 7769 lung cancer have been trending dow n slightly over time (Nationa l Cancer Institute, 2012). 7770 Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few 7771 years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As menti oned above (Section 6.8.2), we will assume that 7772 lung cancer preventions happen at 10 % of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which 7773 roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer am ong non-smokers. This is because changes to 7774 the WPS are not expected to have large change s on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, 7775 which is smoking. 7776

7777

7 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s di sease by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et al

., 2010).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

213 There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer7778 reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the 7779 analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 7780

and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non-fatal 7781 lung cancer. This will be the same value ($800,000) used for Parkinson’s disease, because they 7782 come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic Analysis 7783 for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectant s and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) 8

. 7784

7785

Asthma 7786

7787 Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodic 7788 difficulty in breathing and ai rway blockage (Akinbami et al ., 2012) , is another common 7789 respiratory ailment that has been asso ciated with pestic ide exposure (Hoppin et al ., 2008)). 7790 Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 7791 Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and 7792 asthma does not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. CDC 7793 estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for 7794 Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 7795 478,000 annually, which is the rounded number of new cases from 2001 – 2009 divided by nine 7796 years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal – in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma 7797 (Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this 7798 analysis. 7799

7800 The WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount 7801

rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $2,200 to a perp etuity to represent preventing 7802 development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $73,000 per 7803

case 9

. 7804

7805

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) provid e 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 fo r 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.

9 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Bl omquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (2011) provid e more recent estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

214 Table 6.8-1. Information for Calculatin g Break-Even Number of Cases Avoided 7806

Disease WTP to Avoid Disease, ω i ($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

7807



### 6.8.4. Break-Even Estimation 7808

7809 In Chapter 5, the costs of proposed WPS changes were estimated to be between $64.6 million 7810 and $75.1 million per year. A reasonable estimat e of the benefits from reduction in acute 7811 pesticide poisonings, after adjustment for underre porting, is from $10 – 15 million per year. (See 7812 Table 3.6 –10, with calculations based on 20 – 25% reporting). To find the break-even point, we 7813

need to find the reduction in illness that clos es the gap between the estimated costs and the 7814 quantified acute benefits. For this analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates 7815 benefits of at least the high value of the es timated costs ($75.1 million) and estimated acute 7816 benefits of $11.4 million, for a difference betwee n estimated costs and quantified benefits of 7817 $63.7 million. 7818

7819 Reducing the national rate of these illnesses by 0.006% (and th e rate of lung cancer by 0.0006%) 7820 is more than enough to provide benefits from re duced chronic illness that close the high estimate 7821 of the gap between costs and quantified benefits . This reduction in il lness would have an 7822 estimated benefit of $64.6 million do llars annually. The results here obviously change based on 7823 assumptions about under-reporting of acute pesticide incidents, because that changes the estimate 7824

of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits 7825 estimate would be about $2.8 million (See Table 3.6 –10). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% 7826 (0.0007% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $75.3 million in benefits is more 7827 than the total high-end costs es timate of $75.1 million.. The reduc tion to break-even with only 7828 $2.8 million in acute benefits is about 0.0067%, and about 0.0059% to break even with a gap of 7829 $63.9 million. 7830

7831 Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticid e exposure reduction by 0.006% would reduce the 7832 number of non-Hodgkin’s lympho ma cases by an average of 2.94 non-fatal and 1.26 fatal cases 7833 per year; the number of pros tate cancer cases by an averag e of 13.38 non-fatal and 1.74 fatal 7834*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

215 cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3.6 per ye ar; reduce the number of fatal 7835 bronchitis cases by 0.04 per year, and the number of cases of asthma by 28.8 cases, and fatal 7836 asthma cases by 0.20 per year. Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the 7837 reduction in other diseases, or 0.0006%, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average 7838 of 0.22 non-fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per year. 7839

7840 Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases 7841 nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a much smaller population, farmworkers 7842 and handlers. Although the number of cases redu ced to generate break-even chronic benefits 7843 will not change, they will repres ent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population, 7844

which we describe below. 7845

7846

It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural 7847 community than the general public, because of th e associations between pesticide exposure and 7848

disease described above and in Section 6.5. Howe ver, we do not make that assumption here. 7849 Instead, we assume that the worker/handler face illness equal to their share of the population. 7850 The share is about 0.75%, based on the 2,323,000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 7851 308,700,000 (Census Bureau, 2011). Even so, the reduction in cases among farmworkers 7852 required to reach the break-even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases. 7853

A reduction in these illnesses of just under 0.8% (0.08% for lung cancer), will generate $64.8 7854 million in benefits. Across all diseases, the reduction is about 53 cases annually out of over 7855 8,000 cases that might occur. Table 6.8-2 shows the calculations for farmworker cases. The 7856
estimated farmworker cases are 0.75% of the annu al cases for the United States, and the break7857 even cases are the number of cases that preven ted to reach the breakev en point. 7858

7859 Table 6.8-2: Illness Avoided among Fa rmworkers for “Break-Even” Analysis 7860

Disease Annual

Cases Incidence (per 100,000) 1 Annual Cases

Farmworkers 2 “Break-Even”

Avoided Cases Curable Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.95

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 0.25 3
Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1,430 1.14 3
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 equa l to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence

rates may be higher; see the text.

3 Reductions for lung cancer are 10% of the other illnesses; see the text.
7861*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

216 It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break-even analysis is 7862 plausible. As discussed above Table 6.8-2, the nu mber of cases needed to reach the break-even 7863 point is small relative to the number of cases we estimate in the farmworker population, even 7864

when we assume that their rate of disease is e qual to the population at large. As discussed in 7865 Section 6.6, there is a possible a ssociation between the diseases discussed here and pesticide 7866 exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likely to develop these diseases. 7867 The next few paragraphs show that reducing rate s of disease slightly wi ll reach the break-even 7868 point, even if rates for farmworkers are not reduc ed to the level of the general population. For 7869 this task, we will be using estimates of incidenc e rates of the three diseases, based on the AHS. 7870

The AHS cohort consists of certif ied pesticide applicators and th eir spouses. This cohort is 7871 healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. Although 7872 farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to 7873 pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite di fferent: farmworkers may be more likely to be 7874 exposed in the field while enga ged in activities othe r than applying pesticides. Pesticide 7875 handlers in the farmworker community do, however , share similar exposure potential to certified 7876 applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less aware of when they may be exposed than 7877 are applicators and less knowledgeable about ho w to protect themselves against pesticide 7878 exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification proces s. Because of these 7879 differences in occupational exposure, it is unk nown whether farmworker exposure is higher or 7880 lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates 7881 implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty, but there is no clear bias in these 7882

estimates. 7883

7884 For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al . (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized 7885

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the AHS cohort wi th a confidence in terval of 1.05 to 1.24 10 . Using the 7886 1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1 .14 times more likely than the general 7887 population to develop prostate cancer, even thou gh the overall rate of can cer is lower among the 7888 AHS population. 7889

7890 If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmwork ers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 7891 likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 7892 rates shown in Table 6.8-2 by dividing the number of cases per year by the U.S. population; for 7893 prostate cancer these were 223,000 case s a year that are treatable, a nd 29,000 that result in death. 7894 Because only males get prostate cancer, the inci dence rate among males is twice as high, with 7895 223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence ra te were 14% higher for 7896 farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100,000. At the higher rate, we should expect 7897 about 1,913 cases annually in the farmworker population, even if we assume that only half of 7898 farmworkers are men, which is an underestimate. 7899

7900

The break-even number of cases of non-fatal prostate cancer with a 0.8% reduction among 7901 farmworkers is 13.42 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the 7902 risk only slightly. To reach th e reduction of 13.42 cas es annually would require a reduction in 7903 the incidence rate from 164.70 to 163.55, still we ll above the general pop ulation level. 7904

7905

10 Slightly higher incidence ratios have b een found in more r ecent studies (Koutros, et al ., 2010), but we use the more conservative figures from Alavanja et al . here.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

217 A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The inciden ce rate for the general 7906 population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farm workers have a rate 14% higher, their rate 7907 would be about 21.4 per 100,000, resulting in about 249 cases per year. The break-even number 7908 of cases is about 1.75 annually. To reach th e high-end reduction the incidence rate among 7909 farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21.3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the 7910

diseases considered here: all of the reductions in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, 7911 and with the exception of lung cancer and possibl y chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence 7912 rates remain higher than the ge neral population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (2010) report a 7913

standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS coho rt for private a pplicators. We 7914

estimate the incidence rate fo r treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 7915 procedure as for prostate cancer . If the incidence among farmwo rkers was 17% higher, it would 7916 be about 18.6 per 100,000. To reach the reduc tion of 2.95 cases annually would change the 7917 incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.44 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 7918 among farmworkers would reduce the estimate d incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.90 per 100,000, 7919

still well above the rate we estimate fo r the general population of 6.8 per 100,000. For 7920 Parkinson’s disease, van der Markl et al. (2011) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS 7921 cohort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That 7922 corresponds to an incidence ra te of about 31.5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19.5 7923 among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to the break-even point 7924 among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31.3 per 100,000. Among farm 7925 women in the AHS, Hoppin et al . (2008) reported an incidence rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for 7926 those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence 7927 rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per 7928 100,000 for the general population. Fo r fatal asthma, the estimated incidence rate would be 7929 about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 7930 population. Reducing cases to the break-eve n point among farmworkers would reduce the 7931

estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 to about 226 per 100,000, while the fatal asthma 7932

incidence rate would remain unc hanged at 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other diseases described 7933 above, even after reductions in cases among farmwo rkers to reach the break-even point, the rate 7934 of these diseases among farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for the general 7935 population. 7936

7937 As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are 7938 higher than the general populat ion, even after reduction to the break-even point. The two 7939 exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer . For chronic bronchitis, it is difficult to 7940 determine the correct rate among non-smokers. Valcin et al. , (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 7941 among non-smoking farm women in the AHS, and re ports a prevalence at 60% higher in 7942 association with six specific pe sticides, and 58% higher with expos ure to 3 or more pesticides, 7943 but does not compare them to a non-agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007b) reports an odds 7944 ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS partic ipants who have ever faced a high pesticide 7945 exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specifi c chemicals, but those are may not reflect the 7946 low-level chronic exposure releva nt for the break-even analysis. However, if we assume the 7947 farmworker rate is even 1% higher than the general population we see the same pattern: the 7948 number of cases among farmworkers can be redu ced to the breakeven poi nt, yet the incidence 7949 rate is the same as the gene ral population. Lung cancer does no t fit the pattern of the other 7950 diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AHS cohort, less than half the rate 7951*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

218 of the general population (Alavanja et al. , 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are 7952 generally healthier than the gene ral population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 7953 If we reduce the number of cases among farmwork ers by 0.08% (10% of th e reduction for other 7954 diseases), the change in the estimated inciden ce rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 to 5.12 7955 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.03 per 100,000 for fatal lung 7956

cancer. 7957

7958 In general, the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and 7959 quantified acute benefits from the rule are sma ll. The reduction in cases relative to the 7960 farmworker population is plausible and it repres ents only a small change in the risk to 7961

farmworkers. 7962

7963 There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break-even analysis is necessary. 7964 Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break-even 7965 point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 7966 cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevente d deaths would have occurred. 7967

These diseases discussed here are chronic conditi ons that may have long latency periods of 5-15 7968

years, i.e. , a substantial amount of tim e between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. 7969 Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate 7970

means the break even reduction would have to ri se from 0.7% to 0.98%. At a 7% discount rate, 7971 the reduction to reach the break-even point would reach 1.20%. 7972

7973



### 6.8.5. Break-Even Conclusions 7974

7975 The break-even analysis does show that preventing only a very sm all number of chronic illnesses 7976 can have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis 7977 demonstrates that a plausible re duction of about 53 pesticide-rela ted chronic illnesses per year 7978 across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that is required to 7979 ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS. 7980

7981*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

219 

## Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden 7982

7983 Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities ar e subject to paperwork 7984 burden. The Paperwork Reduction Ac t requires federal agencies to estimate the burden of 7985 complying with regulations that require firms or i ndividuals to file reports, maintain records, or 7986 otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise requi red to estimate their resources 7987 expended. Because of the substantial change s in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 7988 Information Collection Request (ICR) entitle d, “Worker Protection Standard Training and 7989 Notification (Proposed Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, in 7990 conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic 7991 Analysis. See Appendix B. 7992

7993 The total estimated annual respondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 8,355,847 7994 hours. This is an increase of 6,579,716 from the 1,776,131 total burden hours in the ICR 7995 approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. The increase in burden is due to both 7996 program changes and adjustments made in assumpti ons and data used to calculate the time and 7997 frequency of required information exchange. The program changes include modifications to 7998 restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard 7999 communications; increased traini ng (for both workers and handle rs); increased posting of 8000 pesticide application information; provisions for information during emergency assistance; 8001 recordkeeping for respirator re quirements and for workers perfor ming early entry activities. 8002 Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made where appropriate, due to better information 8003 available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates. 8004

8005 The estimated burden represents the total to co mply with the full WPS, including all proposed 8006

revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated 8007 incremental cost of the proposal, which only cons iders the net cost of the proposed revisions. 8008

8009 Respondent records are not required to be submitte d to the Agency. They are to be retained on 8010 the establishment and accessible for inspection. 8011

8012 There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor proposed 8013 rule imposes any requirements on the Agency. 8014

8015*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***220Accounting Statement80168017Rule Title: Agricultural WorkerProtection Standard Revisions8018Category Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate SourceBENEFITSMonetized Benefits $70 – 80 million/year$67.6 million/year > $93 million/yearAvoided acute pesticideincidents$10 – 15 million/year $2.8 million/year$28 million/year EA Chapter 6.5Reduced effects of chronicpesticide exposure$64.8 million/year $64.8 million/year EA Chapter 6.8Quantified BenefitsQualitative BenefitsWillingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond costof treatment and loss of productivityReduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposureReduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure tofarmworker familiesEA Chapter 6COSTSMonetized Costs$543 – 636 millionover 10 years at 3%discount rate$62 – 72 million/year$39.9 million/year $74.1 million/year EA Chapter 5.2Quantified CostsQualitative CostsTRANSFERSnone8019*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***221Category Effects SourceState, local, and/or tribalgovernmentsNone. State and tribal governments responsible for enforcement butrevisions will not change level of effort.Small businessNo significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.The rule will affect over 200,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhousesand several hundred small commercial entites that are contracted to applypesticides.Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for theaverage small entity. Highest anticipated impactless than 1% of annualsales.EA Chapter 5.4Impact on JobsThe rule will have a negligibleeffect 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 toincrease by $60, but this is about 0.25percent of the cost of a part-timeemployee.EA Chapter 5.38020*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

222 

## References

Akinbami, LJ, JE Moorman, C Bailey, HS Za hran, 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 l ung cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876-85.

Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupati onal Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environm ental 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 bu rden among pesticide applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Ca ncer Journal for Clinicians, January 15, 2013.

Ali, M., and G. Lucier. 2011. Financial Char acteristics of Vegetable and Melon Farms. Outlook report VGS-342-01, Economic Research Se rvice, US Department of Agriculture.

Feb.

American Association of Poison Control Ce nters, undated. NPDS Annual Report Terminology, http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/ NewsMediaResources/NPDSAnnualReportTe rminology.aspx,

Andreotti G, L Beane-Freeman, L Hou, J Coble, J Rusiecki, JA Hoppin. 2009. Agricultural pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural HealthStudy 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 Easter n North Carolina Farmworker Households. Environ Health Perspect 115:1254-1260.

Arcury, T A, JG Grzywacz, JW Talton, H Che n, 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. Surv eillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health Policy, Summer:9(2).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

223 Barnett PG, JE Midtling, AR Velasco, P Ro mero, M O'Malley, C Clements, MW Tobin, AO Wollitzer, and JC Barbaccia. 1984. Educati onal intervention to prevent pesticideinduced illness of field worker s, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123-5.

Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn, DC Cole, JS Kaur, a nd KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704-11.

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Brad man, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential Non-dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro-level Activity Ti me Series." Environmental International 35.8 (2009): 1202-209.

Beane-Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blai r, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al . 2005. Cancer incidence among male pesticide appl icators 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 st udy. Annals of epidemiology, 15(4), 279-285.

Blair, A., and L Beane-Freeman. 2009. Epidemio logic 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. W illingness to pay for improving fatality risks and asthma symptoms: Values for children a nd 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 occupati ons. 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 Statistic s 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

.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

224 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.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi, DB Barr, R Bravo, R Castorina, J Chev rier, K Kogut, ME Harnly, and TE McKone. 2005. Organophosphate urinary me tabolite 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 Castorin a, 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 Quir ós, R Castorina, BC Henn, M Nish ioka, 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 Dr umheller, C Curry, and B Eskenazi. 2003. Measurement of pestiicdes and other toxicants in amniotic fluid as a potential biomarker of prenatal exposur e: 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 Ce ntral 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 environm ent 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 Cr owley, 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 De fects Closely Grouped in Time and Place— Florida and North Carolina, 2004–2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007):

787-791.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

225 Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, L Baum , C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey, R Das, M Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pestic ide-related illnesse s 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 Mo raga-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/camer on/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 Statistic s, 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 Dis ease Control, May 6. At http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmw rhtml/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid=mm6017a4_w

CDC. 2012c. National Center fo r 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 (N PCR), United States

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulati ons, Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance, Subpart A – Size Eligibility Provision s and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013, athttp://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.

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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

226 Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blai r, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos e xposure and incident cancer among male participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives

, 118(1):92-6.

Cooper, SR, SP Cooper, SS Felknor, VS Santana, FM Fischer, EM Shipp, and MS Vela Acosta.

2005. Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmwo rker Adolescent Populations: Implications for Health Research and Interventions, Public Health Rep . 120(6): 622–629, Nov–Dec.

Coronado GD, B Thompson, L Strong, WC Griffit h, and I Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect

112:142-147.

Council of State and Territori al Epidemiologists. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work-Related Pesticide Poisonings Reporte d to Poison Control Center . Available here, with more

recent data available in the docket: http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivi ties/OccupationalHea lth/OccupationalHealth Indicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx . Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 2007. Certification Plan and Re porting Database maintained by the National Association of State Departments of Agri culture 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 expos ure 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 insi de 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 fa mily pesticide exposure study. J Agric Saf Health , 8:423-33.

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sande rson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds, andMC 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 Harri son. 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.

Dick FD, G De Palma, A Ahmadi, NW Scott, GJ Prescott, J Bennett, et al . 2007.

Environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and parkinsoni sm: the Geoparkinson study. Occup Environ Med. 64(10):666–672.

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Sur vey (NAWS) 2001-2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9 , Office of the*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

227 Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Progr ammatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor,

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agwor ker/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 informati on maintained by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SL Teitelbau m, 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.

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. 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/page s/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.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 Agri cultural 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

.
EPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pestic ide 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 Protecti on 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. 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/fact sheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis . Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency, January 8. http://www.regulations.gov/#!docum entDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0046-0013.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

228 Eriksson M, L Hardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerma n. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma including hist opathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer

. 123(7):1657-63 Oct 1.

Eskenazi B, K Harley, A Bradman, E Weltzie n, NP Jewell, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT

Holland. 2004. Association of in utero or ganophosphate pesticide exposure and fetal growth and length of gestati on in an agricultural population. Environ. Health Perspect

. 112:1116–1124

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Brad man, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell. 2007. Environmental organophosphate pestic ide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Health Perspect . 115:792–798.

Furman, J. 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticid e Handlers in Agriculture: 2007 Final Report . Washington State Department of Labor and Industries: Divi sion of Occupational Health and Safety. December. At http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/C holinesterase/files/DOSH_ChE_Report07_F inal_010407.pdf

. Gaylord Entertainment Co. 2007. Construc tion Management Division. Personal

communication.

Gempler’s. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com . Accessed 2008.

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 Peterso n, and RJ Richardson. 1998. The risk of Parkinson’s disease with expos ure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living. Neurology . 50:1346–1350.

Grainger. 2013. Guardian Equipment Emergency Shower. http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GUARD IAN-EQUIPMENT-Emergency-Shower4HRJ8?Pid=search . Accessed August, 2013.

Hammitt JK, and J-T Liu. 2004. “Effects of Di sease 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 diseas e: 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 Dec line of the Increasing In cidence of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Pr eventive Measures?" Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704-706.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

229 Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ London, PK Henneber ger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic a nd 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 fa rmers in the Agricu ltural 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/fat ality_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 Prot ection Agency, Comments regarding Issue 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 exposur e 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, CF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, and LE Freeman. 2010. An update of cancer in cidence in the Agri cultural Health Study. J Occup Environ Med . 52(11):1098-105, Nov. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21063187

. Koutros S, LE Beane-Freeman, SI Berndt, G A ndreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeag er, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Pesticide use modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate

cancer. Cancer Res , 70(22):9224-33. Epub 2010 Oct 26.

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler , JA Hoppin, DF Lynch, C Knott, A Blair, LE Beane-Freeman. 2010. An update of cancer in cidence in the Agricu ltural Health Study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52(11):1098-105.

Koutros, S, LE Beane-Freeman, JH Lubin, SL He ltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, an d MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

230 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 Ar ning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States duri ng the first two years of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535-1544.

Lebailly, P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, a nd C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the

Causes of Death and Cancer Inciden ce 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 . 2004a. Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to chlo rpyrifos in the Agricultural Health Study. J
Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781–1791.

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al . 2004b. Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to al achlor in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 159:373–380.

Lee WJ, DP Sandler, A Blair, C Samanic, AJ Cross, and MC Al avanja. 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 Ho ppin, H Kromhout, P Lebailly, KC Nordby, M Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi-Maesano, I Ba ldi, 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.

Lu, C. RA Fenske, NJ Simcox, and D. Kalman . 2000. “Pesticide Exposur e of Children in an Agricultural Community: Evidence of House hold 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/publicati ons/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

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 cance r risk in Californi a farm workers. J Occup Environ

Med . 45:249-258.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

231 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/Publ ications/Irrigation_Survey/

.
NASS. 2008a. Farm Labor , February 2008. National Agricultu ral 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 Agricu lture. Updated December 2008. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

.
NASS. 2007. Farm Labor , November, 2007. National Agricultu ral Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available here: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda /nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2007/FarmLabo-11-16- 2007.pdf

.
NASS. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agricu lture. Issued June 2004. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

.
NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agri culture. Issued March 1999. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.php

.
National Cancer Institute. 2012. Surveilla nce Epidemiology and End Results, National Institutes of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ Accessed September 20, 2012.

National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Ep idemiology 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/c ancertopics/wyntk/nonhodgkin-lymphoma.pdf.

Nordby KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristens en. 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

.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

232 Oborain. 2013. Outdoor show er with drainage pan. http://www.oborain.com/ . Accessed August, 2013.

O'Conor, RM, and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measureme nt 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/om b/circulars_a004_a-4

. OMB. (1996) Economic Analysis under Execu tive 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 Protect ion (29 CFR 1910.134) . OMB Control No. 1218-0099. Occupational Health & Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.osha.gov/Reducti on_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.

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

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

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/Migr ant-and-Seasonal-Farmworkers-HealthInsurance-Coverage-and -Access-to-Care-Report.pdf

Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Lasarev, J Sana tana, and L McCauley. 2006. Organophosphate exposure and neurobehavioral performan ce among agricultural and non-agricultural Hispanic workers. Environ. Health Persp . 114:691-696.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

233 Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sw eitzer. 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.

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. Hi spanic adolescent farmworkers' perceptions associat ed with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res

. 26(2):146–166.

Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Cam acho, J López, G Kavanagh-Baird, M Minkler, and B Eskenazi. 2009. A Community-Based Partic ipatory 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 Ba ssil, 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/lettu ceicecc09.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 farmwork er 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 aff ective 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 et al . 2011. Paraquat and Parkinson's Disease, Environmental Health Perspectives

, Jan 26, 2011 (E-publication ahead of print).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

234 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." PL oS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008).

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Re sidential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33-41.

Tuthill. 2008. Product and pri ce lists, Tuthill Corporation at http://tuthill.com . Accessed May 8, 2008.

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 Bu dgets, Vegetables. University of Florida. http://www.fred.ifas.uf l.edu/iatpc/ibudgets09.php

. Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, MC Alavanja, DP Sandler, and JA Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchiti s among non-smoking farm women in the agricultural health st udy." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American College of Occupational and Enviro nmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574.

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P N ijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is pesticide use related to Parkinson disease? So me clues to heterogeneity in study results. Environmental health pe rspectives, 120(3), 340.

Van Maele-Fabry, G, AC Lantin, P Hoet, and D Li son. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides and childhood leukaemia: a systema tic 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 Expos ure 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/publica tions_pdf/focus_group_summary_030922final. pdf

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta-analysis of childhood leukemia and parental oc cupational pestic ide 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*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

235 Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody,

and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pa ttern Comparison of Prostate Cancer Treatments, CANCER ; Published Online: December 21.

World Health Organization, International Agen cy for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carci nogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insecticide App lication, and Some Pes ticides: Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation (1991). Available here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf

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 Brad man, 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. “Occ upational Risks and Ri sk Perception among Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53.

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1997. Cancer Feas ibility Studies Among Migrant Farmworkers, American Journal of Industrial Medicine , 32:301–302 (1997).

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1993. Cancer am ong 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 Hendriks on, 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 Ste phens, A Sweeney, K Sweitzer, SW Vernon, and A Blair. 2001. Development of a life even ts/icon calendar questi onnaire 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 Adam i. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420-33.

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pe sticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 Suppl 3:893-908, June.